Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Deletion discussion

Nomination for deletion (?)
Pasted from the Obama canivore talk, since the original poster – while lambasting all such non-NOTABLE articles – apparently forgot to include a copy here: 

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * "this kind of muck"


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Then you should be able to show an example of anyone else, ever, doing what Romney did. You haven't, you won't and you can't, because what he did is highly unusual.
 * If it was so highly unusual then why did it take 20 years to be an issue? Have you not seen dogs riding in motercycle side cars?  What is the difference?  Arzel (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

"Your revisionist history has absolutely no place her."

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * "The only real difference is the impression."


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Then you needed to get out more.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * "You are really just reaching now"


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * "Beating dogs in his spare time?"


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Agree, the existence of this article is a joke, and to be honest I cannot believe that this actually warrants discussion, let alone discussion to the extent shown here. The article either needs to be deleted in its entirety or at most pared down and merged with the article covering the current election campaign in the US. I'd do it myself but I have no idea how. And in case anyone thinks I'm biased in Romney's favour, I'm from Ireland and have little interest in American domestic politics. But this article is ridiculous, as is the debate surrounding it. If people want to note it somewhere else, fine, but it does not deserve its own article. Delete. Leamhan spáis (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)