Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Material removed by Arzel

Material removed by Arzel
Arzel has removed two passages that are properly sourced to mainstream media. I'm restoring them.

Arzel ES: "Remove POV push, unprovable conjecture." The article quotes professors of physics and engineering at respected universities. If there are similarly reputable authorities who disagree with these conclusions, or who label them "unprovable conjecture", then those views should also be quoted, but we are not going to suppress experts' opinions on the unverifiable say-so of a pseudonymous Wikipedian. Although I'm not aware of any reputable dispute concerning the conclusions about the problems in putting Seamus on the roof, the cited news story does note a countervailing consideration about the problem of having him inside the car. I'm restoring the previous material, but rewriting it to provide a better summary of the linked article, including the "pro-Romney" information.

Arzel ES: "Remove merchandise plug." It is not a "merchandise plug" to quote someone who is selling merchandise related to the event, when the link is to a newspaper article (Boston Herald), when the URL of the merchandise site is not given, and when merchandise is mentioned only to disclose the perspective of the person being quoted. JamesMLane t c 17:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The first section should not be included. It is all conjecture.  Do these scientists know all of the attributes of the container, speeds being driving, weather conditions, on any of the other important aspects?  No, they make general assumptions without any knowledge of the specifics and this generalization is then used.  It is pure politiking.  Arzel (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ironic as usual to see a notoriously activist editor attempting to lecture others about NPOV. El duderino (abides) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As before, Arzel, if you find an opinion to that effect, coming from a prominent spokesperson and reported in a reliable source, we could certainly include it. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What an inane arguement. I suspect there will not be much of a response to a little read article of stupidity.  Perhaps you might explain what the difference between this and the thousands of motercycle riders that have their dogs ride with them.  This is only a story for political reasons, and frankly is a huge diservice to see WP editors using WP for political posturing.  Arzel (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally have never seen such a motorcyclist, but that's immaterial. The fact is that this has received widespread attention.  That the attention was generated for political reasons is (a) probably not true (the story was first revealed by a Romney son, not an opponent, and there's at least one RS saying that the story gets attention because people consider it revealing about a politician who otherwise seems somewhat unknowable), and (b) irrelevant even if true.  Yet again, Arzel, your personal opinion that you know better than everyone else, and that the peasants shouldn't be concerned with this, doesn't change the fact that people actually are concerned with it, and it's attracted considerable attention.  I personally don't think that Whitney Houston's funeral should be the lead story on tonight's eleven o'clock news, but I'm sitting here watching precisely that. JamesMLane t c 04:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

'''Arzel has removed additional material that was properly sourced to mainstream media. I'm restoring it.'''

‎Arzel edit: "(WP:NOTNEWS)" removing a passage discussing a Dogs Against Romney protest at the Westminster Kennel Club in New York. The WKC is possibly the most prestigious dog show in the US, and the protests were covered by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Boston Herald, and just about every other major media source in the United States. The protests are a legitimate part of the political response section on the Seamus article.Debbie W. 03:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There were 10 protesters and there were more reporters than protesters, and there probably would not have even been ten protesters if the two origianl protesters had not gone on a protest panic to try and get some more protesters there when the media showed up to cover it. Seriously, what is the mindset of the left media "Hey there is some guy protesting Romney, lets go cover it!"?  Now just because the left media is in a tizzy about this story and is ready to jump on anything to try and make it look like more than it is, does not mean that we have to include it here as well.  Now if this were an actual protest with some real number of people, than it might be worth including.  However, we are not a newspaper, and we don't repeat everything reported in the news.  Arzel (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have to agree. I don't see a handful of people protesting is in any way significant.  If it is going to stay in, it should mention that the initial protest was two people, who were joined by a few more eventually.  "Small," in the context of protests, could mean dozens or hundreds. —Torchiest talkedits 15:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)