Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Obama eats dog

past treatment of dogs by current presidential candidates
In the interest of fairness and covering this topic completely, does anyone know the name of the dog obama ate? I am searching for sources but so far am unable to find any that specifically note the name of that dog. 216.178.108.235 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the dog had a name. Even in countries that eat dog, people are usually not eating their pets.  Much like livestock in the United States, animals which are eaten have not usually been named. Debbie W. 21:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Obama Eats Dog"
I've included a brief paragraph in the "Political Response" section about the "Obama Eats Dog" campaign launched by conservatives. My initial version was deleted, I've reincluded a revised version with expanded verbiage and sources to establish its notability and to make clear it's tied to the Democratic political point about Romney and Seamus the dog. Kelly hi! 17:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a called a red herring and is similar to a WP:COATRACK, though it's not the entire article. I ate dog as a kid too, but since no one is trying to beat me in an election no one blogs about it.  However, it's equally relevant, which is to say that it's not.  S Æ don talk 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite getting your point here - are you saying the Republican counter is not a part of the political response to this controversy? Kelly  hi! 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the Republicans think that Obama eating dog as a 6 year old in Indonesia is somehow relevant to something Mitt Romney did in the US in 1983 they are welcome to use this logical fallacy to their political advantage with no comment from me, but as an encyclopedia we generally shy away from publishing logical fallacies.   S Æ don talk 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify: the problem is that the Republican response is to the Seamus controversy, but it's not about the Seamus controversy, as this article is, and not about Obama. S Æ don talk 19:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)An argument could also be made that Romney transporting a dog in 1983 has no logical relevance to his fitness for the presidency, however as editors we don't make those judgments. My belief is that, as an encyclopedia, we document what the reliable sources are saying about the issue. The deleted section included numerous reliable sources (and I could have included many more) that specifically tied the Obama dog-eating meme to the Romney dog-transporting meme. Why include one and not the other? Should we have a separate article on Obama Eats Dogs? With respect - Kelly  hi! 19:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your belief regarding the encyclopedia is spot on. Yes we publish what the reliable sources publish on a topic, but as I explained above: Obama eating dog is another topic.  It's not this topic.  This topic is about Romney transporting a dog, that Obama ate dog meat is wholly unconnected to this in anyway whatsoever, just as much as what you were doing in 1983 is irrelevant to this topic.  If you think we should have an article about Obama eating dog then you are welcome to gather your sources that write that article, but that's not an argument to include it here.  S Æ don talk 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the sources I included directly linked the Obama dog-eating to this controversy, it wasn't any synthesis on my part. Kelly  hi! 20:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point here - there is no link. That's not my opinion, that's a fact because Obama and Romney did not know each other when Obama was 6 years old - no one in American politics had anything to do with Obama as a 6 year old.  Obama did not discuss eating dog meat with Romney; Romney did not make his decision to put Seamus on the roof because of anything Obama did or said.  Creating a red herring (did you read that article?) does not actually link two concepts, it's just a rhetorical device used to focus peoples attention on another subject.  They aren't linking the two, they're pointing to something else entirely to get the focus off of something Romney did.  It's like when people on WP get blocked and point the finger at someone else.  In essence, the Republican response is a WP:NOTTHEM violation, but in real life :).  Romney did something that many people find to be morally wrong, and now there is a controversy about it - what Obama did is not part of that controversy but may be a controversy in its own right.  S Æ don talk 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, unfortunately I just don't agree with it. The two incidents were linked when the political camps started going back and forth on these issues, as reported by the sources. But I'm content to wait for others to weigh in. Kelly  hi! 20:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have to agree with it but you are wrong. You cannot create links between things when there was no link existed in the first place.  Political camps going back and forth do not have the magical ability to alter the past nor the physical fact that the two situations were entirely independent of each other, did not cause each other, did not correlate to each other and were embarked upon completely separately by two men who had never heard of each other up until 10 years ago.  Obama is in the spotlight because he is president, but him being president and eating dog is not the same subject as Mitt Romney putting a dog on his roof.  If you can't understand this very simple fact of logic then I'm not sure how better it can be explained to you.   S Æ don talk 20:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistakenly applying the link to Kelly, when the link was made by others. Liberals (well mostly Gail Collins) have been railing on Romney about Seamus for some time, and this is the result.  You claim that Obama is in the spotlight because he is president, and you are correct that the fact that he ate dog would not be an issue if he were not, but by the same token Romney, transporting Seamus on the top of his car, would not be an issue either if he were not running for president.  The fact that this came up during both presidential election periods is a pretty clear sign that this is only a story because of that.  Additionally, one could easily make the argument that Obama eating dog would never have been an issue if the left had not made an issue about Romney.  Like it or not, the two are now connected.  As stupid as it is, the left has turned the election into a choice between transporting your dog on the top of your car, or eating a dog.  Arzel (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The two may be connected in some media reports but that's not enough of an argument to connect them here. WP:Undue comes to mind. And again your analysis is clouded by your own bias. El duderino (abides) 03:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think something that has to be considered that you may not realize is that although this was blown into this proportion due to the election, the actual act itself would be considered ethically incorrect by most if not all ethicists. Peter Singer, for instance, tacked the subject of animal rights in such a way as to heavily influence the field of ethics at least as far back as 1975, and many other ethicists had tacked the issue before (though probably not with the same influence as Singer).  My point being that this actually is a notable incident in some respect because it violated several ethical norms, even if it is being blown out of proportion due to the election.  You just pointed out that this has been pointed out vis a vis Romney since at least 2007, so it's not just a product of the 2012 election (though that's obviously why it's such a focus now).  Wrt Obama: the situations are simply not comparable.  As I've pointed out before, there is a seriously fundamental difference between the cognizant actions of an adult and the submissive actions of a child; a child simply does not have the wherewithal to understand the difference, if any, between eating different animals.  He was a kid living in Indonesia where eating dog was a normal occurrence and could not have been expected to understand that a few thousand miles away was a society that condemned the practice.  So in the end there cannot be an ethical judgement of Obama the child for doing what was the norm where he lived, while there can certainly be an ethical judgement of the actions of a grown man.  This is why what Romney did has negatively resonated with the public while baby Obama's actions have been subject to no scrutiny except in the context of defending Romney.   S Æ don talk 04:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Seamus even merits an article, imo, is silly. He doesn't in my mind. Neither does Obama's dog eating. However, as it has been collectively decided that this dog does need an article, the "Obama Eats Dog" campaign should definitely be mentioned here as it is a political response. The article already refers to the Dogs Against Romney website, a left political response; opinions from political analysts, and a "romney" neologism. The entire "Obama Eats Dog" campaign is a political response from the right vs the left, especially considering Treacher directly refers to this incident. It bears mentioning. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a response to a topic but about a different topic. It would be like you being accused of murder, but when you get up to the stage you point out that Charles Manson also murdered people, i.e. not relevant.  S Æ don talk 03:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is wrong. The first sentence of the article "Hey, if we’re going to talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago, let’s talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago." - which in turn links to an article discussing Seamus. It is a direct response to Seamus. It's impossible to see this any other way. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a response to Seamus, yes, but it's not about Seamus, which is the point I've been making. This article isn't about how candidates treat their dogs, it's about one particular candidate and one particular dog.  S Æ don talk 05:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed text
Below is the text that I propose adding to the end of the "political response" section. Kelly hi! 20:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Blogger Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller responded to the Seamus story by pointing out a passage in Barack Obama's autobiography Dreams From My Father in which Obama recounted eating dog meat as a child in Indonesia. This resulted in tens of thousands of jokes and quips on the "Obama eats dog" story, responses from Obama and Romney campaign spokespeople, a statement from White House spokesman Jay Carney, and a response from 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain. The Daily Beast named the conservative "Obama Eats Dogs" campaign their "Meme of the Week". The founder of "Dogs Against Romney" defended Obama's eating of dog meat, saying that the Romney campaign "seems desperate".
 * So you're just going to completely ignore the very concise logical argument I presented above and pretend that this is somehow related without actually justifying your belief? Oppose for all the reasons stated above, as this has nothing to do with the subject of the article and is merely a political WP:COATRACK.  S Æ don talk 20:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Kelly, I think that the Obama dog meat story should be mentioned by Wikipedia, but this is an excessive amount of coverage for an indirectly related story. I would just use the first sentence: Blogger Jim Treacher of The Daily Caller responded to the Seamus story by pointing out a passage in Barack Obama's autobiography Dreams From My Father in which Obama recounted eating dog meat as a child in Indonesia. Any additional information should be added to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article. Debbie W. 23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily object to the passage being tightened, but perhaps not quite that much - there should be some mention of the legs that the Obama puppy-munching meme got (it did reach as far as the White House press secretary). There was further commentary today - Keith Olbermann was on George Stephanopoulos' program today and said that the duelling dog controversies were "absurd". Kelly  hi! 23:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kelly, I'm opposed to commentary about commentary in a Wikipedia article, especially when they are not directly about the main topic of the article. I'm marginally okay with Jim Treacher's comment about eating dog meat because it's someone defending Mitt Romney's behavior by comparing it to actions of Obama even if those actions are very different.  However, the rest of the paragraph talking about how much media attention the comments got are irrelevant to this article. Debbie W. 00:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What Romney did can only be evaluated by the action in and of itself. What Obama has done is as relevant as what you or I have done.  S Æ don talk 03:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Opposed - agree with Saedon that the two are unrelated except their use as political fodder. Romney's mistreatment of his family dog is important in evaluating the man's character. What Obama did as a kid, not so much. El duderino (abides) 23:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - well, Obama was an adult when he boasted reminisced about the dog-eating in his biography. Kelly  hi! 23:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the flavors, mouthfeel and texture of dog meat stuck with him for decades. Remembering a meal like that is certainly indicative of one's character. Either the meal was a traumatic experience, or an enjoyable one if Obama is capable of recalling it after many, many years. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now who's reading into it? Obama didn't boast nor mention anything about it except "tough" while listing other odd things he ate. The crude Daily Caller piece doesn't even claim as much. El duderino (abides) 00:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I had listened to the tone of Obama's reading of the passage about his dog-eating from the book, for which he won a Grammy. Probably subjective on my part, so I've struck that out. Kelly  hi! 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @El_duderino: It very well may be the case that what Obama did with a dog is pertinent in some respect, but not in an article about Romney and his dog. Again, it's a totally different subject.  Honestly I am surprised that anyone is having any trouble understanding this very simple logical fact.   S Æ don talk 03:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is about a political talking point, which necessarily includes the back-and-forth between the two camps. You can see the same thing in articles like Jeremiah Wright controversy. Kelly  hi! 03:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You maybe treating the article as a political talking point but I think most of us are treating it as an encyclopedic article.  S Æ don talk 03:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I find that hard to believe since this article is titled Seamus and is really about the political attack on Romney because of the incident. As a political argument, the Obama aspect is certainly relevant, or else the vast majority of this article is in the wrong coatrack.  I am not sure how you can even make sure a clear argument of WP:COAT against this and ignore the current existance of WP:COAT already in the article.  Arzel (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be retitled, as you can see I am the first person to support the move. This article is not a political argument; it is an article about something Romney did in 1983 and the backlash that followed during the 2012 election.  Furthermore, whether this article is a WP:COATRACK is irrelevant to whether adding this information would also make it a COATRACK.  Two wrongs do not make a right, and the proper course of action is to fix the problem with this article's title if there is one, not to add to it by introducing irrelevant information.   S Æ don talk 04:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also like to echo the other editors who have pointed out the difference between a 6 year old eating something that he is told to eat and a grown man putting a dog on the roof of his car.  One is a submissive action of a child and the other a conscious decision by an adult.   S Æ don talk 04:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I see that you were the first to support the move, although I would question the logic that there is substantially something different between the two events. Obama, as a child between the ages of 6 and 10, probably was clueless as to the ramifications of his actions to eat dog, although one does wonder why, as an adult, he would even bring it up.  It is also clear that Romney did not feel that what he was doing was much of a deal.  People transport their dogs in the back of their pickup truks all the time.  People also transport Horses, Pigs, Cattle, you name it in open air containers all the time.  What would be the difference between transporting a horse in a trailer being pulled behind a truck versus having the trailer be on top of the truck other than the location of the trailer?  If the dog had not become sick from the turkey it had eaten before the trip the simple act of the trip would have been a non-story.  However, the left seems to want to make a connection that Romney was torturing the dog which lead to the crapping.  Arzel (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I explained the difference between Obama's actions and Romney's in my last response to you (that you probably haven't read yet because I think it was further down the page) but it appears you agree with me that Obama can't be held responsible for something he did at age 6 so I assume we can move on from that point? Romney may not have thought that there was anything wrong with what he did, but that's likely a big part of the issue here: that a grown man didn't know better when he should have.
 * Regarding why Obama wrote it in his book: no idea, I never read it and don't find the man particularly interesting so I doubt I will. My initial thought would be that he wrote it simply because it was a strange aspect of his life, but I don't know the context of the chapter so can't say for sure.
 * You bring up an excellent point regarding the way that livestock is treated on a regular basis. Since this isn't a forum it's probably not a good idea to get into the (very long) ethical conversation behind that, but suffice to say that you are right in that there is probably not a fundamental difference between transporting a horse like that vs. a dog per se, though there are likely regulations that pertain to equine transportation that hopefully afford them a certain level of comfort.  Dogs, however, are rightfully or wrongfully elevated to a certain status in the West, hence the public backlash; I'm sure as the ethical arguments against treating higher functioning animals like horses propagate (as they already are), transporting horses in such a manner will also be more heavily condemned.
 * I think your attachment of significance to the fecal problem is probably too much, as it appears to me to be a non-fundamental part of the story, in that the ethics of transporting a dog like that are questionable with or without the poo. It may very well be the case that this aspect is especially blown out of proportion.  S Æ don talk 04:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Arzel: Your distorted analysis has no place here. Please see WP:Forum. El duderino (abides) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Since there seem to be objections to including the material here, I've created a stub article at Obama Eats Dogs (it could do with a little more work, will get to it tomorrow if I have time). I'll add a "see also" to this article - I still think a brief mention of this Romney camp response should be included though. Kelly  hi! 05:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama never indicates that he was "told to eat" something. You make it sound like he was forced. A 6-year-old in the U.S. would likely demand chicken fingers when served something he had no interest in eating, or certainly express disinterest. This doesn't appear to be the case. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Do I really need to explain how child-parent relationships work or point out that civil societies have long known that 6 year olds are not culpable for their actions (nor mention that no six year old is capable of understanding the moral arguments regarding meat eating and the difference if any between animals)? S Æ don talk 05:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than engaging in our own analysis, we should be following what the sources say. For instance, John Podhoretz says the "Obama Eats Dogs" response by Treacher and the Romney camp is a reductio ad absurdum response to the Obama camp's attack over the dog-transporting incident. Kelly  hi! 05:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should follow what the sources say, but since the source regarding Obama eating dog is about Obama eating dog, it doesn't belong in this article, which is about a dog named Seamus and his owner Mitt Romney. Furthermore, the fact it is not just myself but now a journalist pointing out that the Romney camp is committing a logical fallacy, it would be irresponsible for us to publish said logical fallacy as a serious encyclopedia.  As an aside, Podhoretz is wrong about the fallacy involved, as this is ignoratio elenchi not reductio absurdum, but that's neither here nor there.   S Æ don talk 05:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is absurd to say that WP is a serious encyclopedia when this article exists at all. Furthermore, this article is not about Seamus.  Seamus did nothing, and is irellevant to the story.  This article is only about what Romney did.  Arzel (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We can agree to disagree as to whether this article hurts WP, I don't think it does but I'm not particularly interesting in arguing about it. As for the rest...well yeah, I already told you I agree and that I supported the article being moved to a title more reflective of the content, so no argument there.  S Æ don talk 04:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion of proposed text. This is unrelated to the subject of the article and is a political WP:COATRACK. Gobōnobo  + c 00:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Arzel said this: "What would be the difference between transporting a horse in a trailer being pulled behind a truck versus having the trailer be on top of the truck other than the location of the trailer?"


 * Notice what the ASPCA says about trailering a horse: "Stop at least once every four hours to give your horse’s legs and muscles a rest. If your horse is tied, untie him and let him drop his head to the ground (but don’t take him from the trailer), and offer him plenty of fresh water and hay."


 * Did Romney "stop at least once every four hours" to check on the dog, and to offer food, water, rest and relief? Apparently not. Even by horse standards, what he did is unacceptable. So your horse comparison fails.


 * Also, there is indeed a difference between being in a trailer behind a vehicle, as compared with being on top of the vehicle. Being further from the ground means the swaying motion of the vehicle is magnified, which adds to the stress and discomfort of the experience. Also, on top of the vehicle there is less protection from the wind. (I realize Romney supposedly created a "windshield," but its effectiveness is questionable.)


 * "People transport their dogs in the back of their pickup truks all the time."


 * A pickup truck is not a crate. In the truck, the animal can see its surroundings, and it's free to move around. In the crate, the dog is confined. And since (according to Romney) it was "a completely airtight kennel." 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 can see the owner, which is an important element in helping the dog feel safe. Seamus was able to see nothing.


 * And aside from that, no one puts their dog in the back of a pickup truck for a trip lasting 12-15 hours. If you can show an example of such a thing, that would be helpful. Likewise if you can show an example of anyone, anywhere, putting their dog on top of a car. For a trip of any duration at all, let alone 12-15 hours.


 * People like you who have trouble grasping the significance of this incident should consider these quotes:


 * "He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." -- Immanuel Kant


 * "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." – Mahatma Gandhi Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:51, 24 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)