Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arzel (talk | contribs) at 02:39, 21 April 2012 (→Dogs Against Romney & AboutMittRomney.com). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:39, 21 April 2012 by Arzel (talk | contribs) (→Dogs Against Romney & AboutMittRomney.com)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitt Romney dog incident article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDogs Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and commonly referred to as "dogs" and of which the domestic dog is but one of its many members, on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DogsWikipedia:WikiProject DogsTemplate:WikiProject DogsDogs
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dogs To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Dogs:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAnimal rights Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus (following a review by the closing admin, who had originally closed it as merge).

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)

Discussion

Based on decision by closing admin Phantomsteve to change Seamus AfD from merge to no consensus, I restored this article. Misplaced Pages's policy on no consensus for an AfD is that the article is kept.Debbie W. 18:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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)
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)

News leak

"Days before the election, Seamus, who has been kept in suspended animation by the Democratic Machine, gives a nationally televised tell-all press conference with Gloria Allred."---New York magazine--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dogs Against Romney

I undid the following edit on the grounds that it seems too far removed from the topic of the article, which is about Seamus: In February 2012, a Dogs Against Romney protestor was Terry stopped by police on suspicion of animal abuse, but he only had a stuffed animal in the carrier on top of his motor vehicle. While I understand the interest of this story among animal lovers, I think the story has more to do with the campaign against Romney than it has to do with Seamus, or the original 1983 incident. If people disagree with my decision, feel free to restore the edit, or possibly rewrite the sentence so that it is more closely tied to the rest of the article. Debbie W. 04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The tie-in is that a cop who thought he saw a dog in a crate on the roof judged the situation to be a violation of animal cruelty laws. That fact strengthens the argument that there's a substantive basis for concern. As against that, the laws in 1983 might have been substantially different from what that cop was applying. As against that, even if the conduct was legal in 1983, evidence that it was illegal in 2012 would be taken by some people as confirmation that it was a bad idea. I don't know if we can report the 2012 police stop in a way that accommodates all these considerations. JamesMLane t c 05:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that we already say that Romney's actions probably violated animal cruelty laws: The Massachusetts American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) stated that Romney's actions were probably illegal under Massachusetts law, but that the statute of limitations has passed. I'm not sure that an illegal act committed today in Colorado by someone unconnected to Mitt Romney should be referenced in an article which discusses an similiar illegal act committed by Romney in 1983 in Massachusetts. If a person who is not a politician drove off a bridge with a young female in the car who drowned, would we add it to the Edward Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident article? If people want to add supplimental info about the illegality of the 1983 act, I'd be okay with that. Debbie W. 12:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Seat belt sentence

I removed this sentence: "As against that, a dog riding inside the car would be exposed to hazards by virtue of not having a seat belt." with the edit summary "This sentence doesn't make any sense in itself, and it makes even less sense in context." Someone brought it up on my Talk page so I thought I'd respond here. My feelings aren't terribly deep, I just found this to be a badly-written sentence expressing an incoherent thought. First, I'm not familiar with the phrase "as against that", and took it to be merely someone's clumsy attempt to communicate "in contradiction." A Google search suggests this may be my mistake and that "as against that" is in fact a phrase; I still dislike it. Beyond that point, the sentence still doesn't make sense in context:

Three scientists who evaluated the event stated that Seamus could have possibly had around ten pounds per square foot of air pressure pressing against his head during the trip. The veterinarian wife of one of the scientists said that she was worried that the air flow could cause fatigue and dehydration of the eyes. As against that, a dog riding inside the car would be exposed to hazards by virtue of not having a seat belt.

First, the fact that the dog wouldn't have a seat belt inside the car doesn't contradict, or negate, or have anything really to do with, the effects of the air flow/pressure if the dog rides outside the car. Second, the dog obviously wouldn't have a seat belt whether he's in the car or outside the car. The intent of the sentence seems to be to defend putting the dog outside the car by saying, well, if you put him inside the car, there are still hazards, which is also the meaning of that sentence in the cited reference (which I did read before removing the sentence). But it's written as if the lack of seat belt inside the car presents a hazard equal to the air pressure from riding outside the car, so really it's a toss-up which method is safer, which is ridiculous. The article says in an accident he might be equally endangered by either method, but the effects of the air pressure would be felt constantly regardless of whether there's an accident.

If you really must raise the point in the article I would recommend something like: "One scientist pointed out that even inside the car, a dog would still be exposed to hazards in an accident by virtue of not having a seat belt." Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your point that the failure to seatbelt a dog is not as serious a hazard as driving with a dog on the roof of a car. Furthermore, there is the legality issue. In 1983, no law existed that mandated that a dog wear a seatbelt. On the other hand, driving with a dog on the roof of your car was illegal in 1983. That being said, one of scientists did bring up the seatbelt issue, and if we totally ignore it, it would violate Misplaced Pages's NPOV policies. I'm fine with your poposed rewrite.Debbie W. 12:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You don't know that it was illegal, the source only says "probably" illegal. I find that dubious since he drove for 12 hours with that dog in a kennel on the roof, and apparently did it many times which puts into question the illegality of the action. Either that, or not a single highway patrol or local police ever saw him driving with the dog on the roof, which I find all but impossible to believe. And that not a single person even reported his action to a police authority for putting that poor dogs life in jepordy. Furthermore, in 1983 there were no seat belt laws for anyone. I find it ironic that the left is more upset about the dog riding on top of the car than that Romney's kids were riding in the back of the station wagon facing backwards not wearing seatbelts (which incidentally I did as a kid as well and it was the most comfortable seat in the car!) Those kids were certainly not wearing seatbelts back there since there were no seats. I doubt anyone in the car was wearing seatbelts with the possible exception of those in the front seats. Please stop viewing historical events through the prism of today. Arzel (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Romney's actions were definitely illegal in Massachusetts in 1983. You imply that because Romney drove 12 hours with the dog on the roof, and police didn't stop him, that it must have been legal. In my home state, until the early 1980s, people routinely drove drunk without consequence even though drunk driving was illegal. Likewise, domestic violence was illegal for a long time but rarely enforced. Being against the law, and being enforced are two totally different matters.
You should really temper your responses about something being definately illegal, since you do not know. Driving drunk is not noticable until you do something that would let others know. Driving with a dog kennel on the roof of your car would be noticble at all times. Your analogy is misplaced. Arzel (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Massachusetts has a long history of strict animal cruelty laws. It has been illegal in Massachusetts since the 19th century to carries it or causes it to be carried in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner The present-day statute is similiar but has a little bit more comprehensive definition of cruelty: carries it or causes it to be carried in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon.Debbie W. 12:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
If that were the case here, or even the view at the time it is unlikely he would have been able to transport the dog in that manner as he did. I find it highly unlikely that this mode of transportation was viewed as either cruel or inhumane at the time. By the wording of your source, it would matter little the location of the animal, only the manner in which they were transported in that location. Arzel (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Neither of your sources fully back up your position. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I know this goes back a while, but there are a few statements that should be corrected.
"Those kids were certainly not wearing seatbelts back there since there were no seats."
The car was a Chevy Caprice Wagon. It was sold with either 2 or 3 rows of seats (the 3rd row was rear-facing). It's quite unlikely that Romney owned the 2-row model. If Tagg was sitting back there for 13-15 hours without a seat to sit on, then Romney was committing not just dog abuse but also child abuse. It would also be exceptionally stupid for someone with a large family to buy the 2-row model when they could obviously afford the 3-row model.
Also, you shouldn't say "kids" since there was only one kid riding behind the second row of seats. The Globe article indicates that "Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon." The other six occupants (mom, dad, and 4 kids ages 2-12) could easily fit in the first and second rows. The first row was a bench, not buckets.
Also, GM cars were equipped with seat belts for all passenger positions starting in 1971 or earlier. So if this car had the 3rd row seat, it had seat belts for (at least) 8 passengers. (Some GM wagons of the era had seat belts for 9, which meant an additional passenger position in the center of the 3rd row.)
"I doubt anyone in the car was wearing seatbelts with the possible exception of those in the front seats."
We don't know if the belts were worn, but we know that every passenger position was equipped with seat belts.
"I find that dubious since he drove for 12 hours with that dog in a kennel on the roof, and apparently did it many times … Either that, or not a single highway patrol or local police ever saw him driving with the dog on the roof, which I find all but impossible to believe. And that not a single person even reported his action to a police authority for putting that poor dogs life in jepordy. … it is unlikely he would have been able to transport the dog in that manner as he did … Driving with a dog kennel on the roof of your car would be noticble at all times"
An observer might be able to notice that there's a crate up there, but they wouldn't know what's inside. According to Romney it was "a completely airtight kennel." That means I can't see what it contains. If I saw you drive by with such a thing on your roof, I would assume that you're transporting an empty crate, or that the crate is being used as a container for inanimate objects, such as your luggage. It would not occur to me that you actually put an animal in there.
Also, even if I did know there was an animal inside, I would assume you're going a short distance, and therefore be less inclined to speak up and report you to the police. There would be no way for an observer to know that you're on a trip lasting 13-15 hours. Doing it for just a few minutes is also wrong, but not nearly as wrong as doing it all day long.
I wish someone would show another example of anyone, ever, transporting a dog this way. I've looked, and can't find any such example. I think that's because normal dog owners have enough sense to never do such a thing. And also have enough sense to know that they should never talk about it or brag about it, if they ever did it. This is true now and it was also true in 1983. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. Cite error: The named reference soden was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. "Commonwealth v. Turner".
  3. "Section 77 - Animal Cruelty".

Merge of new material

There is some discussion at WP:AfD to merge the Campaign for "romney" neologism even before that discussion ends, which is not prohibited. It may be the best outcome: they'll only be one target for vandalism and trolling. Would anyone object if a short, sourced paragraph about that topic were selectively merged into this article? Bearian (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful. I think it would be undue weight for that stuff to be included anywhere. What did you have in mind? Arzel (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd be okay with it. I propose the following info be added to the Seamus article:
In 2012, in response to Mitt Romney’s road trip, web designer Jack Shepler created the neologism 'romney' which means 'to defecate in terror'. The neologism was inspired by the neologism 'santorum', which gay rights activist Dan Savage had created in 2003. Shepler stated that he created the new word in order to draw attention to Mitt Romney's "mistreatment of a family pet" and his personal judgement. According to Google, the romney neologism's web listing is due to the website's popularity, and not because of Google bombing or search engine optimization.Debbie W. 21:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
That would be fine with me, but please confirm that the sources say what is cited. Any further discussion? Bearian (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's a meme (deserving its "Keep" at RfD)!

New Yorker Mitt Romney Cover: Magazine Shows Candidate Driving With Rick Santorum In A Doghouse--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Huff Po link appears to be broken. Here is a WSJ link to that New Yorker cover: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/05/new-yorker-cover-santorum-rides-on-romneys-car-roof/ Debbie W. 12:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Debbie; I fixed the link!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Date of death

Any date of death available for Seamus? I recall reading that he may have passed in the early 1990's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.54.18 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen an exact year listed for when he died. The only reference that Jane Romney said that the dog lived to a 'ripe old age.' http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/tale-of-pooch-on-car-roof-dogs-romney-138629569.html?device=mobile Debbie W. 12:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dog Running Away

How does everything think we should handle the issue reported by the New York Observer that Seamus actually ran away when the Romneys reached their vacation home in Ontario? This claim contradicts the official story that the dog went on to live with Mitt Romney's sister Jane. http://www.politicker.com/2012/01/31/did-mitt-romneys-dog-seek-asylum-in-canada/ Debbie W. 17:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL kinda sounds like the story my Dad told my sisters when he took our dog to the shelter and told them it "ran away". - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no real evidence, so I don't think that we should include it in the article. Debbie W. 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there's no real evidence that the dog ran away in Canada. However, there's this:
She says he was such a social dog that he often left Mitt Romney's Belmont home to visit his "dog friends" around town. "He kept ending up at the pound," she says. "They were worried about him getting hit crossing the street." So a few years after Seamus's ride to Canada, Mitt sent Seamus to live for a time with Jane and her family in California. "We had more space, so he could roam more freely," she says.
It should be pointed out that allowing a dog to wander near traffic is itself an indication of significant neglect. Get a fence. Also, a dog that "often left" the owner's home could be an indication that the animal is being abused and is trying to escape. The one documented instance of abuse probably indicates that there were other incidents (of this form of abuse, or other forms of abuse) that are undocumented (especially since they cheerfully admit that this wasn't the only time they did this).
Also, in the normal course of events a family doesn't give their beloved dog away (especially to someone who lives thousands of miles away). Giving a dog away usually indicates that for one reason or another the family was incapable of caring for it properly, or just didn't like the animal. Trouble is, it's irresponsible to own a dog if you're not committed to caring for it properly and forever. Sending Seamus away is another indication that something is wrong with this picture. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
A bit more about this. Jane said "a few years after" 1983, Seamus was sent away to live with her. She said "we had more space, so he could roam more freely."
I can't find out exactly where in Belmont Romney lived in 1983. I also don't know how to translate "a few years" into an exact number. But it's known that in 1989 Romney bought 171 Marsh St in Belmont, a property with 2.44 acres, for $1.25 million. 2.44 acres is plenty of room for a dog to "roam … freely." So the idea that the Romneys couldn't afford a proper yard for their dog to "roam … freely" is quite dubious.
I also notice this: "Mitt sent Seamus to live for a time with Jane and her family in California." I highlighted some peculiar words. They are peculiar because they seem intended to suggest that the move was temporary. However, there is no indication they ever tried to get the dog back. Therefore the words "for a time" seem to be there for the purpose of obscuring the fact that they were intentionally and permanently giving away their dog. Something a normal dog owner would never do, unless they are under great duress of some kind. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This all happened over 25 years ago. Seriously, GET OVER IT. WP is not the place to propose your wild theories and accuse Romney of being a bad dog owner. Odds are, he was a far better dog owner than most self-described dog lovers. They brought their dog with them everywhere, and from all measures the dog loved it. Arzel (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Animal Cruelty Databases

Arzel has removed a sentence regarding the Seamus incident being listed in two animal cruelty databases: Because of the 1983 incident, Romney is listed in the National Animal Cruelty Registry, and the Pet-Abuse animal cruelty database.

The National Animal Cruelty Registry has existed since 1986, is run by a group of volunteers, and lists over 20,000 cases. Many animal shelters will not sell a pet to a person listed in the database. I consider this a legitimate source of information. The Pet-Abuse database is newer (2001), and contains less cases. http://services.dlas.virginia.gov/User_db/frmvscc.aspx?ViewId=1989 (read page 6 of link).

Based on this information, I am restoring the part of the sentence regarding the National Animal Cruelty Registry, and I'm also including a brief explanation of the registry so that it's understood that it is a private database, and not one run by law enforcement. Here is the revised sentence: Because of the Seamus incident, Romney is listed in the National Animal Cruelty Registry, a privately-operated database started in 1986 that documents alleged acts of animal abuse. Debbie W. 01:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ideally you would be able to provide a reliable external source that reported on Romney's inclusion in this database. The argument for notability is diminished if nobody outside of the organization has noted it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Since Debbie has not addressed this I have removed it again as not notable. Arzel (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Actual duration of the trip, and some other issues

The original Boston Globe article mentions "the annual 12-hour family trek from Boston to Ontario." On that basis, virtually all articles on this subject (including this article) uncritically refer to the duration as 12 hours.

Swidey and Ebbert apparently heard that number from one or more people they interviewed. However, the number is probably wrong. According to Google Maps, the driving distance from Belmont MA to Beach O' Pines Ontario is 648 miles. (The distance from Boston would be a little greater, but they lived in Belmont, not Boston.) Google Maps indicates a driving time of 11:31. That implies an average speed of 56.3 mph. The route is mostly roads that are currently posted at 65 mph.

However, speed limits were lower in 1983. The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) of 55 mph was in effect. If a maximum legal speed of 65 mph implies an trip average of 56.3 mph, then a maximum legal speed of 55 mph probably implies a trip average of 45-50 mph. If the trip average is 50 mph, then the trip would take 13 hours, not 12 hours. If the trip average is 45 mph, then the duration would be 14.4 hours.

The claimed duration (12 hours) for this distance (648 miles) implies an average speed of 54 mph. But since the legal maximum was 55 mph, it's doubtful that an average of 54 mph would be achieved.

There are other reasons to be skeptical about the implied average speed (54 mph). This was an underpowered vehicle, by current standards. The vehicle was a third-generation Chevy Caprice wagon. It probably had 120-140 hp. The loaded weight was probably about 4800 lbs. This implies a weight-to-power ratio of about 37 lbs/hp. For comparison, note that a Prius has about 23 lbs/hp. A vehicle much less powerful than a Prius has a hard time maintaining high speeds. (All those numbers are easily documented.)

Also take into account that this trip is not flat. Google Earth can be used to show an elevation profile which indicates an elevation gain of 10,251 feet. That's a lot of climbing, which reduces speed. Also reducing speed are the poor aerodynamics of a dog crate (and possibly other items) on the roof.

So taking all this into account (the maximum legal speed at the time, the power, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle, and the elevation changes) the average speed was probably 45-50 mph, not the 54 mph implied by the original article. Which means that the actual duration was probably 13-14 hours (or more), not the 12 hour figure that is widely reported. That's not an enormous difference, but it's big enough to be material, so it should not be overlooked.

A few related points. Everyone talks about the trip to Canada, but no one ever mentions coming home. Even though the dog exhibited signs of distress on the westbound trip, it was apparently subjected to another 13-14 hours of this treatment on the return trip.

Something else that's widely overlooked. 13-14 hours in a crate is abusive, even if the crate is sitting in a quiet room (let alone on the roof of a car at highway speeds). Notice: "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." So it's not just a problem that the dog was on top of the car. It's a problem that the dog was in a crate for 13-14 hours.

Something else that's widely overlooked. Because it's summertime, no one thinks the dog is cold, but wind chill and wetness need to be considered. (Yes, I know Romney said it was "a completely airtight kennel," but that's absurd; it that statement was true, the dog would have suffocated.) Assuming wind speed of 50 mph and air temperature of 50 degrees (F), the wind chill factor was 25 degrees (F). If the air temperature was 60, the wind chill factor was 41. 25-40 degrees (F) is pretty cold. Also, he washed the dog with a hose (using cold water, apparently). An Irish Setter has a long coat. Seamus was almost certainly still quite wet when he was put back on the roof to resume the trip. Putting a wet dog in a 25-40 degree environment is itself a form of abuse.

Something else. There was no reason the dog couldn't fit inside the car. This vehicle has a rear-facing third-row seat. It has seats for 8 adults. It was apparently carrying two adults and five boys, ranging in age from 2-13. This means there was a seat available for the dog. If there was excess luggage in the car, it could have fit on the roof inside (or instead of) the dog crate. By definition, the crate was able to hold a volume of luggage equal or greater in volume than the space required by the dog inside the car.

One more thing. If the car was too crowded, then they should have been using a larger vehicle, such as a full size van. A contemporary example would be the 1979-82 Ford Econoline Club Wagon Chateau (photo). This vehicle has at least 8 seats, and a much larger interior. Romney was a VP at Bain, and it was certainly within his means to buy, rent or borrow such a vehicle.

This story is supposedly about Romney's "crisis management" skills. What's remarkable is that this crisis could have been easily avoided (for example, by using a larger vehicle or by leaving the dog at home). Rather than demonstrating good "crisis management," the story reflects poor planning. Compounded by an inability to see, even in retrospect, that the "crisis" was highly avoidable and was caused by poor planning. This is aside from the issue of animal cruelty, and it's another important aspect that's generally overlooked.

Before editing the article I'm interested in hearing what people think of these various issues. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You bring up a number of good points. I will also address here the comments that you recently added to other sections of this talk page.
1. If Tagg was sitting back there for 13-15 hours without a seat to sit on, then Romney was committing not just dog abuse but also child abuse. It would also be exceptionally stupid for someone with a large family to buy the 2-row model when they could obviously afford the 3-row model.
In the past, families routinely jammed a large number of people in a car for family vacations. It not entirely clear what model of station wagon the Romney's owned, but we could add to the article that they were driving a Chevy Caprice Wagon.
2. Also, GM cars were equipped with seat belts for all passenger positions starting in 1971 or earlier. So if this car had the 3rd row seat, it had seat belts for (at least) 8 passengers. (Some GM wagons of the era had seat belts for 9, which meant an additional passenger position in the center of the 3rd row.)
In 1983, most cars had seat belts, but a lot of people didn't wear them. I can remember growing up that my family insisted that I always wore a selt belt, but many other kids did not.
3. An observer might be able to notice that there's a crate up there, but they wouldn't know what's inside. According to Romney it was "a completely airtight kennel." That means I can't see what it contains. If I saw you drive by with such a thing on your roof, I would assume that you're transporting an empty crate, or that the crate is being used as a container for inanimate objects, such as your luggage. It would not occur to me that you actually put an animal in there.
We really don't know what the crate looked like. You make a good point though. I never understood Romney's "air tight kennel" comment. I'm now thinking that he may have meant that it was enclosed. We really don't know, but perhaps it wasn't possible for an observer to see the contents of the crate, and so nobody realized that they were transporting a dog on their roof.
4. I wish someone would show another example of anyone, ever, transporting a dog this way. I've looked, and can't find any such example. I think that's because normal dog owners have enough sense to never do such a thing. And also have enough sense to know that they should never talk about it or brag about it, if they ever did it. This is true now and it was also true in 1983.
Normal pet owners did not transport dogs on their car roofs in 1983. I have heard about people years ago transporting their dogs for short distances (e.g., driving to the store) in the bed of pickup truck, but I have never seen or heard of anyone other than Romney transporting a dog on the roof of a car.
5. Boston Globe article: "She says he was such a social dog that he often left Mitt Romney's Belmont home to visit his dog friends around town. He kept ending up at the pound, she says. They were worried about him getting hit crossing the street. So a few years after Seamus's ride to Canada, Mitt sent Seamus to live for a time with Jane and her family in California. We had more space, so he could roam more freely, she says." It should be pointed out that allowing a dog to wander near traffic is itself an indication of significant neglect. Get a fence. Also, a dog that often left the owner's home could be an indication that the animal is being abused and is trying to escape. The one documented instance of abuse probably indicates that there were other incidents (of this form of abuse, or other forms of abuse) that are undocumented (especially since they cheerfully admit that this wasn't the only time they did this). Also, in the normal course of events a family doesn't give their beloved dog away (especially to someone who lives thousands of miles away). Giving a dog away usually indicates that for one reason or another the family was incapable of caring for it properly, or just didn't like the animal. Trouble is, it's irresponsible to own a dog if you're not committed to caring for it properly and forever. Sending Seamus away is another indication that something is wrong with this picture.
Agreed. I'm thinking they got that dog, and then realized that they don't have the time to take care of it. I had not seen the story before that Romney gave Seamus to his sister because the dog kept ending up at the pound, but if you want, add that to the "supplimentary information" section of the article.
6. So taking all this into account (the maximum legal speed at the time, the power, weight and aerodynamics of the vehicle, and the elevation changes) the average speed was probably 45-50 mph, not the 54 mph implied by the original article. Which means that the actual duration was probably 13-14 hours (or more), not the 12 hour figure that is widely reported. That's not an enormous difference, but it's big enough to be material, so it should not be overlooked.
I'm not sure on this one. In 1983, few people actually observed the 55-mph speed limit on major highways. We'll never really know, but Snopes states that Romney made it clear to his sons that there would be no unplanned bathroom breaks, so I'm figuring that he probably drove around 60 mph for most of the trip with a few stops, resulting in a 12-hour trip. All our references say 12 hours, so unless there is evidence to the contrary, I think we need to stay with the 12-hour time span.
7. Everyone talks about the trip to Canada, but no one ever mentions coming home. Even though the dog exhibited signs of distress on the westbound trip, it was apparently subjected to another 13-14 hours of this treatment on the return trip.
Excellent point. I have never seen anything about how they transported the dog when coming home, or on any other trip. Don't be surprised if some reporter asks Romney this at some point this year.
8. Something else that's widely overlooked. 13-14 hours in a crate is abusive, even if the crate is sitting in a quiet room (let alone on the roof of a car at highway speeds). ASPCA reference: "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." So it's not just a problem that the dog was on top of the car. It's a problem that the dog was in a crate for 13-14 hours.
Good point.
9. Something else that's widely overlooked. Because it's summertime, no one thinks the dog is cold, but wind chill and wetness need to be considered. (Yes, I know Romney said it was "a completely airtight kennel," but that's absurd; it that statement was true, the dog would have suffocated.) Assuming wind speed of 50 mph and air temperature of 50 degrees (F), the wind chill was 25 degrees (F). If the air temperature was 60, the wind chill factor was 41. 25-40 degrees (F) is pretty cold. Also, he washed the dog with a hose (using cold water, apparently). An Irish Setter has a long coat. Seamus was almost certainly still quite wet when he was put back on the roof to resume the trip. Putting a wet dog in a 25-40 degree environment is itself a form of abuse.
I have never seen an exact date listed for the trip, but the National Animal Cruelty Registry says that it took place in June 1983. The Beach O' Pines cottage is in Grand Bend, Ontario, and based on what I've read, average June temperature might be 75F in the day, and 55F at night. Regardless of the ambient temperature, I'm sure it was very unpleasant for the dog.
10. Something else. There was no reason the dog couldn't fit inside the car. This vehicle has a rear-facing third-row seat. It has seats for 8 adults. It was apparently carrying two adults and five boys, ranging in age from 2-13. This means there was a seat available for the dog. If there was excess luggage in the car, it could have fit on the roof inside (or instead of) the dog crate. By definition, the crate was able to hold a volume of luggage equal or greater in volume than the space required by the dog inside the car. This story is supposedly about Romney's "crisis management" skills. What's remarkable is that this crisis could have been easily avoided (for example, by using a larger vehicle or by leaving the dog at home). Rather than demonstrating good "crisis management," the story reflects poor planning. Compounded by an inability to see, even in retrospect, that the "crisis" was highly avoidable and was caused by poor planning. This is aside from the issue of animal cruelty, and it's another important aspect that's generally overlooked.
Totally agree. Any normal person would have put the luggage on the roof, and the dog in the car. Even if Romney made a mistake by Seamus on the roof, after the dog got diarrhea, he should have then let the dog ride in the car, and put the luggage on the roof. To this day, Romney sees nothing wrong with what he did in 1983. Romney's book is titled 'No Apology'. While it's not about the 1983 trip, I think it explains his mindset. Debbie W. 11:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I think we should stay away from doing original research. The analysis is interesting, though it made a few bad assumptions. (For instance, windchill temperature is only defined for temperatures at or below 50 °F, and the dog probably wasn't experiencing the 55 mph wind directly anyway.) For the purposes of this article we should stick with what's reported in the sources. This analysis, though, would be good material for a personal blog or the like. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Besides Misplaced Pages's prohibition against original research, I don't think we know enough information to make any such calculations. We know that the trip was in June 1983, but we don't know the exact date, so we can't know the weather. We know the station wagon probably travelled at 50-60 mph, but we don't know the configuration of the crate. However, based on Jukeboxgrad's comment, I think we can add the type of car, and the information about the dog frequently escaping from their house. Debbie W. 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The type of car is listed as a station wagon in the article, which is what I've seen in the few articles I've read. Are you suggesting make and model? The running away bit might be good in the Supplementary information section, but note, the dog isn't notable for running away frequently, he's notable for being strapped on the top of a car in a carrier. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Debbie and Adjwilley, thank you for your prompt and thorough responses. I hope the consolidated answer that follows is not too much of a jumble. I'm also starting over at the left margin so the nesting doesn't get too crazy.

"The type of car is listed as a station wagon in the article, which is what I've seen in the few articles I've read. Are you suggesting make and model?"

The make and model is easy to know. A photo of the Romney car (the "white whale" referenced in the Snidey article) is here. (I don't know how to do it, but maybe that photo could be displayed as part of the article here, because it's quite relevant.) See here for hi-res scans of a 1979 Chevrolet Caprice brochure. See here for the page that includes a photo of a Caprice Classic Station Wagon. Compare this to the photo of the Romney "white whale." The match is obvious. For example, notice the distinctive badge at the base of the C-pillar. Another large and helpful photo is hosted by Misplaced Pages here. On this photo, notice the chrome trim going across the gas filler door, and compare this to the same detail on the "white whale" photo. For another large photo extremely similar to the "white whale" photo, see here.

A 'car person' (especially of a certain age) can simply look at the "white whale" photo and know that this car is a Caprice Classic Wagon. These other photos make the identification possible if you're not a 'car person.'

"In the past, families routinely jammed a large number of people in a car for family vacations."

I think the important thing to notice is that this was almost certainly an 8-passenger vehicle carrying only 7 humans, which means there should have been a seat available for the dog.

"the dog isn't notable for running away frequently, he's notable for being strapped on the top of a car in a carrier."

But there's a connection, as I explained. The dog running away could be an indication that it's being abused. Also, a dog that's allowed to run away is a dog that's being neglected. Get a fence. Train and supervise your dog properly.

"windchill temperature is only defined for temperatures at or below 50 °F, and the dog probably wasn't experiencing the 55 mph wind directly anyway"

This is a fair point. I agree. If the crate was almost fully sealed, then maybe the wind didn't matter much and the dog being wet didn't matter much, especially since these are summertime temperatures.

"Even if Romney made a mistake by Seamus on the roof, after the dog got diarrhea, he should have then let the dog ride in the car, and put the luggage on the roof."

This is a key point that deserves emphasis. Anyone can make a mistake, but a mature person admits the mistake and corrects it. What's remarkable is that even all these years later there is still no admission that a mistake was made. Refusing to admit mistakes is a serious character issue.

It was a mistake to put the dog back on the roof, post-diarrhea, but I think there's a tendency to overlook an earlier mistake: the failure to use a larger, more suitable vehicle (like a van). True crisis leadership means using proper planning to prevent the crisis in the first place.

"All our references say 12 hours, so unless there is evidence to the contrary, I think we need to stay with the 12-hour time span."

I think it's pretty clear that there's only a single ultimate source for that number: the Swidey/Ebbert Globe article of 7/27/07. The number is accepted as a solid, confirmed number because it's been repeated so many times, but those repetitions don't tell us anything about whether the original claim makes sense. I understand the importance of avoiding original research, but I think it's probably OK to simply state certain known facts. For example, the distance (648 miles), the national speed limit at the time (55 mph), and the average speed implied by the 12-hour claim (54 mph). A careful reader can look at those numbers and decide for themselves if they should be skeptical about the 12-hour claim.

Accepting the 12-hour claim is tantamount to Romney admitting that he counted on speeding to get there on time, and that he didn't mind letting his boys witness him doing this. Animal abuse is infinitely worse than moderate speeding, but the question of speeding (and teaching your kids to speed) is still relevant, since POTUS is supposed to be someone who respects the law.

I think it's also probably fair to make a statement observing that there is no original source for that claim (12 hours) outside of the Swidey/Ebbert article.

By the way, here's my speculation about why his source said '12 hours' to Swidey: the national speed limit was 55 mph during the period 1974-1995. Swidey published his article in 2007, probably soon after talking to his source. I believe that various family members still travel to this same destination, even now (after all, it's a family tradition that started with George). Since 1995, they have been traveling there on roads posted at 65 mph. Therefore they now think of this as a 12-hour trip. Trouble is, it was almost certainly not a 12-hour trip in 1983, when the speed limit was lower.

I'm open to suggestion about how to handle these various issues, and I think there's no hurry. Even if there are no changes to the article, I think it's helpful that these issues are now documented on this Talk page. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion. Drop it, WP is not a fourm and your original research is never going to be put into this article. Arzel (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's rules on original research and sourcing were pretty confusing to me when I started here... Basically, Misplaced Pages is supposed to follow what reliable sources say, and not go out on its own saying stuff they haven't said (even if it's true). In other words, if there's not a major newspaper saying that the trip took more than 12 hours, we can't say that it took more than 12 hours. If there aren't major newspaper reporting on experts who accuse Romney of speeding, than we can't do it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
"if there's not a major newspaper saying that the trip took more than 12 hours, we can't say that it took more than 12 hours."
I understand that. I agree that we shouldn't say that the trip took more than 12 hours. In fact, we don't know whether or not the trip took more than 12 hours.
However, I think there's certain factual information that's relevant and currently omitted. For example, the distance traveled is relevant. I see a source here that reports the distance as 650 miles (which is close to the 648 miles that can be verified with Google Maps; I think the difference is caused by using Boston when it would be more accurate to use Belmont). There should be no question that referencing that distance via this source is not original research. This source and others are expressing a concern about the length of the trip, and the distance in miles is a fact that's obviously relevant to that concern.
Also relevant is the national speed limit at the time (55 mph). This is obviously verifiable via reliable published sources, so it's not OR. It's also a relevant fact that does not promote a particular POV. After all, someone could argue that a low speed limit indicates that the dog was not subject to the greater distress of higher speeds.
We are citing articles that claim the dog experienced distress. Facts regarding speed, distance and time are relevant to that claim. When we can cite reliable sources providing facts regarding speed, distance and time we should do so. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's no original research policy is confusing, but Misplaced Pages does not prohibit the use of primary sources, insofar as the information is from a reliable source and the material is presented with a neutral point of view. Even if no secondary source, such as a magazine or newspaper has published a piece of information, it's sometimes possible to use the information in a Misplaced Pages article.
In terms of the distance from Belmont to Beach O' Pines, it would not violate Misplaced Pages's policies to list the distance based on a reliable source (e.g., Google Maps), as long as you keep a neutral point of view. However, without some other source of information, you cannot make the claim that the trip took more than 12 hours because that would constitute synthesis, which is a type of original research. WP:SYN gives some good examples of how primary source information may and may not be used. Debbie W. 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

External Links & Diane Sawyer Interview

I removed all of the external links as they were almost entirely additional articles about the story which added no additional information not already included in the main article, with the exception of one very POV violation of WP:EL. In general the section did not adhere to EL guidelines. Arzel (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I think you went too far removing all the external links, and removing the quote by Romney during the Diane Sawyer interview. While 8 external links is a bit much, some of them added information that could not realistically be added to the body of the article. Misplaced Pages's external link policies supports the use of external links in the following cases:
1.Misplaced Pages articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.
2.An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply.
3.Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
4.The recommendation to consider professional reviews as external links was repealed (see this archived discussion). The reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section.
5.Very large pages, such as pages containing rich media files, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Misplaced Pages with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.
6. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page.
7.Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
Here's my feeling on the 8 external links.
Tommy Christopher. "Newt Gingrich attack ad dogs Mitt Romney over putting pooch on roof". Redundant and unnecessary
David Edwards. "Romney on Irish setter strapped to car roof: Love my dog". The Raw Story. Redundant and unnecessary
Angie Drobnic Holan. "Mitt Romney and the dog on the car roof: one columnist's obsession". Valuable analysis of truthfulness of claim. Should be restored.
Lara Marlowe. "Romney hounded by memory of Seamus the dog and 'Crate Gate'". Redundant and unnecessary
Roni McCall "Mitt Romney animal cruelty casefile". National Animal Cruelty Registry. Controversial but unique information. Should be restored.
Diane Sawyer. "Transcript: Mitt and Ann Romney's interview with Diane Sawyer (page 8)". Provides valuable info that is too extensive for article. Should be restored
Jason Sudeikis. "Saturday Night Live sketch of Mitt Romney and his dog". Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. A widely-watched parody. Should be restored.
Hunter Walker. "Canine-loving protesters dog Mitt Romney outside Westminster Kennel Club show". Describes event in relation to Seamus incident. Should be added to body of article
The Goldman and Friedman article quotes Mitt Romney as saying that the "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far." I restored the quote.
I was going to leave the politifact and Sawyer EL's but after additional examination the politicfact didn't really add much (there is no question about the story being true) and the Sawyer interview is already in the main space as a source which could be checked. That said I won't remove them again. Arzel (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The NACR is a volunteer organization with no national notability. I've not seen them used as a source for this. Just because they created a page for this doesn't imply that it is important. It is a little more than a self-published source, and it is undue weight. Arzel (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not seeing where Romney made that statement that the Seamus story was the most wounding. I know that Sawyer says to him that he said it was, but he didn't reply to that statement. Is there a better source that actually has him making the statement? Arzel (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, I will do more search on the Diane Sawyer interview. The Goldman & Friedman article by ABC News lists Mitt Romney making that quote, but it's not really in the Diana Sawyer transcript. When I read the Sawyer transcript, I get the impression that Mitt has previously said "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far.", and she wants him to confirm it. Debbie W. 13:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Arzel, I did some research, and most media sites state that Romney either said or confirmed that "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far." Katheleen Parker uses the word 'said' in her column about the Sawyer interview as does the Goldman & Friedman ABC News article, whereas the Daily Beast uses the term 'confirmed.'
Kathleen Parker article
Goldman and Friedman article
Daily Beast article
We can stick with the 2 external links -- Politifact and the Sawyer interview. As for the National Animal Cruelty Registry, I have mixed feelings about it. Misplaced Pages's primary source policy allows us to use primary sources like quotes from books and information from databases as long as it is from a reliable source and is presented with a neutral point of view. By presenting it as an external link (as opposed to in the article), I think we do well in terms of neutrality, since we are not interpreting what the registry says about Mitt Romney. I'm like some input from other people, but I'm not sure whether the National Animal Cruelty Registry qualifies as a reliable source. The National Animal Cruelty Registry has existed since 1986, is run by a group of volunteers, and lists over 20,000 cases. Many animal shelters will not sell a pet to a person listed in the database. One government site lists it as a quasi-official register of animal cruelty cases -- Virginia State Crime Commission (read page 6 of link) . There are two Misplaced Pages article that use NACR as a reference -- Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation and Bhagavan Antle. However, I don't see the level of information about this group on the internet that you'd expect for an organization which has existed since 1986 and list 20,000 cases. With the highly controversial nature of a person being listed in a animal cruelty registry, I want to make sure that this is reliable source before we use it. Debbie W. 13:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing to me this is worthy of an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.91.100 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • comment - Per a careful perusal/parsing of wp:NOT, I disagree with an editor's assessment above that external links of such things as parody videos must be rejected out of hand as "not really appropriate for an encyclopedia." Various sections on the talkpage mention media mentions of this incident that prove it has become a so-called meme; thus IMO although deciding which items should be included should be done with respect to WP guidelines, there should not no campaign to remove them all. A look at wp:IPC--

    ubjects with broad cultural impact can positively distinguish Misplaced Pages from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Misplaced Pages is not. can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract non-notable entries, especially if they are in list format.

    --reveals the distinction of whether individual cultural reflections of a subject are a notable part of its public image or not--and this whether the same are "serious" or "pop." So, if the criterion by which editors previously had been abiding were "Pop is out; serious is in," it wd need be rethunk. --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
To Hodgdon's secret garden: After doing some research, I think that the Saturday Night Live parody is an appropriate external link. I had never read Misplaced Pages's 'in popular culture' guidelines before. Additionally, I did a search of political scandals and political gaffes on Misplaced Pages, and although they are not common, there are some examples of parodies being used as external links. For example, there is an external link for the infamous Howard Dean scream on his Misplaced Pages page, and in the Dan Quayle Misplaced Pages article, there is an external link to his foot-in-mouth quotations. I have put a strike-through on my comments above about the SNL external link. Debbie W. 15:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Bo photo

..."chilling"?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Neologism

Removed the section on Neologism because it is just somebody's blatant attempt to smear Mitt Romney. Misplaced Pages is no place to do that. JettaMann (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dogs Against Romney & AboutMittRomney.com

After doing some research on other articles, I restored the Dogs Against Romney external link, and I added a link to the dog section of the AboutMittRomney.com site. I believe that both qualify as quasi-official sources. Dogs against Romney has existed since 2007, and is heavily responsible for much of the publicity about Seamus. The AboutMittRomney site is sponsored by the romney campaign, and defends Romney's actions relating to pets. Debbie W. 21:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about "Dog's against Romney" therefore it is not an official source. It is certainly not an official source about Seamus. One person's crusade against Romney is not an acceptable use of EL. In general WP should not be used to promote political advocacy, which is all that site is for. Arzel (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. Doug Gross (February 17, 2012). "Is Romney developing a Santorum 'Google problem'?". Cable News Network (CNN).
  2. Melanie Jones (February 17, 2012). "Spreading Santorum: Rick's 'Google Problem' Spreads To Romney, Gingrich". International Business Times.
  3. Tim Dickinson (February 14, 2012). "Mitt Gets His Own 'Google Problem': SpreadingRomney.com". Rolling Stone.
  4. "Google problem spreading from Santorum to Romney -- Newt next?". New York Post. February 16, 2012.
Categories: