Talk:Lassie/Archive 1

Archive 1

ambigious?

I was redirected from "lass" but that should be some short form of the scotish "lassie" meaning girl. See lad (meaning boy). I never did a "see ambigious"...

Timmy Was Never in the Well

The article should mention something about Timmy being trapped in a well, as that is a very common reference in other shows. Arctic Gnome 00:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been a joke for years, but Timmy never fell in the well. In an episode with Jeff, a man from the water company fell down an old well. In the episode "Her Master's Voice," Paul, Timmy's father, was investigating pollution in the well house and almost fell down the well. The only regular player in the Lassie television series who ever fell down a well was Lassie herself, in the two-part story "For the Love of Lassie."

LSD?

The father on the TV show Lassie is also well known for creating LSD. WHAT?

That caught my eye too - the creator of LSD was Albert Hoffman, still alive after a hundred years, but never having starred in a TV series to the best of my knowledge (and if so, it's not on the wikipedia page). sheridan 11:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Lassie a border collie in the book, not a rough collie?--Syd Henderson 03:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lassie was always described in the books as a Rough Collie - her markings specifielly mentioned as: Mahogany / Sable (no such makings with a Border Collie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The original collie in the book version by Eric Knight was a tri-color collie, not a sable.LassieTV 05:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)LassieTV

Actually you are wronge - Lassie was described as a Mahoganny / Sable - looks like a tri, but does not have the black blaise down the nose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongheart

This article seems to say that Strongheart was a fictional character, but the Strongheart article says it is the stage name of an actual dog. --Gbleem 11:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

naber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.253.54.70 (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Weatherwax Need Fair Coverage Here

Most of this article seems to have come from a fairly biased set of sources. I've updated it some to try and give a more balanced view and to further detail the break between Weatherwax and Classic Media and who owns what rights (and the true history of how Carol Riggins became the current owner).

Also, Weatherwax mentions taking legal action again Lassie.net and all those people who violated the contracts by breeding and using their dogs commercially (which presumably would include Carol Riggins). Does anyone know if he has done so yet and is so, wha the status is? I have emailed Bob Weatherwax to find out from him, but if anyone else has any verified info, I think it should be included in the article. AnmaFinotera 06:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC) See below LassieTV 05:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)LassieTV

• Agree this article needs serious editing for NPOV. It's way too involved in an apparent legal dispute between two parties, lacking any reliable independent sources such as newspaper or magazine articles. But adding WP:OR isn't the best way to improve the situation. The unsourced info. pertaining to living persons should be deleted period, per WP:BLP. JGHowes ^talk - 13:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I did see quite a few newspaper and magazine articles about the dispute, though I'll admit I used the Weatherwax references because they were the first I found (and following the example already in the article where all the other citations were from a non-independent source). I should note I asked Weatherwax about legal status primarily because if he has filed legal documents, it should be verifable in the appropriate court records and citable, right?
    
    Not sure how one can talk about Lassie without talking about living persons since both both the breeding family and the owner of the "official" Lassie are still alive? I don't do much with bibliographical info, so can you suggest some ways of dealing with that? I do think it is important to mention, if for no other reason than it is technically a split in the Lassie line, with the official next generation by bloodline being Weatherwax's Laddie, while the official by trademark being Riggin's Hey Hey. AnmaFinotera 14:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mention of the dispute between the two sides over Lassie trademarks, breeding, etc., is certainly appropriate for this article. I'm just saying that using the newspaper articles as "reliable sources" would be preferable to those (biased?) websites, as regards WP:BLP JGHowes ^talk - 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll try and get that resourced tonight. AnmaFinotera 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Note to moderators, I am re-editing my comments with my longstanding ID which I did not use last night.

AnmaFinotera should be careful not to confuse one reporter whose sources are an obsessed fan and a business associate of Bob Weatherwax as "quite a few newspaper and magazine articles about the dispute" that are "unbiased. Unless AnmaFinotera can cite more than this one reporter on this new "dispute", the changes and additions about a "controversy" are the equivalent of tabloid journalism.

"Lassie" is an international trademark owned by Classic Media. Only the trademark holder can decide what is "official" and what is not, who represents "Lassie" and what products are licensed. Neither Bob Weatherwax or www.lassie.net can decide. Since the early days of Lassie, the trademark has been leased by various corporations, beginning with Jack Wrather, and recently Broadway Video, Golden Books and now Classic Media. Bob Weatherwax may have inherited his father's name and a dog that played Lassie at the time, but without a separate contract from the trademark holder for his services, as his father had, he would have never been the official owner and trainer of Lassie after Rudd's death. When his contract ended in 2003 and neither he nor Classic pursued a renewal (Bob's words on his site) all use of the name and image of Lassie ended with the contract. I would suggest AnmaFinotera and others researching this "controversy", research trademark law and go directly to ALL the sources before jumping to incorrect conclusions and building a controversy where none exists. SiriusCreative 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)SiriusCreative

It is a controversy, or dispute, from both sides. Whether or not you agree with the claims of Weatherwax, there is in fact dispute. Some fans still see the Weatherwax collies as the only true Lassies, while others only go with what Classic Media decides. That is a dispute. I did not use other sources because they did not fall under the unbiased source policy. Also, you also need to use unbiased sources to back up your own claims about the situation. Neither Classic Media's own press releases nor the Lassie.net would qualify because they are the directly involved in the dispute. If you feel controversy is the wrong word, suggest another title, but the it is part of the Lassie history and should not be ignored. AnmaFinotera 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • The point you are missing is that ALL of the dogs in question ARE Weatherwax collies. The current "official" Lassie is a 9th generation direct descendant bred by Bob Weatherwax and given to Carol Riggins. (Weatherwax does not dispute this fact) The current official Lassie became Lassie in 1998 after the original campaign to restore a line dog to the role. That dog was sent to finish the role BY Weatherwax Trained Dogs. Robert Weatherwax was the script consultant but he was not onsite. Carol Riggins was the owner and trainer. Check IMDB or the actual credits of the show to verify this. Mr. Weatherwax's claims now that he did not select the dog are easily dismissed if you look at the actual credits of the last 13 episodes of the show.

I do not dispute that some fans would like to see Bob to return to the role of "official", but that cannot happen without a contract from Classic Media. What you are calling a "dispute" has nothing to do with trademark or contract law. Some fans of James Bond for example prefer Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan, or fans of Harry Potter may have preferred Richard Harris as Dumbledore, but it doesn't make it as "dispute". Was it a dispute when one fan wrote to the BBC and British media wrote a lot of articles on the 2005 movie being done without a line dog? Where are those references? Where are the references to the original controversy in 1998 when the first time ever a line dog was not used on screen? Why just these current claims from one source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCreative (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not missed that point, and the article does state quite clearly that Hey Hey is Howard's son and a thus Weatherwax bred dog. It also does not state that Weatherwax didn't want Hey Hey's used in the show, only his use there after. The credits of the show do not "easily dismiss" the claims since most shows use stock credits. AnmaFinotera 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • The credits in IMBD are based on union paychecks. All work is tracked by SAG and that is why you will often see people listed as "uncredited". The paycheck credits them. As for Cinar, the entire opening and closing credits were redone 3 times throughtout the show with the different dogs used. Furthermore, if they used stock credits, it should have never listed Riggins as owner and trainer, but Bob from the previous episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCreative (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Weatherwax states on his own site that he did allow Hey Hey to do the show in Howard's place, but not that he intended Hey Hey to be the next true Lassie. There obviously was a dispute considering there was a split between Classic Media and Weatherwax over the actual dogs (not the trademark). When, after over 50 years of Weatherwax collies being "Lassie" and either Rudd or Robert as the trainer suddenly changes, that is a major change. It may have nothing to do with trademark or contract law (though Weatherwax contends Riggins violated her contract), but it has everything to do with the article's subject, which is Lassie. If it is a non-issue, why do you seem so bound and determined that no one know about it? AnmaFinotera 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I am bound and determined because much of what is being written on his site is lies and there is more to the story than he is telling. They are being addressed through legal means. There is more than one side to this and all the lies in the world do not change the truth. If your name was being dragged in the mud with no proof or documention, I think you would also be equally determined that others should not use a biased rant as an "unbiased source" to add to an encyclopedia reference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCreative (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not going to waste a bunch of my time arguing with you. Considering the letter Weatherwax posted to/about your site, Lassie.net, I doubt you are any more unbiased than I am. That is why I'm grateful to JGHowes for stepping in and helping get this article back on a more balanced view (and enduring this back and forth about it).AnmaFinotera 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Nice. That comment alone should strike the entire controversy edit by you because it proves you are totally biased towards Weatherwax and are not interested in presenting a balanced view. Are you taking his rant as an "unbiased" source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCreative (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • I mentioned the letter because it goes to show that your edits are also extremely biased since you have good reason to be angry, though one look at the Lassie.net site also proves that it is not an unbiased source in any way, shape, or form. To quote your own site: "Cathy and Joan are truly blessed and thankful to have the priviledge of working with Lassie all these years and to have formed lifetime friendships with Lassie's owner/trainer, cast and crew members, licensees, licensors, authors, media, and of course, many Lassie fans around the world." Also, no one is dragging YOUR name through the mud. You aren't Lassie, Classic Media, Bob Weatherwax, or Carol Riggins...are you, simply an associate? And no, I do not take his rant as an unbiased source, however it did contain some information that seemed to be agreed on by both parties and it does at least give indication of the issue at hand. Also, please stop going back and modifying your comments hours later. It makes it very confusing. Just add a new comment. AnmaFinotera 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are the number of articles you can't seem to cite about the so called "controversy" other than the one reporter using biased sources close to Weatherwax? Please cite them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCreative (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Please stop quoting stuff from a discussion you were not apart of and obviously have not bothered to look into. If you had, you'd know that discussion pertained to an earlier version of this article. Also, please stop breaking up comments! I doubt many folks would find it easy to follow this discussion because of it (I've gone back and added signatures to try and fix the mess). AnmaFinotera 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read Bob's site where he himself says he did not pursue a renewal of his contract in 2003? The contract ended. It was not broken. That's not a dispute. The contract ended. The dispute over dogs was in 1998 with Cinar. Carol Riggins didn't even begin as the official Lassie until 2005, two years later from the end of his contract. If you are going to take him on his word, then you shouldn't discount that part of his words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCreative (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I did indeed read that and I had put it in the article, however it was removed because it was still from a biased. If you view the article history, you would have seen that. AnmaFinotera 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering after 10 years he has suddenly decided to attack everyone who worked with him and supported him with a lot of claims that are not backed up with any documentation or court records, one should ask- Why now? Considering in 1998 he was quoted as saying he didn't mind that non-line dogs were used in the Cinar series (Seatle Times), one should ask- Why now? Considering he is making all these "claims" against Riggins, and other selected pup owners, and not all, one should ask- why can't you find any court records? Why hasn't anyone asked Classic Media what their take is on why he's no longer under contract? Why rely on only one source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCreative (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Do you have a link to that article? Have you tried finding any either? There are not that many unbiased sources on EITHER side of the issue (and I personally don't have time right now to try and figure how to link to articles in log in only sources). Many of the news articles discussing only Classic Media's sides were press releases. I did indeed look for articles detailing both sides, but there really are not that many available and the non-fiction works about Lassie and documentaries were all done before these events occured. AnmaFinotera 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we definitely need someone unbiased to do more research and present a truly balanced view of this situation, from all parties.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCreative (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, and that is not you, nor is it likely to be me since I do indeed tend to favor Weatherwax (and your rabitity doesn't help). I initially started the editting process because the information wasn't mentioned at all and as a Lassie fan, I was disappointed to see that no mention was made of the current Lassie not being the Weatherwax selected heir. Now that the starting point is done and my own writings were edited down to keep it more balanced and fair, I hope other editors who do NOT have a financial stake in things will step up and work on it more. AnmaFinotera 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • I agree. I'm sorry to have been so strong about this but there are very severe libelous accusations against various people being made on Bob's site that are not substantiated by any unbiased source, or court documents, and I do take issue with that being used on Wikipedia. Between 2003-2005 when there was no trainer at all under contract, then the movie came with no line dog, and then in 2005 when Carol Riggins was put under contract. During that time we spent a good deal of our time answering questions from fans about what happenedas each new phase came along. It didn't make the news because it was a simple business transaction when the trademark was sold, and equally a normal end of a businss contract for Bob in 2003. If you read between all the accusations, Bob himself acknowledges all this on his own site. At the time Bob was not making any allegations against anyone and normal business deals and contracts coming to their normal end are not news worthy to mainstream media, only to serious fans who have been following Lassie through our sites since 1995. For four years after Bob's contract ended, he was barely heard from in any form.

The only article you cited for the supposed controversy uses sources currently associated with Bob and is heresay since the two people making the claims were not involved in any of our dealings. I still don't know where the information that Carol Riggins was supposed to have said about being trained by Rudd to be an assistant trainer came from. It certainly wasn't a quote from her directly because that information is false. She met Rudd on the set of Lassie when she was working a wild cat for the Lassie show. She did bookkeeping for other trainers to supplement her income and started doing Rudd's books. While there he would ask for her assistance at times to help train/work Lassie. When Rudd passed, she continued doing books for Robert. Robert's first show on his own was "The New Lassie" in the 1980's and his assistant trainer for the first year was his son, Robert Jr. Carol became assistant trainer the second year of the series. Robert Jr continued in the business with other trainers (see www.robertweathewax.com) Bob himself didn't start the allegations about breeding rights, ownership of "Lassie line dogs" and claims about contracts that have supposedly been broken until the past 2 months, nearly four years later, and all of this came out of left field. As far as the Weatherwax "selected heir" goes, what I don't think you understand is that when his contract ended in 2003, and the trademark had been sold by the family in 2000, when he didn't pursue a renewal (for whatever reason) he no longer had any say in what dog was Lassie, whether it was a line dog or not. It still comes back to without a contract with Classic Media to supply a dog, all this talk about producing the next "Lassie" really doesn't mean anything, since as he states, he can't call his dogs Lassie without that contract. Things are the way they are because of the choices he made. He could have chosen to pursue a contract renewal and all of us might still be working together, but he didn't and that not anyone's fault but his.

On a personal note, we spent over 10 years supporting and promoting Bob and Lassie, preserving the Weatherwax history and legacy and running a campaign to restore him when it was the first time in history a non-line dog was used, always making sure he was presented in the best possible light no matter what was happening. We did this out of love for Lassie and the Weatherwax legacy, NOT for profit, and if we wind up in court, our books show us STILL IN THE RED today from day one. Lassie 8 was an absolutely magical dog that touched us deeply, that we were lucky enough to spend lots of time with professionally and personally and who we loved him tremendously. He was the father of our own line dogs that we love dearly. We have always told anyone who interviewed us how blessed we were to have the experiences we have had. To have Bob write that we didn't care and how we profited off his work is the ultimate betrayal. So yes, that along with the other false accusations, I am angry to have it show up on Wikipedia as an unbiased citation and I'm sorry if I took that out on you.

We wish Bob the best and success in his future ventures, and think it's great he's doing Bob and Laddie appearances. He wants a flashy website with bells and whistles and presenting his history with Lassie? Go for it!, but not when it's full of lies to attempt to discredit others and damage reputations. He's one of the world's greatest animal trainers. He doesn't need to trash others to be successful. We have never wished him ill will. We could pull a lot of substantiated skeletons out of Bob's closet, and those of some of his newest associates, with full documentation and links to unbiased sources, but we choose not to because it's not in his best interests, or in the best interests of Lassie. Just trust me when I say that there is a lot more to what happened that split Bob, Carol and Classic Media, and lassie.net than any version you read on his site, OR ours, or in any news source. The truth lies somewhere buried in the middle.

My allegiance as far as Lassie is concerned is to Lassie, and what is best for Lassie, not any particular player that happens to be involved at any time. Being Bob Weatherwax does not make him anymore credible than we are if he can't back up his claims. That's my opinion and you are certainly entitled to a different one. SiriusCreative 03:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)SiriusCreative

"Controversy" section

Folks, let's try to observe Wikipedia standard practice. First, please sign your comments using four tildes, i.e., ~~~~. Secondly, keep the comments in sequential order so everyone can follow the discussion easily.

Thirdly, speaking as one of the Wikipedia editors who has worked on this article and hundreds of others, our goal is simply to develop a neutral, factually accurate online encyclopedia article.

In doing so, however, we must follow Wikipedia guidelines, which require use of verifiable sources only, such as news media accounts, books, etc. Blogs, self-produced websites, and Original Research are not used in Wikipedia articles. We as Wikipedia editors cannot "contact the Weatherwax family", etc., as that is prohibited Original Research.

With that in mind, if there are any additional reliable, published sources we should incorporate into this article for greater accuracy, what are they? JGHowes ^talk - 19:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree totally which is why I am opposed to the use of Weatherwax Trained Dogs as a source of "unbiased" information. The one news source in question (whose only sources are the former fan club president for Bob (Laurie Ackerman- who is mentioned througout Bob's site as a good friend) and his current business partner/agent Bill Titlebaum)and it did not go into the detail that this new Wikipedia Controversy article does and that is ALL taken directly from www.weatherwaxtraineddogs.com site. It is not unbiased, it is his opinion. It also makes unsubstantiated claims against people with no proof, no documentation and absolutely no court actions. Had any of those been presented to support the claims, there would be nothing to argue, but it does not, and cannot because none of it exists!

The comments about what the Weatherwax family thinks or contends is all from weatherwaxtraineddogs.com and it only represents Bob Weatherwax, not the entire family and is Bob's biased promotional site, not a news source.

I also am opposed to it being the only article mentioned when there were two actual controversies in previous years, fully documented by many unbiased news sources that are conveniently left out when Weatherwax's dogs were not used. If I provide you with the actual media articles as they appeareded on links, can they be included?

BTW, the Cinar show in question was NOT The New Lassie, that show aired in the 1980's.

• • If you have them, please post them here and let an experienced editor, like JGHowes include them. You must provide the links themselves for sources, however, not just the content. For now, I undid your edits until they can be discussed here first. Please post your suggested rewrites here so they can be reviewed and hashed out so we don't have to keep redoing the article over and over (and please source any new materials).

If someone wishes to re-write the controversy section of this article to show ALL the claims and not just one side, that might be different, but all the "sides" are what Wikipedia considers "biased". However, the current article, as it stands, is completely biased, and unfair to everyone else, except Bob Weatherwax.

• • I notice that the controversy section has now been somewhat altered but there were still references that were not substantiated by anyone other than Bob's website. I have edited the section again today to delete the references from Bob's site with his opinions, and other references that have no citation, that have no substantiated sources. These include the claim that there were trademark disputes and breeding right disputes in the late 1990's. The only dispute that was fully documented by media around the world was that a non-line dog was hired by Cinar to be Lassie after Bob's dog had completed 26 episodes.

70.17.232.96 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)SiriusCreative

Temp Lock. In the interest of keeping the article from going all over the place as we go back and forth, would it be a good idea to have it temporarily locked to editing while the contents are hashed out here and we find a way to balance out both sides of the issue? AnmaFinotera 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Going all over the place? I see my few changes that were not from an unbiased source were undone before it was locked. The few comments I deleted were not for any unbiased source, not factual and not even from the one news article cited. The way it stands right now it has a multitude of errors and information from weatherwaxtraineddogs.com as it's basis. Please explain to me why the information there is deemed credible and not from lassie.net? Neither owns Lassie. Classic Media does. Our interest in in Lassie history and Lassie facts. Whether it's Bob, Carol or Birds and Animals supplying the dog, the interest is the same and always has been.

Now let's get to the details. There was no dispute on trademarks or breeding rights in the late 1990's. It is totally false. The first time any mention of breeding rights was in the past year. The trademark was never in dispute. The campaign in 1997 was all about non-line dogs being used, and the show was not The New Lassie. The New Lassie was the title of a Lassie show that ran in the mid 1980's, a decade before. Where did this information come from?

You are still linking to weatherwaxtraineddogs.com as an unbiased citing for parts of the write up. the weatherwaxtraineddogs.com site is an biased promotional site for Bob Weatherwax, and only Bob Weatherwax. He does not represent the entire family, nor does his site. There are other family sites that dispute what he says about the history of Lassie, and even which family members were involved. There are other family members that provide info and photos to lassie.net who are in the process of putting up sites that dispute his claims as well. Will you link to all of these sites and lassie.net to provide balance? BTW, The name Weatherwax Trained Dogs is not 60 years old either, and it didn't ever belong to Rudd Weatherwax. It didn't legally exist when Rudd was alive.

The original business was named Studio Dog Training and it was owned by Rudd and Frank Weatherwax. WTC was formed after Rudd's death in 1985 and my understand is it consisted of Bob and his first wife, who he has since divorced years ago. Unless he has recently added someone else, the only member of Weatherwax Trained Dogs as an company is Bob Weatherwax. To continue to say "The Weatherwax family" and citing Bob's site implies cohesion among the family and it's not substantiated just because Bob said it. No other Weatherwax heir is making these unsubstantiated claims. Being Bob Weatherwax does not make him anymore credible than we are if he can't back up his claims.

At the end of the day, the question still comes down to is Wikipedia going to stand by it's rules of only using unbiased sources, as defined by Wikipedia, for it's content or not? So far it seems to be the answer is no. Entries like this that are biased and unsubstantiated are the reason schools will not allow students to use Wikipedia as a reference source.

To give this "controversy" any mention beyond the one "news" article, which is questionable since the sources are current associates of Bob, is really stretching the rules. To not allow factual errors to be corrected such as the name of the show and factual info of what the first campaign was realy about to be included is nowhere near accurate or fair.

I don't disagree with the entry being locked since it keeps others from adding to the allegations without proof, however, how do we get what is there correct without using a biased source?

70.17.232.96 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)SiriusCreative

• I've added a "Disputed section" tag to alert the reader that it is problematic. Again, everyone please sign your comments using 4 tildes (~~~~). Many good points have been raised here and I for one would be happy to take a stab at drafting a complete re-write, for review and comment here.. (I'm neutral and don't even have a dog! ) JGHowes ^talk - 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks JGHowes. I appreciate that.

I have gone through the various media coverage that I have and uploaded most of the documents to our server. Even though these reside on our server they are actual PDF copies of online content with links, or scanned directly from the print copies with newspaper names clearly visible. There is a lot more on my other PC but this is good for starters. Not everything has current links on our pages because we have been undergoing a design change, but you should be able to view all of these using the links below.

Note there is nothing about trademark disputes or breeding rights disputes prior to 2007. Major media outlets such as CBS spent weeks and traveled across the country to interview everyone and make sure it was accurate.

1997 Cinar Lassie TV Campaign- the first time a line dog was not used on screen in TV series

http://www.lassie.net/press/kcstar.pdf Kansas City Star

http://www.lassie.net/seattletimes.pdf Seatle Times- Electronic dogfight

http://www.lassie.net/press/dogandkennelcampaign.pdf Dog and Kennel magazine

http://www.lassie.net/press/savelassiecca.pdf Collie Club of America Bulletin Save Lassie campaign article - interview with Robert Weatherwax follows below

http://www.lassie.net/press/ccainterviewwithbob.pdf Collie Club of America Bulletin interview with Robert Weatherwax

http://www.lassie.net/campaign.pdf Dogs Day by Day Calendar with info on campaign

2005 Lassie movie "controversy" - 2005 UK movie with non-line dog.

http://www.lassie.net/press/cca0906.pdf Collie Club of America Bulletin Review of 2005 Lassie movie noting the dogs were not line dogs.

http://www.lassie.net/press/battle2005.pdf The Mail on Sunday/London Battle of the Lassies June 2006

http://www.lassie.net/press/btirelandonline.pdf BT Ireland online- Lassie boycotted by angry fans

http://www.lassie.net/press/btireland2.pdf BT Ireland online- Fans up in arms over Lassie star

http://www.lassie.net/press/sundaymirrorbanda.pdf Sunday Morning London interview with trainer of non-line dog Mason

http://www.lassie.net/press/latimeslassiemovie.pdf LA Times review talking about new dog Mason

http://www.lassie.net/press/sundayexpress.pdf Sunday Express Talks about using makeup on non-line dog.

http://www.lassie.net/press/lassiescholastic.pdf Scholastic review noting the non-line dog.

http://www.lassie.net/press/mason.pdf Mason's story

Recent Lassie articles since 2006

http://www.lassie.net/press/nprweatherwax.pdf Recent article by NPR regarding the Weatherwax collies

http://www.lassie.net/press/tailinglassie.pdf Associated Press story on Lassie

http://www.lassie.net/press/nytimes052806.pdf NY Times (unfortunately this contains an error that HeyHey was one of four dogs that played Lassie in the 2005 movie. HeyHey had a cameo but not as the lead dog.

http://www.lassie.net/press/lassiecca50.pdf Collie Club of American Bulletin on 50th anniversary of Lassie in TV.

http://www.lassie.net/press/columbiadispatch.pdf Columbia Dispatch interview with Carol Riggins

http://www.lassie.net/press/cbs082606.pdf CBS Morning story on Lassie June 2006 A 10 minute video featuring Carol, lassie.net, Jon Provost and others accompanies this article. CBS went literally cross country from the east coast, to the midwest where Lassie was appearing, to northern California and southern California to research this piece. The video is still on their site at http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=1914012n and it features Carol Riggins, Jon Provost, Joan and Cathy of lassie.net and others.

http://www.lassie.net/press/wbz%20carol%20riggins%20interview.pdf WBZ Interview with Carol Riggins

Videos There is also actual media interviews/appearances on this page-

http://www.lassie.net/videos.htm

I also have photos from pre-2003 when Bob was still under contract from Macy's Petacular where a Birds and Animals dog was used for the appearance, the 100th Anniversary of the Postal Service where the same B&A dog was used, a Verizon commercial which featured one of their dogs as well (which is one of the few things I remember Bob being opposed to since Lassie looks for a new owner in the spot), and the GE Security commercial, where Lassie was CGI enhanced to become a KungFu dog. That commercial was a combination of stock footage of Lassie 8, some live shots with Laddie and the CGI animation.

This should give you some material to work with. I'll check back in a day or so and see what your thoughts are.

Thank you for trying to present a balanced view.

SiriusCreative 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)SiriusCreative

• • Correction to above. I think I may have mispoke on when Weatherwax Trained Dogs actually began. According the Frank Weatherwax's son, Richard (Bob's cousin) Studio Dog Training was formed by Frank and Rudd in 1940. That partnership continued until at least one of them died. WTD started sometime after that. (IMDB is showing Frank outliving Rudd. Frank passed in 1991, Rudd in 1985.) There may be court records on when that happened since I understand there was some family litigation between Frank and Rudd's heirs. There might be a business license in CA listed with a start date, probably in LA County since that's where Bob lived until a few years ago. Not sure if it was required for dog trainers, or if WTD is an LLC Richard also states some credits that are listed on Bob's site as Frank and Rudd's credits to Jack Weatherwax, such as Toto in The Wizard of Oz. So even the family is not in sync with facts, and as noted below, IMDB disputes both claims.

"In the meantime other the other Weatherwax brothers were going into the dog training business themselves. Jack Weatherwax became a trainer for Carl Spitz, and worked a cairn terrier named Terry in "The Wizard of Oz" in the role of "Toto".Bill Weatherwax was training dogs for Charlie Ruggles when he was drafted into the army in World War II. He was given the job of training war dogs. A job he did not approve of because he felt that dogs had no place in war. Frank and Rudd did not stay long with Rennie Renfro. They knew that to make money, they had to work for themselves. Therefore in 1940 they formed a partnership and went into business as "The Studio Dog Training School". It is from that partnership that came Lassie, "Old Yeller" and numerous other dog stars" http://home.att.net/~weatherwax/Weatherw.htm

Meanwhile, IMDB shows Toto as being owned/trained by Carl Spitz, no Weatherwax at all. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/fullcredits#cast and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1206094/bio

So there is not even agreement on who trained what famous dogs and the only unbiased site would be IMDB?

• • Now to add to the Cinar issues, IMDB shows the credits for Bob on the show as- Lassie" (consultant) (22 episodes, 1998-1999) (dog owner and trainer) (10 episodes) (dog supplier) (7 episodes, 1999) (dog owner) (4 episodes) (dog trainer) (1 episode) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0915802/

And under Carol Riggins IMDB lists this as credits for the Cinar series- "Lassie" (assistant: robert weatherwax) (14 episodes) (head dog trainer) (10 episodes, 1998-1999) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1222733/

I believe both of these confirm what I stated about Bob supplying the current dog that is the official Lassie under the Weatherwax banner and being a script consultant and not trainer on the last episodes of the series and disprove the claims on Bob's site. It also confirms Carol's status as assistant to Bob for 14 episodes and head dog trainer for the last episodes of the series, again under the Weatherwax banner.

SiriusCreative 01:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)SiriusCreative

• • • I just noticed that in the references section that one biased article with Bob's associates as sources and Bob's complete site are listed, while only the timeline page of lassie.net is listed. That sets up an unfair advantage until this whole thing is resolved, and that article itself is in dispute because of the sources used not being unbiased.

Since it is locked I cannot add the many media references above I listed that present a complete picture of Lassie in recent years. Can someone with that authority edit that for me please and either delete that article or add ALL of the articles I listed as well? Thanks.

SiriusCreative 02:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)SiriusCreative

• • • Another note. I have it on good authority that neither Rudd Weatherwax or Frank Weatherwax (or any other previous generations of family members were NEVER part of Weatherwax Trained Dogs!! That company was formed by Bob Weatherwax separate from them. I'm trying to track down more info with specific unbiased citations.

19:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)SiriusCreative

New draft

    As promised, I've worked on a rewrite of the Lassie article, with a revised "History" and "The dog behind the character" sections, eliminating the "Controversy section" by incorporating mention of the dispute in the "Dog behind the character" section. In doing so, many of the Lassie.net links could not be used as references, due to copyright issues (see WP:COPYVIO). Others required a Login password to access, which Wikipedia can't use, either (see WP:EL). Please look it over at my userpage here. JGHowes ^talk - 18:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks great. It presents the issue without delving into the he said, she said side of things and staying focused on what's most important, Lassie. :) (Sorry it took me while to comment...it has been a long long week). Thanks for working on this! AnmaFinotera 06:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • For the most part I think it's very good but there are still a few corrections that need to be made-

1) Any offspring not chosen to be the next Lassie were adopted with spay/neuter contracts This does not happen with every puppy. The fairest thing to say would be "most" but Bob gave/sold a number of pups without any contract at all and many have been used for commercial purposes and breeding. To say this gives Bob's claims against Carol some false merit. I think it should be dropped completely from Wikipedia because it's not verifiable one way or the other.

2) In response, "Hey Hey II", a ninth-generation direct descendent of Pal owned and trained by Carol Riggins, was brought in to assume the role of Lassie for the final thirteen episodes of the show in 1999.[7][8] Subsequent to the TV show's cancellation, Classic Media, which acquired the Lassie trademark in 2000, contracted with Riggins for Hey Hey II's promotion as the ninth generation Lassie.[2]

This is not accurate and the timeline is completely off.

1997- lassie.net wages successful campaign to restore a line dog to Cinar series (verified)

1998- Weatherwax Trained Dogs secures new contract to supply line dog for series and sends Carol Riggins and HeyHey to finish the series. (verified- IMDB- AnmaFinotera is incorrect assuming stock credits were used. They were shot and edited 3 times throughout the series to reflect changes in dogs/trainers)

2000- Weatherwax family (8 heirs of Frank and Rudd) sells trademark to Classic Media (This is a separate issue from Bob's separate contract to supply a dog) (no dispute on either side)

2003- Bob Weatherwax and Classic Media end contract to supply line dog to portray Lassie (no dispute)

2005- UK Movie is shot with 3 non-line dogs (spring 2005)(verified)

2005- Carol Riggins secures contract with Classic Media to supply line dog to portray Lassie. (fall 2005) (no dispute)

3) In recent years, a dispute between dog trainers Carol Riggins and Robert Weatherwax over ownership of the Pal bloodline has also attracted news media attention and fan website debates.[10]

Recent years? No, recent months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.232.96 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally false and unverifiable. First, a dog is considered property in most states. If a breeder gives or sells a dog to someone else without a contract, they give up all claims against it and it's offspring. Since this whole Carol/Bob thing is unsubstantiated and there is no litigation, it's all BS. Bob has a line dog, Carol has a line dog, and so do a lot of people (famous and not famous) that Bob gave/sold line dogs to without contracts that are breeding them and using them for commercial purposes.

Second, Bob's site is not a "fan" site, but his personal site and is totally biased and the one media report cites Laurie Ackerman as a source (his proclaimed longtime friend on his site and former fan club president), which makes the report totally biased. Without that one report, there is NO controversy from an unbiased source anywhere.

Third, this whole "controversy" is being manufactured by the people running Bob's site to make him appear to be a "victim" and everyone else to be "liars, thieves and stalkers". The real reasons Bob is no longer associated with Lassie are in public/government documents if anyone really cares enough to search for them. They are on public postings by other members of his family as well. BLACKLISTED LINK REMOVED. Personally, I think it's better to let sleeping dogs lie and keep Bob's contribution to Lassie untarnished, but it's up to him and his associates on how far they are willing to take their lies before the truth comes out in a courtroom.

To my knowledge, there is no legal action against anyone, there are no contracts that were broken, there is nothing but a lot of unsubstantiated claims on Bob's site. I know just saying this doesn't verify anything, but I strongly feel that until there is some actual litigation that can be cited this should be struck from Wikipedia as it is all just he said/she said.

Lastly, lassie.net is not a "fan" website. lassie.net is owned by Colliewoode Productions, LLC, a corporation whose purpose is to present the entire world of Lassie, not just owners/trainers of the dogs. Colliewoode Productions, LLC has worked in concert with the last 4 corporations that have held the Lassie trademark and today with Classic Media. We present FACTS as known from all sources on the entire world of Lassie.

I have to agree with a fan who recently wrote "my heart hurts that this is happening to Lassie". Lassie is more important than any person.

Thanks for all your help.

70.17.232.96 20:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)SiriusCreative

• Thanks for looking over the proposed alterations. Hopefully we can have consensus on the revised version now in the article. I've revised and reorganized the "History" and "Dog behind the character" sections, eliminating a separate "Controversy" section by integrating the relevant information in "Dog behind the character". Because the mainstream news media has reported on the Lassie-related complaints of Bob Weatherwax, we can't simply ignore mention of it, in my view. JGHowes ^talk - 02:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks and reads great. It mentions it without taking sides, which is what we need to do. Thanks for stepping in between us devoted fans to bring in some unbiased writing :) AnmaFinotera 03:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry I have been out of touch. Lots going on. We just premiered Lassie 10 this past weekend!! I just looked at the writeup and think it's looking good. Thanks so much JGHowes for a spectacular effort! SiriusCreative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.97.48 (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Which Lassie was in Big Jake

according to Weatherwax trained dogs yes they trained the Rough Collie used in the film BIg Jake (deeply buried in the bottom of the list) - According to Lassie web the dog used was a Lassie sibling. OK the 64 dollar question, which dog was used in the film (Sire & Dam) and why is no credit given to Weatherwax for training the dog - was Weatherwax surprised like everyone else when the Collie dies at the end and did not want to associated with this film Davegnz 15:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Weatherwax Trained Dogs didn't even exist when first Wayne movie, Hondo, was done and neither Rudd nor Frank were ever part of Weatherwax Trained Dogs. Weatherwax Trained Dogs is only Bob Weatherwax. The second Wayne movie was Big Jake and that was done by Bob under his company, Weatherwax Trained Dogs. My understanding is that dog was a line dog, but I don't know which one. It's a good quesiton to ask Bob Weatherwax directly from his website.

SiriusCreative 20:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)SiriusCreative

Film Section

Should the list of films include the Lassie TV episodes that were multi-part episodes later released as whole movies, such as Lassie's Great Adventure, Lassie: The Adventures of Neeka, etc. AnmaFinotera 03:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)