Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Merger proposal

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for the proposed merger. HHIAdm (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog) → Mitt Romney dog controversy – This article is not so much the biography of the dog as it is the history of a political meme. Suggest renaming to put it in line with similar articles, such as Jeremiah Wright controversy or John McCain lobbyist controversy. Kelly ^hi! 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)See below. I now believe the target should be Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election, which also addresses neutrality concerns addressed by Debbie W.. Kelly ^hi! 13:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Tentative support for now, unless I see good arguments against it. I wouldn't characterize this as a "political meme," as my understanding of that word doesn't allow it to fit into that structural context, but I think the gist is that this article is more about the controversy surrounding something that Romney did and not the dog himself. "Romney dog controversy" would be something else to consider. SÆdon ^talk 19:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking about it too - perhaps "Mitt Romney dog controversy" would be a better name. Kelly ^hi! 19:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess at least one question to consider is what people will be searching for when looking for this article. I can only speak for myself but I didn't know the dog's name until I saw this article and I'm not sure how common it is. SÆdon ^talk 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the proposed target above, hopefully without screwing up the process. Kelly ^hi! 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Kelly, You cite the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the John McCain lobbyist controversy as examples of similiar article titles as the proposed 'Mitt Romney dog controversy'. However, there are also articles for Jeremiah Wright and Vicki Iseman (i.e., woman involved with lobbying), independent of the 'controversy' articles. See the discussion under Born2cycle's comments, but I think that 'controversy' is an possibly biased word that we should avoid if we can. Debbie W. 03:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think those people have articles because they're notable for other reasons besides the respective controversies. This dog really isn't, I don't believe. Kelly ^hi! 05:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Opposed for now, unless I see a good arguement for it. There was a previous discussion for calling this article 'Seamus controversy' or 'Seamus incident', but we opted against that because litlle evidence that those terms were used by the media or the public. There is an article for Monica Lewinsky and an article for Mary Jo Kopechne even though those individuals would not have article except as a result of a politician's behavior. Debbie W. 19:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a strange argument. Find me an article about Seamus that is not about the incident. Also, that delete discussion was not about any rename aspect. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A remarkably strange argument given that Monica Lewinsky is a biography and Lewinsky incident is the article on the issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Support This article is clearly not about the dog; it is about the incident. If it were about the dog, I would expect to see breeding, parentage, offspring, ownership or something along those lines. The dog is not even notable. Instead, the article talks about this one incident in great detail. It clearly needs to be moved to something related to the incident and the politics around the incident.WTucker (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Repeatedly characterizing this incident of animal cruelty as a "political meme" is offensive. Please stop it. El duderino ^(abides) 21:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for the offense, but the incident is completely non-notable except in its context as a political attack, as is the complementary issue of Obama eating dogs. Kelly ^hi! 22:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be the way you see it, to conflate the two incidents. But how a man treats the family pet, then later excuses his behavior, is an example of his character. How a child eats what is given to him ~~without question,~~ then later reflects on it, is a different matter entirely. El duderino ^(abides) 22:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC) And your apology is disingenuous: you just repeated the terms in the thread above, even adding 'puppy-munching' in an obvious attempt to rile other editors here. Or do you normally revel in such graphic depictions? El duderino ^(abides) 00:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, if you're that greatly offended by such mild terminology, you might be too emotionally involved with the topic to edit this article neutrally. Kelly ^hi! 00:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh don't worry about me, sweetie. Though your faux-concern isn't really fooling anyone. Calling you out on your poor word choice (editorially) isn't the same as being offended (personally) so we can do without the assumptions bordering on personal attack. El duderino ^(abides) 00:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Sweetie"? Kelly ^hi! 00:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you know he ate it without questioning it? That isn't indicated in the biography. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I think Seamus is sufficiently well known as the dog that is at the root of this controversy to be the (appropriately disambiguated) title of the article about it, per WP:COMMONNAME (The Revenge of Seamus,Dog-eat-dog world of US politics still has a bone to pick about Seamus, Why Seamus Matters). We should only resort to using a contrived descriptive title like "Mitt Romney dog controversy" when there is no name by which the topic is commonly referred in reliable sources. That's not the case here.
It's true that the article is not about Seamus, but I don't think anyone familiar with the topic would expect it to be, so I don't see that as a problem, much less a reason to not use it as a title. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Even though there are a number of instances of it in Wikipedia, I think we should avoid titles with the word 'controversy.' I was part of the discussion that changed the title of the article Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality to Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality. The word 'controversy' in a title to some extent implies a problem, and thus is not the most neutral point of view. Unless there is no alternative or unless something is commonly referred to as the '[fill in the blank] controversy', then we should avoid using that kind of terminology. There is no absolutely perfect name choice for this article, but I did a Google News search, and 'Seamus (dog)' produced 641 news hits, 'Romney dog controversy' produced 232 results, and 'Mitt Romney dog controversy' produced 138 news hits. Based on that and my dislike of the word 'controversy' as a title, I think we should stick with 'Seamus (dog)'. Debbie W. 03:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Was ready to suggest the move myself after evalutation of the EL's and the point that Debbie has been trying to make about the story. While searches regrading this topic are usually found with the words 'Seamus' it is clear that this article, or the incident, has little relevance to the dog itself. The first section is about the incident which is a clear indication what the point of the article is really about. Arzel (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Support per WP:BDC 1E (Biographies of dead canines: Subjects notable only for one event). The general rule in most cases is to cover the event, not the dog. — AjaxSmack 04:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Support: The dog in itself is not notable, aside from the one incident. Ajax has a good rationale and I agree with him/her. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs, the suggestion has been made by kelapstick (talk · contribs) that this article and Obama Eats Dogs be merged into Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election. Kelly ^hi! 13:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing the proposed name in the middle of an RM seems improper, even manipulative. All discussion beforehand is about the first proposed name (or second, really, since you changed it after the first 'vote'). El duderino ^(abides) 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My comment is timestamped and the discussion will be ongoing for some time - I'm sure the closing administrator will be smart enough to sort it out. Kelly ^hi! 19:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you prefer to put the burden upon an admin. I see. El duderino ^(abides) 20:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The attempts to personalize the discussion are a little tiresome - would it be possible to discuss content and not contributors? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 20:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is tiresome. But I also see that, like Arzel and other activist editors, you mistakenly think disagreement is the same as personal attack. Or, more likely, you're just crying wolf. So is this comment [1] an example of you not personalizing? El duderino ^(abides) 21:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

See "sweetie" above. Kelly ^hi! 22:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: unresponsive. Funny how a presumptive and snide remark like "you might be too emotionally involved" can elicit more sarcasm than you can handle. Take your own advice, stop personalizing. El duderino ^(abides) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

- I support removing the bloat and merging two lines somewhere, the suggested Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election seems correct - if it really has to stay as an article , then - Mitt Romney's dog, Seamus seems reasonable - Youreallycan 19:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge into a newly created Presidential Dog controversies, 2012, together with Obama Eats Dogs. Both are out there, sufficiently quoted, but are equally silly--209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge both this and Obama Eats Dogs into ~~either Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election or~~ Mitt Romney dog controversy, ~~I don't care which.~~ —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Amending my !vote, as the point made about this being brought up in the 2008 election means it doesn't make sense to tie it only to the 2012 election. That title was a bit silly anyway. The "dog controversy" title makes sense, since this article is not about the dog, but what happened to it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Merging the opposing articles here into some unified "dogs" article is a very bad idea. The original dog was a proxy: the latter dogs are mere props. The initial proposition here (a move to Mitt Romney dog controversy) is an excellent idea which resolves the coatrack issue on that particular article: other issues should be resolved independently. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose move. Seamus also came up in 2008 for Romney [2][3], so it doesn't make sense to roll this into an article only dealing with the 2012 race. A look at Category:Individual dogs shows the current use mirrors the naming convention for dogs of politicians (Pickles (dog), Millie (dog), Bo (dog), Barney (dog)) and I don't see why Romney's dog should be singled out as a "controversy". Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

All of those articles are about the dog. This article is about how Romney transported the dog. Arzel (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose on editorial grounds because of WP:Due weight. The incident of Obama eating dog as a child is not on par with Romney's abuse of the family pet. Current campaign/media usage of these incidents is secondary, if even that. I agree with User:Gobonobo that Romney's incident has been reported for far longer. And while I've waited to make up my mind since this thread started, I've seen User:Kelly grow increasingly non-collaborative and manipulative. Her quick eagerness to accept the alternate title is an indication of where exactly she hoped to go with this article, after she found that could not get rid of it. El duderino ^(abides) 04:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Where was the attempt to get rid of the article? Just curious because it seems to have slipped my memory. Kelly ^hi! 04:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.