Jump to content

Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NJ Wine (talk | contribs) at 11:12, 24 June 2012 (Proposed move: formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2012Deletion reviewOverturned
January 25, 2012Articles for deletionNo consensus
April 24, 2012Articles for deletionKept

Archiving screwed-up?

I wanted to look at a recently archived discussion, so I went to the last chronological archive listed in the box at the top of this page, which was Archive 5. The discussion wasn't there. I figured out that the bot had moved this discussion, along with several others, to Archive 6, but the new archive hadn't been included in the box, meaning that if a user didn't know to look for it, they would have had no way of accessing any discussions after Archive 5. I manually added Archive 6 to the box, but if I hadn't stumbled on the problem, who knows how long those discussions might have been inaccessible.

I'm pretty sure that under normal conditions, the archiving bot will automatically add a link to a new archive page when the page is created; I'm guessing that it didn't, in this case, because of the addition of the "topical archive". (I could be wrong on both those counts.) I have no inherent objection to including the topical archive, but if including it means that archived discussions will become totally hidden and inaccessible unless an experienced enough editor is paying enough attention to manually list new archive pages, I have a very strong objection to that. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the topical archive it is not needed as many of the topics are extremely short. Arzel (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the chronological archives. Notice that there is now a title bar with the numbers 1 to 6. When the bot creates Archive 7, it should automatically be linked to this page. NJ Wine (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to tell ya but since the article has been moved to a new title all of the old archive pages will now have to be moved to the new name. The bot will mess up again if they're aren't. Brad (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; disregard. It's already been done. Brad (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name Seamus for a dog

I don't think this article should be redirected from Seamus_(dog) as this is not the only notable dog named Seamus. A dog named Seamus also sings on the Pink Floyd song "Seamus" on the album meddle, which is quite a notable achievement for a dog. It's quite possible that Romney's dog was named after this Seamus. -Porky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porksoda1978 (talkcontribs) 03:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article had the name Seamus (dog) for a long time, and Pink Floyd dog doesn't have its own article, I think that the redirect must be retained. NJ Wine (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further indicia of notability

The article has already survived AfD, but it's far too common that people who fail at AfD come back to try again later. In case anyone has doubts about notability, this thread on a progressive website compiles some (far from all) of the editorial cartoons that have used the dog-on-roof meme. Some of them comment on the incident itself. Others assume the reader's familiarity with it to comment about something else. JamesMLane t c 20:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine that a far left website making fun of a Republican! Stop the presses! Arzel (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you had troubled to follow the link, or even just read my post, you would see that the website you disparage was merely presenting a compilation of material from other sources. Most of the sources are those beloved by Wikipedia policy: corporate-owned for-profit mass media.
Incidentally, I'm intrigued by your description of DU as "far left" -- its policy is supportive of Obama, and people have been banned for excessively criticizing him from the right and from the left. Given that Obama got more votes for President than anyone else in the history of the republic, he's certainly not "far left". What it makes me wonder, though, is what you would consider "left" but not "far left", either in websites or politicians or commentators. It seems like an automatic reaction by right-wingers that anyone who's at all progressive is "far left" or "ultra liberal" or the like. JamesMLane t c 07:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

I propose that this be moved to 2012 Presidential Campaign Dog Wars. Because Wikipedia is NPOV, I'm sure we wouldn't want to give a false impression of bias by having an article about Romney's dog problems that excludes Obama's dog problems, and not having a corresponding article about Obama's dog problems. The fact that this is currently the case must be an unintentional oversight and gives the false impression that Wikipedia promotes a certain POV. This move will correct that oversight, and will make sure our readers don't get an inaccurate impression that Wikipedia is biased. William Jockusch (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus said that it doesn't belong in Political gaffes, but perhaps a more general Political pet incidents?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding this this issue has been previously discussed, and many editors either didn't think the two issues were related, or believed that merger on these two topics would be difficult to do in an unbiased manner.[1][2] NJ Wine (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]