Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/Romney's other pets

WP:DUE.... weight of certain points...

Do the editors purporting that this article deserves a home in Wikipedia have any other history on how Romney treated Seamus or how Romney treated his other pets?

I feel this is entirely out of proportion to the whole of Seamus' life or the lives of Romney's other pets and other animal-related interactions. The way this article comes off is implying that Romney is the fabled Evil Dog-wraith of Clucotu, who lies in wait near kennels and trees to gobble up the unsuspecting, chewing on the bones of his victims, his fabled battle cry being "let there be no treats!".

Is there ANY documentation whatsoever to show the timeline of Seamus the Innocent's life under the ghoulish doglord Romney, or is this pretty much it? (Yes, I know I'm being a little over the top, but the question is legit.) -- Avanu (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is documentation that Romney saved a dog from drowning (along with a family of six) - should that be included here or does it not fit the point of the article? Kelly ^hi! 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I don't think those in the media that are pushing this story really care about anything nice that Romney has done regarding Seamus or any of their other pets they may have had. Arzel (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with adding other information about Romney's pets in the supplimentary information section if there is a reliable source that ties it to the Seamus incident. Debbie W. 18:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Azrel, comments like that are completely unnecessary and just stink of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. As I have already explained at AFD and ANI, I am apolitical, I don't have a bias here one way or the other except towards reliable sources and WP policy. I have fought to include the article but at the same time have pushed to remove things like the "Neologism" section (now removed), yesterday I brought up the parody video in the external links that you yourself unsuccessfully tried to remove (now removed), and I agreed that the title was misleading and supported a move to a more honest and neutral title...so for you to insinuate that I would try to keep favorable material out of the article based on some personal bias of mine, or that I think this article should be here for any other reason than the fact that it's reliably sourced, is rude and ridiculous.

Please keep the focus of your comments on the content of this article and not on the contributors. For one, it doesn't help at all, and for two it makes you look like a POV pushing partisan which just undermines your credibility. If you want to argue politics there are plenty of forums on which to do so, but this is a talk page to discuss improvements to an article. And yes, I know that you did not mention me specifically, but your comment applies to me since I am an editor who is "pushing" this story. SÆdon^talk 19:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to the media sources that were pushing this story, such as Gail Collins. My response was to Avanu regarding additional information regarding Seamus hence my single :. However, I can see how it could be viewed as directed to editors here. Arzel (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. SÆdon^talk 22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I have tried to make my initial statement a little more clear. Arzel (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And I had struck my paragraph but it appears it was accidentally restored, striking again. SÆdon^talk 22:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the dog rescue: I would like to see a source (either primary or secondary should work) making the connection between the Seamus incident and this story. IOW, if Romney responded to allegations of animal abuse by pointing to some history of showing respect to animals it would be a valid entry in the article. I could imagine something like "In response to criticisms of his animal rights record by X organization, Romney pointed out that he had blah blah blah." But the source Kelly provided is from 2003 and isn't connected to this story either by Romney or a third party, so for us to do so would be a synthesis problem at best and the introduction of a loosely associated statement at worst . SÆdon^talk 20:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that story has nothing to do with this incident even if it is an interesting story. Arzel (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is all over the news right now. Just one example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-a-private-man-in-a-public-world-is-silent-on-tales-of-altruism/2012/04/10/gIQA1DQ38S_story.html

Go to Google News Search and type "Mitt Romney Jet Ski" -- Avanu (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I read this article, and I see little connection between this issue and the Seamus article. To start out, Romney and his sons are rescuing a family on a boat, including their dog. It's not just a dog rescue. Second, I question the notability of this story considering its only briefly mentioned in the Washington Post article. I agree with Saedon that you need a story about Romney or one his major supporters connecting the dog rescue and the Seamus incident. Otherwise, this is a case of undue weight being given to a story. Debbie W. 20:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a supporter of Romney, just an article from an RS or a statement from the Romneys themselves. SÆdon^talk 21:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Kelly: "Romney saved a dog from drowning"

That depends on what you mean by "Romney." The dog was saved by Josh Romney, not Mitt Romney. Josh gets credit for saving the dog, and he also gets credit for this memorable quote: "one of the daughters had a pretty good set of lungs on her."

Debbie: "It's not just a dog rescue."

Correct, and it's also not a dog rescue by Mitt Romney. It's a dog rescue by Josh Romney.

Various people are wondering why the Romney campaign isn't pushing this story. I think this is the answer. If it was a story about only a dog being rescued by only Mitt, that would be stronger, and I think they would use it. That's the story that's implied by various headlines and statements that we're seeing (e.g., "Romney saved a dog from drowning"). But then when you read the details it's a letdown to discover that it wasn't only a dog, and it wasn't only Mitt, and the dog was actually rescued by the wrong Romney. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Avanu: "Do the editors purporting that this article deserves a home in Wikipedia have any other history on how Romney treated Seamus"

The information we have regarding "how Romney treated Seamus" does indeed extend beyond the story of what happened on that one day in 1983.

Apparently there were many other similar days. Hardly anyone ever mentions this, but they apparently carried him home (from Canada to Boston) the same way, so he spent another 12-15 hours up there on the return trip (despite the difficulty on the first trip). Also, Ann Romney said "we traveled all the time," which seems to indicate that there were many similar trips. As far as we know, this was their standard way of transporting him on all trips (e.g., the trip home from Canada, and also other roundtrips between Boston and Canada). It's not as if they're saying 'we did it just that one time.'

We also know that the dog had a history of running away from home, which is a sign of neglect. Dogs and traffic don't mix, and it's the responsibility of the dog owner to prevent that from happening. Either give your dog proper training, or get a fence. The running away is a definite indication of neglect, and it's also a possible indication of abuse (i.e., the dog might be trying to escape).

Aside from being prevented from running into traffic, dogs also need to be prevented from eating things that make them sick, like the "turkey" Mrs. Romney mentioned. It's telling that Mrs. Romney seems oblivious to the fact that the "turkey" anecdote itself reveals neglect, in that the dog was not properly supervised and trained. Maybe this happened just once, but that seems unlikely. The same circumstances that made it possible on that one occasion were probably also present on other occasions.

We also know that they gave the dog away a few years later, which tends to indicate that they weren't too attached to him, which is consistent with the apparent pattern of neglect and abuse. A normal dog owner would never give their dog away, unless there's some kind of serious problem.

I have already explained all this elsewhere on this page. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Mitt Romney kicks himself every night for not instilling better values in his kids. If only he had gotten to the dog first, he could have stuck it in a crate and made it poop itself on the way back to shore. Mr. Jukebox, you'd probably find a way to take the shine off the sun if we gave you a chance. Point is, the Romney family worked together and instantly set out to help these people, including their dog, despite Mitt Romney's best efforts at snuffing the little thing out of existence. No one talks about how the hole got in the boat in the first place.... but I bet we can't verify his whereabouts earlier in the day. -- Avanu (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"I bet we can't verify his whereabouts earlier in the day."

As I've already said elsewhere, when you resort to gratuitous sarcasm that's a good way of letting everyone know that you've run out of actual arguments.

You asked a factual question and I gave you a factual answer. If you can identify any problems with the facts or reasoning I presented, that would be helpful. As it is, it seems as if you weren't really interested in hearing a serious answer to the question you asked. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You gave me a biased interpretation of his motivations and downplayed his role in the rescue. If you're not going to deal with things neutrally, then it just leads to the idea that nothing is serious. I get the impression that after Prometheus brought fire, you would snarkily chime in, yeah well why didn't he bring it sooner? -- Avanu (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"You gave me a biased interpretation of his motivations"

I have no idea what you're talking about. Where did I do that? Please cite the words I used and explain what was "biased" about them.

"downplayed his role in the rescue"

No, I haven't "downplayed his role in the rescue." Unlike the people who are saying "Romney saved a dog from drowning," I'm describing the events accurately. Mitt Romney was present at a scene where a dog was rescued by his son Josh. As far as we can tell, Mitt never touched that dog.

"If you're not going to deal with things neutrally"

I can't find the part of your comment where you demonstrate any failure on my part "to deal with things neutrally." This is one of many examples of you failing to understand the difference between an assertion and an argument.

"I get the impression that after Prometheus brought fire, you would snarkily chime in, yeah well why didn't he bring it sooner?'

It would be better if you addressed the things I have actually said, and not hypothetical statements of mine that exist only in your imagination based on some "impression." Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is my last attempt in this section to reason with you. 1. 'biased interpretation of his motivations': You said "If it was a story about only a dog being rescued by only Mitt, that would be stronger, and I think they would use it." You're implying that Mitt Romney doesn't talk about this because it isn't self-serving enough. 2. 'downplayed his role in the rescue': You said "when you read the details it's a letdown to discover that it wasn't only a dog, and it wasn't only Mitt, and the dog was actually rescued by the wrong Romney". What exactly is the wrong Romney? The actual story on this says "We tore out of there and my dad hopped on the other Jet Ski and came out right after us." See, it was a group effort, and for some reason if we're talking about Mitt, you say "Mitt Romney was present at a scene where a dog was rescued by his son Josh." That is a distortion of events. The three of them, along with some bystanders helped this family of people. It wasn't the heroic Josh on his own any more than it was Mitt on his own. You add bias every time you talk about Mitt Romney, and you don't need to be editing this article if you can't deal with things in a neutral tone. Things can be strictly factual and at the same time be deceptive. We don't need that in any article. We need an honest article, not simply 'factual'. -- Avanu (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"You're implying that Mitt Romney doesn't talk about this because it isn't self-serving enough."

You can choose to look at it that way, but it's not what I said. What I said, essentially, is that he refrains from presenting this as a story about him personally rescuing a dog because it's not a story about him personally rescuing a dog. In a way, I'm complimenting him, by pointing out that he's less dishonest than his supporters (who are indeed implying that he directly, personally rescued a dog that was directly, personally rescued by someone else).

"What exactly is the wrong Romney?"

From the perspective of the people claiming that Mitt rescued the dog, then Josh is the wrong Romney. Because the fact that he is the actual, direct rescuer makes their claim wrong.

"See, it was a group effort"

Exactly. Which is one of the reasons that it's not particularly honest to say "Romney saved a dog from drowning." That statement paints a picture of a solo effort. A less dishonest statement would be 'Romney was part of a group that saved a dog from drowning.' Or perhaps 'Romney helped save a dog from drowning.' On the other hand, a fully honest statement would be this: 'Romney was part of a group that saved six people and a dog from drowning.' (And that's essentially the same as the statement you finally came up with: "the three of them, along with some bystanders helped this family of people.") That statement accurately describes what happened, and it gives him the credit he deserves, instead of giving him more than the credit he deserves.

Mitt was not the only rescuer, and the dog was not the only party rescued. These facts are important, and we're seeing lots of statements and headlines that seem designed to paint a false picture: that these two were the only parties present. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)