Talk:United States presidential pets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Animals (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon United States presidential pets is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dogs (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Canidae and Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cats (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia.

Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Lists  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Just a quick note: I removed "by president" from this article because we don't have equivalent lists by other criteria, and by president is the obvious (IMO) way to order things. The only other ordering that springs to mind is by type. Of course, we could have both orderings on the same page. Martin 00:02, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We could, I'm not sure whether it's worth while. We could list Presidents by the types of pets they owned too I guess... 04:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

At the moment "by president" seems to be in chronological order for the first several and then random (?) order after that. So I'll go with chronological (reverse) order, since I suspect that's how most folks think about the U.S. Prez's anyway. Elf | Talk 05:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


"Andrew Johnson - Fed white mice he found in his bedroom" -- is that right? should that be removed 17, Jan 2005

According to Wackiest White House Pets by Gibbs Davis, Scholastic Press, 2004, this is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Also owned a Badger Taxidea named Josiah. The Badger is included in letters of diplomats from Japan and other countries. I would like to add this item.


User:Jeebee25 08:24, 05 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Where the horses and donkies pets?[edit]

I agree it is a quibble but for the earlier presidents horses and the like were transportaion and work animals not Pets. Royal Gift was evidently used for breeding mules [2].Geo8rge (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


This page needs some pretty serious cleanup. I am going to do what I can and then add a tag, I feel that it is not finished. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a major cleanup to the page. There is still a lot that needs to be done, however, so I am going to add a cleanup tag. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks pretty good to me now, so I've removed the tag. If anyone has more specific suggestions, please note them here. Elf | Talk 21:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy/Cocker Spaniel[edit]

Irish Cocker Spaniel? There is no such thing, and there never has been. There are two types of cocker spaniels, English and American. Presumably not always considered separate breeds, but they are now. Did Kennedy have an English or American Cocker Spaniel that happened to have been born in Ireland? It would explain the name Shannon. But it is incorrect to use the term "Irish Cocker Spaniel" as a breed. (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

John McCain and Barack Obama's Pets.....[edit]

It's going to need to be added soon, so I'm wondering if there's any information about this already. (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob the Dinosaur...[edit]

Am I to believe that John Adams owned a TYRANNOSAURUS REX named Bob? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How about dogs named Juno, Mark, and Satan? I think a citation is needed. Shanoman (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Milty's corrupt nature[edit]

I highlight User:Uncle Milty who seems to be protecting this page from being tagged. It has multiple issues and does not have enough citations. Yet he reverts my edits constantly [3] [4] [5] and has threatened to block me to shut me up. I didn't think Wikipedia condoned censorship. How wrong I was. -- (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He has broken 3RR and his etiquette could also do with some addressing. -- (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone just some anonymous user is extremely discouraging. -- (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Checker's is not a presidential pet[edit]

To be exact, Checker's was not a pet belonging to a President, rather Checkers was owned by Nixon only during his vice presidency (1952-1960). So, while the speech about him is an interesting footnote of Nixon's vice-presidency, it is incorrect to list him as a "Presidential pet". Right now, the article for Checkers show it died in 1964. Since Nixon only got elected to presidency in 1968, I am removing Checkers from this list. --Ragib (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Should Checkers rightfully be claimed a "presidential pet"? After all, Checkers died long before Nixon was elected. ↜Just me, here, now 13:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


Except for a few of the pets, none of the others are notable. Even those which are famous (say Checkers), they are only "notable" in reference to the biographies of their owners. There are probably some squirrels living around WhiteHouse, will they be notable as well? Also, there are thousands of people working as WH staff, will that automatically make them notable? Or a first daughters kindergarten teacher?

A comment for User:Lulu of lotus eaters, regarding this edit with the summary "Notability tag added by now-deleted vandal editor ", before calling someone else (in this case, I, who added the tag earlier), please make sure that they are A) "now deleted", B) "vandal". Otherwise this appears to be a personal attack. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading the edit history. The editor whose account was deleted for vandalism was "Cunard"; s/he had removed rather than added the tag... and I just messed up reading the diffs. A hundred sorry's to Ragib.
That said, the absence of anywhere to discuss the notability was perplexing, in any case. It seems perfectly reasonable to dispute the notability of this article, but without an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons, the tag is not meaningful. We have section here now.
My opinion is that this list is indeed notable. It's a bit of a frivolous thing to get the amount of media coverage that it has, but presidential pets have been a perennial favorite of "human interest" article writers for 100 years. Not all of the pets have their own articles, but a fair number do; the others also got at least a notable amount of press coverage, and seeing a comparison of the various pets is worth putting in one place. It's not an earth-shaking topic, but then, neither are most articles on WP. This one seems a bit more worthwhile than, e.g. "List of all the fictional characters on Some TV Series" (which we have lots of). LotLE×talk 00:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have changed the Notability tag to an AfD. The appropriate place to resolve the issue of the notability of this topic is over there, where editors who are not otherwise likely to stumble on this talk page are able to opine on its notability. LotLE×talk 00:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I've added some sources to the article. They are a mixed bag, which I hope should be enough to demonstrate notability. They are from biographies, books about dogs, and other sources. It isn't complete (it is especially hard to find references on non-dog animals), but I just thought I'd drop in and say I've been working on it. SMSpivey (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


I've restored the photo on the article of Susan Ford and her cat. If people think the lead should be expanded, then go ahead and expand it. However, the lack of an extensive lead is no reason to remove a relevant photo of a presidential pet. SMSpivey (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


Merge articles about US presidential pets into one article.Mrboire (talkcontribs) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose We have enough info on Bo (dog) to justify a separate article. Misdirected mergism. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, Socks (cat) deserves its own article per its volume and sources.--Caspian blue 22:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, Comment It's not at all proper to mark edits requesting a merge as "minor" edits. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry "Minor" was unintentional. Settings were set to "mark all edits as minor" for some reason.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Encyclopaedic#Wikipedia is not a directory #6. A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.

Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. For example, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage.

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being their spouse, is not a reason for a standalone article on A(unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham andBritney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles.

I do not dispute the "amount" of knowledge or coverage of US Presidential Pets, but do they warrant full articles? I do not think so. The fact that the Obamas have pet is News worthy, but the notability of such is suspect, in 4 or 8 years will it really matter? --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability is an objective, well-defined criterion that doesn't really have a time component to it. If it's notable once, it's notable period. Thus, those meeting it, such as Bo (dog), deserve coverage. Whether they deserve their own articles is also a matter of length and whether a merge would decrease article quality. Bo (dog) is definitely of sufficient length to merit separation into a separate article and merging would definitely be detrimental and result in material information loss; I assume the same is true of at lease a few of the other articles in question. But it should probably be done on an article-by-article basis, thus why a combined discussion for all the pet articles isn't quite appropriate/useful. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - at least merge all the nn ones into this. For example, India (cat), I'm pretty sure there isn't going to be anything other than the few sentences on this cat, and with its owner out of WH, the cat is not notable enough to have a full article. --Ragib (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure if I can support a simple merge and redirect for some of these pets, but they shouldn't necessarily be kept. Yes, they all have enough references to warrant their own article, but does that mean they need their own article? I think this list could easily be expanded and sourced and with some work could make it to WP:FLC, though simple merges will not help this article. Also, this might not always be the best place for all the pets. For example, Bo (dog) may be better at Barack Obama's family. Right now I'm uncharacteristically leaning oppose merge because this list would be in even worse condition if that were to happen. Also, this is more a list of pets rather than in-depth descriptions of them, though that could change with sufficient sourcing, etc. Perhaps an alternative for now is, say, Pets of George W. Bush. Reywas92Talk 01:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article is United States presidential pets, not List of united states presidential pets. Yes it would need to be reworked once merged. There is no intention on my part to just leave everything in a simple merged manner. I feel that the article started out as an article about the pets, and somehow halfway through turned into a list, and that is probably why all the small pet articles got started. ( I dunno I wasn't there! ) There is nothing wrong with mentioning the Presidents dog in his family article, pets are part of the family. --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I only very recently moved the article to remove the "list" from its name when I moved some irrelevant but otherwise good content regarding the history of white house dogs from Bo (dog) into the page. So, your intuition is probably incorrect (unless there were yet more moves even further back in the page history). --Cybercobra (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
100% STONGLY OPPOSE- for crying out loud people! All these pets are members of former/current presidential families! They are/were all loved by their owners and are/were treated as true members of their families! Remember, "man's best friend!" So just stop interfering and leave it alone!!! Anon-Nemous, (Talk to me! 08:47, 28th April 2009 (UTC)
"For crying out loud"? - I Do not dispute their membership in the "first family", nor the love given, nor again their family membership. Just because the media shoves information our way does not make something notable. That said I do not disagree that these pets are notable to some extent, just that an explosion of articles is unnecessary. See:Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid_criteria. The article on Bo (dog) has more value as a news worthy story than of encyclopedic worth. I am not looking to erase their existence, just to put them in their place (no pun intended). --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Cybercobra and Caspian. Kuralyov (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm undecided yet, but there does seem to be a great deal of trivial celebrity puff and entry inflation in the individual articles, it's like the famous Pokemon card explosion of a while back. I'll add that anthropomorphic-like arguments such as Anon-Nemous have put forward are strong indicators that we are not approaching the subject objectively and with perspective as to the rule that "Relationships do not confer notability" and should merge. (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Strongly Support These are useless. No reason for this at all:India_(cat). . (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that this whole thing that I started looks a lot like WP:PTEST and WP:INN. --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
opposed because just scrolling up this page a little I saw checkers has a page even its not a "first pet" in the timeline sense. Surely the list goes back farther then that as well. T Roosevelt was known for keeping goats birds etc. So the fact that we have a reasonably unbroken string on RS on this topic all the way back to 1900 at least, should tell you something. Political pets do have an enduring fascination in both public perception and RS and this has been true for many decades clearly. Its obviously notable; the basic breed, species, and biographical notes alone would make a massive merge. Adding in any further RS on any topic will only bloat the page, and its far more reasonable to give the ones with significant RS on their own, their own page. Consider how many stubs we have for bridges or mountain peaks or liberty ships, and we don't delete them, we add to them when possible and tag them and deal with it. If i had to go look at a list of EVERY mountain in the US or in the world, every time I was trying to look up a mountain's altitude, I would go insane. No one would ever use WP if it was structured like that obviously. Facetiously, why don't we go farther and merge presidential pets into prime minstererial pets with all the RS's, so the page becomes even longer and more unwieldy. Seriously folks what is the logic here? No one dares say that there isn't fundamental, individual, sourced notability for almost all presidential pets for the last few decades, because that is a ludicrous argument. The idea of merging into a general page strikes me a serious restriction in the flow of sourced info. (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
also why does the merge list only include some of the articles? you missed Coolidge's Billy (pygmy hippo) and Rossevelts Fala (dog) among others. (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose No need to destroy information on specific presidential pets by merging them into a summary list. Hibbertson (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. This is the main list. The subtopics are articles. No justification for merge, nor is it really possible due to size. I don't really understand the original proposal. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Presidential pets have become notable over the yaers. Several people have harkened back to the old cliche, Relationships do not confer notability. Well, that is obviously incorrect. Relationships CAN confer notability, relationships do not automatically confer notability. An unknown person dating a famous actor/actress may find themself the center of a media frenzy and do solely to the fact of whom they are dating find themself thrust into a position where there is enough coverage that independent notability can be asserted and proven. Presidential pets are the same way. The only reason why there is any coverage of Bo is because of whom his owner is, but the coverage on Bo has grown beyond who his owner is, it has become substantial enough to prove Bo's independent notability. Would he be notable without Obama? No. But attempting to state that he isn't notable now is a joke.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
For Relationships do not confer notability. see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria and Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED although the former is a guideline and the latter is an essay, and thus not policy. I do think it's sort of funny there's an article on Bo (dog) but not Malia or Sasha Obama (they redirect to Family of Barack Obama). It's also somewhat amusing cruft is mentioned in Bo's article (well, Crufts). I do think presidential pets are fair topics for articles, but I'm not sure what argument by policy could be made for them. Шизомби (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. Obvious Oppose. Of course relationships do not confer notability. It's the extensive coverage in reliable sources that confer notability. NOTINHERITED does not mean that if something is notable, but also related to someone else notable, that therefore it's notability is annulled. --JayHenry (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
"NOTINHERITED does not mean that if something is notable, but also related to someone else notable, that therefore it's notability is annulled" is a mischaracterization. Bo was not notable to the media until obtained by the Obamas. Bo's only notability in the media at the moment is for being the Obama's dog, which makes him notable for the media, not for Wikipedia (according to the guidelines and essays). NOTINHERITED requires media coverage of something other than the fact of being Obama's dog. The better argument here is to say that those are just essays and guidelines, not policies. I wonder if WP:ONEEVENT is also relevant, given that Bo is notable for one event only, becoming the President's dog. That said, I think presidential pets are deserving of more detailed coverage than in this article, which is more of a list. I'd like to see good arguments in favor of articles for them, but I do wonder if they're not better handled in articles on the presidents' families, like their children are. Шизомби (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You argument is precisely what I disagree with. You say that because he's only notable because of a relationship to the president he's not notable. I explicitly disagree with exactly your argument. It is incorrect. He's notable because of his coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, he's notable because he's the president dog. (The Oval Office is only notable because it's the president's office. If it were just some random room shaped like an oval it would not have an article. But it's not. It's the office of hte most powerful man in the world. This is the most powerful man in the world's dog.) Because he's the president's dog he's important to American culture. The president is a cultural trendsetter as well as a political leader, his dog is a not insignificant American icon, photographs of the girls and the dog will be in the history books, and it's baldly ignorant not to recognize the important of this. --JayHenry (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
"because he's only notable because of a relationship to the president he's not notable" Yes, but it's not my argument, I'm stating what the essay and guideline says, and I'm not sure I agree with it; note I've only made comments here and not taken a position. Please remember WP:ETIQUETTE before calling someone "baldly ignorant." The essay and guideline say notability has to be something more than coverage due to a relation, and has to be due to something they've done in their own right. We're free to disagree with that, the talk pages for those would be a good place to discuss it, although the best argument here in favor of the article will be one that uses policy. Шизомби (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Apologies -- I didn't mean it to sound like I was calling you ignorant. I meant that it would be ignorant for someone to suggest that the dog is not culturally significant. I don't think you're making that particular argument and thus "ignorant" was not meant to apply to you. My apologies nonetheless for the clumsy presentation though. As for #NOTINHERITED, I interpret this to mean that, although Dustin Diamond is notable, Dustin Diamond's mother would not be notable, even if she's mentioned in articles about Dustin Diamond. The distinction is that Dustin Diamond's mother is mentioned only in articles that are primarily about Dustin Diamond. Bo, himself, is the subject of articles. He's not just casually mentioned as the dog in articles about Obama. He is the primary subject. --JayHenry (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not the first time that an attempt to merge these article together has come up and probably not the last, that tells me that there is still doubt about having individual articles for each pet. We need to look at this objectively following WP guidelines. --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Support So long as they are well integrated. YeshuaDavid (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, strongly Combining these together would create a unified article demonstrating the purposes of pets and giving insight into popular culture. Combined, this article could have enough insight and information to become Featured Article. None of the articles by themselves will ever be relevant enough to achieve such quality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpstewart (talkcontribs) 02:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears there is support for a merge on the subject - but just to test the water, is there any opposition at all to a merge for the India (cat) article? (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Object. Would destroy background about cat's name. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I also strongly oppose this. There's plenty of opposition to merging. This is a perfect example why. Merging this information either makes the presidential pets article too long or destroys content for no reason. Oppose any merging for an article that length. --JayHenry (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Grits_(dog) Most of these listings have significantly less value or purpose than the famous Pokemon controversy. It seems the only standard for notability is that a White House resident touched it. Or in the case of Grits_(dog), may or may not have even touched it. Socks was notable, even Bo has a currently strong claim - but beyond that I see no greater standard than a newspaper recorded their existence at some point. Hardly encyclopedic. And what of Ofelia the Longhorn? . (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That particular one probably ought to be merged. Obviously, not all of the pets need an article, but then again not all of them don't deserve an article. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is really not very long, a few small paragraphs about the presidential pets, than it becomes a list. I do not see how merging all the small articles into one comprehensive article is a bad thing? Have we become unable to read more than a readers digest version of everything? The size of an article should not be the deciding factor in this type of decision, but how the subject at hand is better presented and better serving to the reader. Right now this article is not up to snuff, and except for Bo (dog), which is only so big right now because of it's "celibrity" status, by being in the media so much, the other articles are not very large. How much influence on politics do each of these pets individualy have? How much influence on american culture does each pet individually really have in a larger sense? Except for a short term interest in the type of dog/cat/gerbil/horse, which brings some temporary increase in "adoptions" (really sales) of the specific breed of animal. There have not been many pets of presidential families that have brought great cultural changes or political changes other than media hysteria and diversions from important issues. If you look at the article about Millie, it states that it is the most famous presidential dog! And that article is smaller than most others!--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1.

Since this discussion seems to be going around in circles, here's a concrete proposal (going mostly on non-fluff length of article):

Comments? Let the debate continue! --Cybercobra (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: But I would move India (cat) to "merge" list. There are only 2 things mentionable about the cat, and that's about it (1. Naming the cat India made Indians protest 2. The cat died). --Ragib (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Do not support merging India due to naming issue; article is also a few decent paragraph (I'm only proposing to merge the worst offenders). --Cybercobra (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, what exactly are these "decent" paragraphs? All I see are redundant text on where the cat was adopted by the Bush family, when it died, and what was the problem regarding its name. Most of the details, "comments" by Bush family, etc. are redundant and unencyclopedic, and can be expressed in 3 sentences in the merged article. --Ragib (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in the last comment before the arbitrary break, None of these articles are really that long, and one concise article about the whole concept could include most everything important that each individual article contains. The current article is not long either, a few small paragraphs.--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Those "details" about life and death are what I tend to consider more interesting than mere press coverage. It gives a life account of the individual pet that would be lost in a merged list. Dimadick (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some pets are quite notable and with enough reliable sources for articles. Timurite (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we've now merged what everyone seems to agree were some of the worst offenders. Any objections to calling this closed and killing the rest of the merge templates? --Cybercobra (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The list of united states presidential pets section is unwanted things.Why to put presendential pets on wikipeadia.the president rules a country but pet so, it he is great person. But has nothing so it is unwanted thing.


If we put the list, as it should, out on it's own and make this into an article about the presidential pets it would make more sense.--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

unwanted things[edit]

I think presidential pets section of wikipeadia is unwanted things. Presidential rules a country not a pet. If like this happen from tomarrow the section of presidential bathroom wil come to wikipeadia. so, it should be removed from the wikipeadia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Spurious entries[edit]

Namely Hoover's 2 Alligators, Coolidge's black bear, and Roosevelt's one-legged rooster. I think these need a citation. (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Diplomatic gifts?[edit]

Several Presidents have been given animals, particularly horses, as diplomatic gifts. (Reagan and Grant pop immediately to mind. Grant in particular was given two horses by the Sultan of Turkey that became of some significance in American horse breeding). Would any of these be appropriate to add, at least if it can be documented that they kept the animals? Montanabw(talk) 22:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

List of presidential pets for Abraham Lincoln[edit]

Just wanted to note that the list of presidential pets for Lincoln has omitted his cat named Tabby. There is a well known photo of Lincoln holding his cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteblouse (talkcontribs) 20:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


I would like to flip the table it so that Washington appears first, and Obama last. This is very much the universal convention at WP. Plus, we all know about Bo. I think it would be nicer for visitors to lay eyes on Washington first, then make their way down the list. It's more interesting that way. Objections? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

James Monroe and his Siberian Husky[edit]

James Monroe was president from 1817–1825. Siberian Huskies first entered the west in Alaska in 1908 during the gold rush. Anybody see the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama aquarium?[edit]

"Obama also has a 36 gallon fish tank in the oval office full of various tropical fish" - is there a source for this? Can't find one anywhere. Sounds like a complete fabrication. Crazy Eddy (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions[edit]

Some of the recent additions are likely pets once ever owned by a President. Please read the very first line of the article (emphasis mine):

"This is a list of pets belonging to United States Presidents and their families, while serving their term(s) in office."

Regretfully, I am unable to devote the time necessary to do this, but the list needs verification and clean-up. ~E: (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)