Talk:Guillermo Vargas

I know WP does allow links to the petitions web sites as an antispam control. Also it does not condone citations to blogs or personal web sites, which is where most of this info comes from. However, there are over 1 millions signatures which you can verify and none of the usual hoax reporting sites that I have checked have this as a hoax. That, as well as the many and widespread reports on Google and youtube tell me "it may not be provable as fact, but it is notable as a phenomenon even if it is a hoax and should be included in some manor". --Triwbe (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If some reliable source, like a newspaper or magazine, has discussed the petition, then it's important enough to discuss in the article. If they haven't, it probably isn't. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a hoax, here's an article on the Guardian about the event.[1] Zisimos (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found any article stating it as fact. Both the the Guardian and Spanish, English language newspaper Euro Weekly New say "claims". --Triwbe (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petition

The petition itself is only signficant if it's cited to a reliable source; links to petitions don't achieve anything more than promoting the petition- they don't actually add reliable information. Please, do not link to the petition. See the external links guidelines. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The petition itself is a reliable fact. You can see the page and see the list of over 1.8 million names and that is significant. The reason that we cannot add the petition is, as you say, to stop promotion of the petition itself, which is fair enough. The fact that a petition with so many signatories exists, regardless of the truthfulness of the subject, is notable and should be mentioned within context. The petition being mentioned in a newspaper changes nothing. The petition exists, but the act it is protesting againts is still unproven. The lack of other sources still concerns me, it still only has the status of an urban legend IMHO.--Triwbe (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to know if this really happened or not; the sources are all about something that is little more than a rumor. I find that rather disturbing. I have no problem with mentioning the existence of the petition, just with linking to it, since it doesn't really contain anything that would be a useful source of information for an encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course someone knows; many people know. It's just a question of finding credible sources for the claims and counter claims. The petition is real enough and shouldn't need a paper-press source to say it is. --Eruionnyron (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the petition is real. I don't have any problem with discussing it. My only objection is to linking to the petition. That seems to serve no encyclopedic purpose, and in my opinion, isn't in compliance with the external links guidelines. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animal abuser?

Does any body have any solid sources about facts for this guy at all? It sounds like the petition is real, but I think an important question is: is the abuse he's accused of real? Any good sources for info on the abuse, or only allegations? If so, this may be a case of urban legend snowballing into something real. Until it's sourced, shouldn't we remove "animal abuser" from the opening line of the lede? Without a source, it comes off as inflammatory and POV. Micahmedia (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

I didn't see a citation to a a criminal record, and there is no mention of him being an artist, just a guy who ties dogs up.Rangikusboy (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican Artist Category

Any reason he's in this category? Louis Waweru Talk 05:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, you win the prize for this months spot the deliberate mistake competition, however you failed to correct it, so I keep the prize myself. Thanks anyway. --Triwbe (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate mistake contest? That sounds fun, too bad I didn't know we were playing. Louis Waweru Talk 09:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now telling you would be too easy. :-) --Triwbe (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

It is a hoax. The Humane Society says that the dog escaped after one day. Also, one of the major websites initally involved in rallying people to sign the petition now has a post questioning the validity of previous claims:

References: http://www.hsus.org/contact_us/humane_society_international.html#Q_dog_artist http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/675045 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.252.179.8 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The humaine society is a resonable source I think (about the only one of the whole article, thank goodness we have something), the Care2 link seems to be based on a blog, not a reliable source. Thanks for the info. --Triwbe (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful; thanks. I added the humane society link to the article; all are welcome to change how I phrased it, but since this is wikipedia, you already knew that. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott

I think everyone should ignore everything this poser does in the future. He is abusive, and likely murderous (I know the jury is technically out regarding the pup's ultimate fate, but clearly he was mistreating the animal in the gallery space). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.52.21 (talk • contribs)

This is where we discuss how to improve the article; it's not a general discussion forum. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]