Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident/External links

External Links & Diane Sawyer Interview

I removed all of the external links as they were almost entirely additional articles about the story which added no additional information not already included in the main article, with the exception of one very POV violation of WP:EL. In general the section did not adhere to EL guidelines. Arzel (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I think you went too far removing all the external links, and removing the quote by Romney during the Diane Sawyer interview. While 8 external links is a bit much, some of them added information that could not realistically be added to the body of the article. Wikipedia's external link policies supports the use of external links in the following cases:

1.Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

2.An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply.

3.Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

4.The recommendation to consider professional reviews as external links was repealed (see this archived discussion). The reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section.

5.Very large pages, such as pages containing rich media files, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.

6. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page.

7.Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Here's my feeling on the 8 external links.

Tommy Christopher. "Newt Gingrich attack ad dogs Mitt Romney over putting pooch on roof". Redundant and unnecessary

David Edwards. "Romney on Irish setter strapped to car roof: Love my dog". The Raw Story. Redundant and unnecessary

Angie Drobnic Holan. "Mitt Romney and the dog on the car roof: one columnist's obsession". Valuable analysis of truthfulness of claim. Should be restored.

Lara Marlowe. "Romney hounded by memory of Seamus the dog and 'Crate Gate'". Redundant and unnecessary

Roni McCall "Mitt Romney animal cruelty casefile". National Animal Cruelty Registry. Controversial but unique information. Should be restored.

Diane Sawyer. "Transcript: Mitt and Ann Romney's interview with Diane Sawyer (page 8)". Provides valuable info that is too extensive for article. Should be restored

Jason Sudeikis. "Saturday Night Live sketch of Mitt Romney and his dog". Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. A widely-watched parody. Should be restored.

Hunter Walker. "Canine-loving protesters dog Mitt Romney outside Westminster Kennel Club show". Describes event in relation to Seamus incident. Should be added to body of article

The Goldman and Friedman article quotes Mitt Romney as saying that the "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far." I restored the quote.

I was going to leave the politifact and Sawyer EL's but after additional examination the politicfact didn't really add much (there is no question about the story being true) and the Sawyer interview is already in the main space as a source which could be checked. That said I won't remove them again. Arzel (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The NACR is a volunteer organization with no national notability. I've not seen them used as a source for this. Just because they created a page for this doesn't imply that it is important. It is a little more than a self-published source, and it is undue weight. Arzel (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeing where Romney made that statement that the Seamus story was the most wounding. I know that Sawyer says to him that he said it was, but he didn't reply to that statement. Is there a better source that actually has him making the statement? Arzel (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I will do more search on the Diane Sawyer interview. The Goldman & Friedman article by ABC News lists Mitt Romney making that quote, but it's not really in the Diana Sawyer transcript. When I read the Sawyer transcript, I get the impression that Mitt has previously said "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far.", and she wants him to confirm it. Debbie W. 13:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I did some research, and most media sites state that Romney either said or confirmed that "Seamus attacks were the most wounding of the campaign so far." Katheleen Parker uses the word 'said' in her column about the Sawyer interview as does the Goldman & Friedman ABC News article, whereas the Daily Beast uses the term 'confirmed.'

Kathleen Parker article

Goldman and Friedman article

Daily Beast article

We can stick with the 2 external links -- Politifact and the Sawyer interview. As for the National Animal Cruelty Registry, I have mixed feelings about it. Wikipedia's primary source policy allows us to use primary sources like quotes from books and information from databases as long as it is from a reliable source and is presented with a neutral point of view. By presenting it as an external link (as opposed to in the article), I think we do well in terms of neutrality, since we are not interpreting what the registry says about Mitt Romney. I'm like some input from other people, but I'm not sure whether the National Animal Cruelty Registry qualifies as a reliable source. The National Animal Cruelty Registry has existed since 1986, is run by a group of volunteers, and lists over 20,000 cases. Many animal shelters will not sell a pet to a person listed in the database. One government site lists it as a quasi-official register of animal cruelty cases -- Virginia State Crime Commission (read page 6 of link) . There are two Wikipedia article that use NACR as a reference -- Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation and Bhagavan Antle. However, I don't see the level of information about this group on the internet that you'd expect for an organization which has existed since 1986 and list 20,000 cases. With the highly controversial nature of a person being listed in a animal cruelty registry, I want to make sure that this is reliable source before we use it. Debbie W. 13:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing to me this is worthy of an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.91.100 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• comment - Per a careful perusal/parsing of wp:NOT, I disagree with an editor's assessment above that external links of such things as parody videos must be rejected out of hand as "not really appropriate for an encyclopedia." Various sections on the talkpage mention media mentions of this incident that prove it has become a so-called meme; thus IMO although deciding which items should be included should be done with respect to WP guidelines, there should not no campaign to remove them all. A look at wp:IPC--

  [LEDE: ...S]ubjects with broad cultural impact [may have coverage possibly titled "Cultural references" and the like.... ...Such coverage] can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not. [...However, these] can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract non-notable entries, especially if they are in list format.

  --reveals the distinction of whether individual cultural reflections of a subject are a notable part of its public image or not--and this whether the same are "serious" or "pop." So, if the criterion by which editors previously had been abiding were "Pop is out; serious is in," it wd need be rethunk. --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

To Hodgdon's secret garden: After doing some research, I think that the Saturday Night Live parody is an appropriate external link. I had never read Wikipedia's 'in popular culture' guidelines before. Additionally, I did a search of political scandals and political gaffes on Wikipedia, and although they are not common, there are some examples of parodies being used as external links. For example, there is an external link for the infamous Howard Dean scream on his Wikipedia page, and in the Dan Quayle Wikipedia article, there is an external link to his foot-in-mouth quotations. I have put a strike-through on my comments above about the SNL external link. Debbie W. 15:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Debbie, you have to be careful about your additions in this article. There continues to be a slow WP:COAT creep. This article should be substantially about the dog and only the dog, not simply an avenue to introduce political coatracking against Romney. Arzel (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a blatant misrepresentation of this article. The dog is notable precisely because of Romney's mistreatment of him, what that says about his character and the press coverage which the issue has generated. El duderino (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Romney ever intentially mistreated Seamus, there is evidence that Gail Collins is obsessed with this story and wants to use it as a political hammer against Romney. There is also evidence that editors here wish to do the same thing. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Then your editorial opinion on 'mistreatment' is suspect. Just because you refuse to see the evidence doesn't make it go away. El duderino ^(abides) 19:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that Romney ever intentially mistreated Seamus"

According to the ASPCA, "an adult dog can be crated for as long as eight hours on occasion." Therefore, putting a dog in a crate for a period longer than that is fairly described as "mistreated." This is aside from the crate being on top of a car on a highway, which obviously makes the problem much worse. So your claim of "no evidence" is false.

And I don't know what you mean by "intentionally." No one is claiming that Mitt put the dog up there for the express purpose of mistreating it. However, he did "intentionally" put the dog in a crate, and it was in there far too long, according to the ASPCA. (As I explained elsewhere on this page, the duration was probably quite a bit longer than the "12 hours" that everyone accepts.) And he still insists there's nothing wrong with this, and that's an important part of the problem. It's not OK to give people the idea that doing this is OK. It's also not OK to refuse to admit a mistake. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Dogs Against Romney & About Mitt Romney

After doing some research on other articles, I restored the 'Dogs Against Romney' external link, and I added a link to the dog section of the 'About Mitt Romney' site. I believe that both qualify as quasi-official sources. Dogs against Romney has existed since 2007, and is heavily responsible for much of the publicity about Seamus. The About Mitt Romney site is sponsored by the Romney campaign, and defends Romney's actions relating to pets. Debbie W. 21:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about "Dog's against Romney" therefore it is not an official source. It is certainly not an official source about Seamus. One person's crusade against Romney is not an acceptable use of EL. In general WP should not be used to promote political advocacy, which is all that site is for. Arzel (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

WP should not be used to promote political advocacy -- except when it comes to your conservative activism, eh. El duderino (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you come here to actually make a useful contribution or just attack other editors? Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA -- mentioning an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not an attack. And my contributions include but are not limited to countering activists like you and Kelly, especially the hypocritical posturing. At least you admitted your bias at ANI. El duderino ^(abides) 04:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not so sure. There appears to be some precedent for advocacy groups being used as external links. In the article Campaign for "santorum" neologism, there is an external link (EL) for the highly controversial website 'spreadingsantorum.com'. In the article John Kerry, there is an EL to a article which accuses him of plagiarism. In the article for Eliot Spitzer, there is entire section of ELs (5 total) of groups critical of Spitzer. The article gun politics in the United States has multiple ELs to both pro-gun and anti-gun organizations. When you have a controversial topic, external links are where you want to put links to sites which advocate a particular view. I've seen a number of Wikipedia articles where they have ELs to both sides of a debate, so that the reader has access to multiple viewpoints.

There is a risk that external links could be used by websites as a self-promotion device, or that having multiple external links that all say the same thing could create a biased article. However, that's not the case here. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, I added two ELs -- one to 'Dogs Against Romney', and one to 'About Mitt Romney' -- which express very different views about the 1983 road trip. Additionally, I specifically chose these two sites because of their significance, thus ensuring that Wikipedia is not being used as a website promotional tool. Dogs Against Romney has existed since 2007 and is already in the news all the time. About Mitt Romney has a substantial amount of information about Mitt Romney, including a number of article about Seamus and his other pets. Debbie W. 04:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What a load of BS, you simply want to get that website out there so you can use it to promote a political point of view. You have been in direct contact with the site creator. You simply added the Romney EL because you had the false belief that it balanced out your violation of WP:EL Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what part of the EL guideline are you referring to? It's not policy, so there's no violation anyway. (Just interpretation, but you know that because you like to wiki-lawyer.) That's why another editor restored what you deleted. El duderino ^(abides) 04:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem incapable of reading what I have said I will mention it again. WP:EL#11 specifically refers to Blogs. This article as titled has nothing to do with the campaign of dogs against romney, therefore it is not possible for this blog to be the offical website related to this article. Arzel (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In the same breath as (falsely) accusing me of personal attack (again, you need to review WP:NPA -- mentioning an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not an attack) you claim I am "incapable of reading" which is clearly a personal attack. Not agreeing with you is neither an incapability nor a personal attack. Stop conflating them. El duderino ^(abides) 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That being said, I think it is critical that we maintain a neutral point of view when editing. Arzel, you removed the Dogs Against Romney link, but left the About Mitt Romney link. I think that neutrality is extremely important especially in a article like this one where there may be markedly different points of views. I want to hear from other people, but until I get additional feedback, I am also removing the About Mitt Romney EL. -unsigned comment by Debbie W.

• Relevant discussion at WP:ANI currently. El duderino (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw the AN/I discussion, read the preceding, and chose to reinstate both links to "dogs agains romney" and "romney family pets" page, to reinstate, in effect, the 22:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC) version. I'd suggest that's a reasonable status quo, a reasonable compromise that people here should be able to live with, even if they don't especially like it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about Dogs against Romney, so I see no evidence that the site passes WP:EL. I find it ironic that the supposedly unbiased editors here feel that the only EL that is actually about the subject is too pro-Romney to be included unless the political attack page is also included. Arzel (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

EL is a guideline so it's a matter of interpretation. No bright line threshold. El duderino ^(abides) 04:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is nice to see you ignore guidelines when they don't fit your point of view. Arzel (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the guidelines, I'm challenging your misuse of one. Over and Over. Round and round. I see you're still trying to get the last word. Good luck with that argumentative strategy in showing how right you are. El duderino ^(abides) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not actually challange it with a rational thought rather than personal attacks? Arzel (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your editorial opinion of rational thought is even less important to me than your too-easy conflation of disagreement with personal attack.El duderino ^(abides) 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Than we are in agreement, you have no argument. Arzel (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see how you might misread that. I've already stated my argument: your interpretation of WP:EL is wrong and your attempt to use it here is disingenuous. Furthermore, your transparent attempts at baiting other editors are getting more obvious and uncollaborative. To repeat what you so rudely said to another editor in a previous thread, Drop It. El duderino ^(abides) 03:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Stating that I am wrong is not an argument. I have pointed out that this article is about Seamus and the blog site DAR is not the official website about Seamus therefore it fails WP:EL#11. Please provide some reasoning why I am wrong. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. The guideline says "one should generally avoid" which obviously means there is wiggle room. You know this. You need consensus for your interpretation. The site has been published in RS in reference to this incident. So perhaps we should shift to including it in the article text. But I imagine you'd be against that, too. El duderino ^(abides) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So I am wrong because EL says that these types of links are only generally to be avoided? Apparently to you "wiggle room" means, I don't like Romney so it is ok in this instance. Since the article is about the dog and not the incident than the site is not relevant to the article. Even then the website is not even really about the incident, the website is really about the political attack against romney. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not just about the dog. I know you've tried that tack elsewhere but it doesn't stick. And when did I say I don't like Romney? You really shouldn't assume based on my posts here. I don't know him. I wouldn't make that sort of judgement, especially as an editor who's main task is to remain neutral, which to you I'm sure seems left-leaning. What I don't like is how you attempt to exert yourself upon these political articles. Does anyone else besides Kelly agree with you? Because you're not doing a very good job of persuading others. Perhaps if you approached these articles with less of a chip on your shoulder. But I don't see that happening. You seem to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, so I'm here to counter that. I like to get the last word too. El duderino ^(abides) 05:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

After even more looking at the Blogsite Dogs Against Romney, it clearly fails. Not only is it a Blog, but it is clearly not an official website about Seamus. Additionally, on its very first blog post it clearly states that it is work of Satire writen from the satirical view of the fictional dog Rusty. Arzel (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree that "Dogs Against Romney" is a violation of WP:EL in this case. Kelly ^hi! 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

More poor word choice. WP:EL is a guideline not a policy, there no 'violation.' And Arzel is wrong about his interpretation of it, so what is yours? El duderino ^(abides) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Parody EL

Is a parody sketch video really appropriate as an external link? What purpose does it serve other than to lambast Romney? Also, does it violate our copyright policy to link to a coprighted work being hosted by a third party? SÆdon^talk 21:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe a parody sketch may be appropriate if it gets a lot of coverage in secondary sources. However, I think WP:COPYLINK prevents linking to the video unless it is hosted by the owner (SNL or parent company) because the site currently hosting may be in violation of copyright law. 72Dino (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We previously had this discussion about the parody video. The argument in favor of the video was that Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia, and can include material from popular culture. Look at External Link & Diane Sawyer Interview section of this talk page. Also, look at WP:IPC. Debbie W. 22:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the video, not because of content, but because of a potential copyright violation per WP:COPYLINK. The user agreement of the hosting site, Mediaite, indicates it may not be the copyright holder for all content. 72Dino (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I agree that WP not being a traditional encyclopedia means we can include things that others wouldn't, but that's not a reason why we should. What are the actual reasons to link to this if not to make Romney look foolish (and I'm not saying this is your motivation, only that I can't think of what purpose it might serve otherwise)? Looking over the section you linked, I see arguments that it's ok (but not a reason to include it) and I see you pointing to other examples where articles reference pop culture or parodies, but again, this is not a reason to include it. SÆdon^talk 22:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, I did not add the SNL parody video, and I don't have strong feelings about it either way. I was just pointing out that there was a previous discussion about it. Hodgdon's secret garden added it. Debbie W. 04:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not think you added it, but I assumed that you supported its inclusion when you responded to my call to remove it with a link to a previous discussion. I read into your statement, my apologies. SÆdon^talk 07:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)