Talk:Bo (dog)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Page was a huge one-paragraph jumble of information.

i have reorganized into sections as i saw fit, but am welcoming other's suggestions. 23:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Lede

First line of lead should have pet's full name as reported in the press

Cf. Millie (dog)/"Mildred Kerr Bush." ↜Just me, here, now … 13:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Also see Barney (dog). What is the definition of "full name" for a dog? Most references call the dog "Bo" with no mention of a "family name". WWGB (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't follow willy-nilly what a self-selected sampling of First Pet articles do. Instead we should follow the guidelines for WP biographies; and isn't WP's standard procedure in our editing of bios not to discern what alternate names start off our bio ledes by "what most sources use" but rather by whatever is determined to be our subjects' full names, as determined of course by the sources? ↜Just me, here, now … 14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Lede#Usage in first sentence, "the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses, ... but this is not mandatory, and inclusion should reflect consensus". Where is the consensus? WWGB (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
So I trust you're arguing here against a consensus being reached for the breed registry name to be metioned anywhere in the article? (Or am I over-estimating your reading comprehension of what ya just linked!</snark!>) ;^) ↜Just me, here, now … 14:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No, just not in the lede without consensus. WWGB (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Per bios throughout WP, alternative names start off ledes

Including breed registry names (e/g Cf. Liberty (dog)). ↜Just me, here, now … 14:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Liberty is a subset of Honor's Foxfire Liberty Hume. That is not the case here. WWGB (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Category:United States Presidential pets. Almost all pets here do not have a family name or a registry name in the lede. Yes, one example can be held up to make an argument, but consistency suggests otherwise. WWGB (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because these other pets registry names aren't known doesn't mean that the beginning of the lede would not be where this information would rightly go in a pet's Wikipedia biography. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. ↜Just me, here, now … 14:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
(For sake of argument...) Let's say we determine by consensus that Benjamin Franklin's enclopedically notable nick should be given as "Ben," while Edward Kennedy's should be "Teddy." Then, according to your reckoning, WWGB, mention of Franklin's alternate name would belong at the beginning of the lede whereas Kennedy's wouldn't? I'm sincerely confused about what principle/policy you believe yourself to be championing here. ↜Just me, here, now … 14:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This guideline: Wikipedia:Lede#Usage in first sentence. WWGB (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Alas, your reasoning still baffles me. I just read the guideline and there's no mention of whether a longer alternate name contains within it the shorter-name-that-also-functions-as-the-title-of-the-article. ↜Just me, here, now … 14:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WRT "named after" infobox blank

  1. Barack Obama's intitials -- BO
  2. A source relates that Barack and Michelle call the puppy Diddley (in partial tribute the nickname of the girls' maternal grandpa) -- hence "Bo" Diddley
  3. The girls' cousin's cat -- also named Bo
  4. Near rhyme with Hope, (clipped from the 10-puppy "Hope & Change Litter" as designated by the Breeder -- of course, in turn after Obama's campaign slogan)

You all heard of any other provenances being tossed out there by ppl in cyber space? ↜Just me, here, now … 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking for sources for the following assertion

contributed by an IP: "The Portuguese Water Dog is a fairly rare breed; only 15 entrants for Portuguese Water Dogs were made to England's Crufts competition in 2002. Though some breeders claim they are a hypoallergenic dog breed, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim." ↜Just me, here, now … 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I linked "contract," "photo op," etc

Anticipating lots of young readers. ↜Just me, here, now … 06:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Canis familiaris aquaticus obamadog.com

87.194.122.68 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections not recommended

yeah so its WP guidelines and really why not follow them? I have seen this happen a billion times and the final outcome is always the same. Merge criticism sections into existing text. Which has already happened, so all we are dealing with now is someone forcing a re-title from something neutral, into just the word "criticism." Thats really unfortunate and also totally POV so it will need to go. PS- to the other IP constantly reverting on this and saying "use talk" all the time, I didn't see a talk section on this issue until I started it lol. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you be so kind as to link to, quote or reference, the policy you are alluding to?IP#9999.151.162.53 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cf. WP:Criticism#Evaluations in a "Reception" or "Reception history" section. ↜Just me, here, now … 06:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
bingo. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bo's "half sister"

Interesting AP story on MSNBC about Bo's "half sister" that may warrant inclusion: Family learns pooch is half-sister of ‘first dog’ Please follow the policy for Biographies of Living Pooches when considering including or excluding content! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bo's gifts

While The President and First Lady were in Prague they received special edition bowls and a bed for the First Dog Bo. Here is a link to the photos: http://www.firstdogbowl.com/web/index.php?cid=1 and the article: http://www.firstdogbowl.com/web/index.php?cid=8 LeahBethM (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

An error and an omission

In the main article it states that Bo 'first came' to the White House April 14th, but actually Bo had visited and met with the Obama Family at the White House weeks before the unveiling day.

Also perhaps someone should add the names of the other dogs in the litter: Amigo's Captain Courageous (Teddy Kennedy's new puppy), Amigo's Change To Believe In, Amigo's Great Hope, Amigo's Hope For Tomorrow, Amigo's Hope Of Tomorrow, Amigo's Hope Wilson Will Prevail, Amigo's Hoping For Change, Amigo's Hoping For The Best, Amigo's New Hope (Bo Obama), Amigo's Shining Hope LeahBethM (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a reliable source reporting the "First Visit"?IP#99.99.141.245.151 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that Politico.com had also reported that 'a dog' was seen at the White House a week or two or so before the unveiling. Here is a photo that the White House released but not taken on April 12th (no date is given for the day the photo was taken) http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//090414/photos_od_afp/2ebb045bc2a03be0ba7396a721e52243/ And here is a story prior to the unveiling that states the girls met and named the dog Bo prior to the 'unveiling day': http://www.startribune.com/local/42859997.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiU9PmP:QiUiacyKUnciatkEP7DhUr LeahBethM (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those seem to clearly contradict that the current date used in the article was Bo's first time at the White House. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Washington Post article dated April 12, 2009 that states on page two:

Still, there's lots of stuff that didn't leak out, including a secret get-acquainted session with the family at the White House a few weeks ago. The visit, known around the White House as "The Meeting," was a surprise for the girls. Bo wore a lei then, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/11/AR2009041102484_2.html?sid=ST2009041202878

So, The April 14th is the unveiling day ... but NOT the first visit to the White House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeahBethM (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've inserted the report, it appears notable. Not exactly earth shaking, but a notable enough event in a dogs life. :) IP#99.99.141.245.151 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

FDOTUS Bo Beanie Baby

Ty Beanie Babies has released a Bo Beanie LeahBethM (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I added "...and a plush toy" plus your ref to article's last line of text -- thanks LeahBethM. ↜Just me, here, now … 07:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First Dog?

I don't think that creating the title, or using it officially whatever the origin, is proper according to the Wiki MoS. I have to argue that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog - not even a adjunct arm of the White House Press office. I apologize if that seems harsh, the idea just took my breath away...-IP#9999.151.162.53 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The media find it quite difficult to move beyond hackneyed terms like "First .....". Mrs Obama's mother is now "First Granny" [1]. And you can be sure that the first time Bo urinates inappropriately, it will be "Bo-gate". WWGB (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Cf. "Talk:First Family of the United States#"Family"," "Talk:Barney (dog)#First Dog?," "-gate." Score so far: Windmills 1, Knights (the IP above, WWGB) zero? ↜Just me, here, now … 13:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Since fans of descriptive (as opposed to proscriptive) grammar (like ME) may well not actually be in general ascendancy among encyclopedia editors, I offer this compromise: instead of First Dog (derived in the English language from the understood ellipsis of the word Family from out of the proper-noun-modified phrase First Family's dog... ) -- how 'bout we use instead pet of the U.S. First Family? ↜Just me, here, now … 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but then how do we handle multiple concurrent First Pets? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
We'll cross that bridge -- (Right now no goldfish known of, only the canine) ↜Just me, here, now … 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we already have. See the multiple entries for Dubya's presidency on List of United States presidential pets. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It can't be considered acceptable to just create things out of thin air and then pass off to a later time how to conform that to the standards of language and encyclopedia. This is not, and should not be, a celebrity magazine article.IP#9999.151.162.53 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
IP: IMO, once there's consensus for mulitiple First Pooch articles, the train has pretty much left the station. And given the many reliable sources' saying "First Dog," it is simply a matter of stylistic choice for us to adopt by consensus an alternate phrase with identical meaning. ↜Just me, here, now … 23:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. (Primary source): recent White House website article: "Meet Bo, the First Dog"
  2. (2ndary source): Today's New York Times: "First Dog Gets His First Children’s Book"
  3. (Tertiary sources):
The train has left the station? You created the concept just a couple of days ago. And creating "official" titles is not a matter of "style", it's an issue of encyclopedic truth. Encyclopedia are dry for a reason, celebrity reporting is not - a difference exists.IP#9999.151.162.53 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I really must decline credit/blame for coinage (...e/g, pls see infobox at "Socks (cat)": "Other name(s): 'First Cat'." ↜Just me, here, now … 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you not noticed that we (or at least I) clearly marked the title as "unofficial"? Not all titles are official (c.f. Emperor Norton). It's certainly not a name at any rate, see WWGB's edit comment for example: those are not names ("come here, First Dog, good boy") And we're certainly not making it up when we have reliable source citations to back up the use of the title.--Cybercobra (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

First Dog is entirely acceptable.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox Animal, "title" refers to any title the animal has held. There is no qualification about how or by whom the "title" is determined. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
And more generally, infoboxes are not subject to any special criteria more strict than that for article text, possibly excepting criteria in the template itself, but that's not the case here. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a dog. It has no title, no more than Queen Latifah, Prince, Prince of Bel Air or the Mayor of Bourbon Street and Mayor_of_Castro_Street. There may be no specific qualification about how "Title" is awarded in the template help guide. That DOES NOT mean that no standards exist. Given any standard as to recognition of official title there is no interpretation possible that would find it here.IP#9999.151.162.53 (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget His [self-proclaimed] Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I. ↜Just me, here, now … 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
People proclaim themselves a lot of things. It's not a title, it's a piece of street theater or racist condensation depending on how you view the joke. Elvis Presley was the King, so what? These are all nicknames, NOT titles.IP#9999.151.162.53 (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Racist? because of Norton's being Jewish (halachically, by birth)? ↜Just me, here, now … 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What bearing do the newspaper created and promoted "shrewd" emperor or from the same era newspaper created and promoted US General Fields (Nigger General)[2] ["Indians saluted Gen like monarch, bowed low Feb 28 1882"] have on this? Are we to have a discussion about the cultural condensation of the ruling white majority and its playthings that are created by newspapers to increase sales and entertain the masses? Or are we to discuss the Encyclopedia standards - standards you apparently want to be interpreted by the staff at Hello! magazine?IP#9999.151.162.53 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the first dog (cat, canary, etc) "position," as it were -- as being recognized by the public/press -- that provides these pets sufficient notability to merit encyclopedic coverage in the first place?
(Oh, and interesting WRT Samuel Fields. Thanks for this historical tidbit!) ↜Just me, here, now … 18:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
huh?

(ecx2)You're right technically speaking it isn't a title, but it is not a nickname, it is an identifier commonly used to recognize the president's dog. You can do a search on the term "first dog" and have millions of hits. Add OBAMA, and it will pull up Bo or speculation about who the first dog will be. Add Bush, and it will pull up the Bush's dogs. Add Clinton, and guess what, you will find out the Clinton's dog's name. Quite simply put, to take out FIRST DOG would be pushing a POV and make the article incomplete as "first Dog" is not only accepted, but expected in the US in reference to the President's dog.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the article not contain the name, it is as real a nickname as the emperor or the general, or any number of other cases of unsupported and made up titles. It has no business in the InfoBox, with or without asterisk. The infobox should present a summarization of undisputed, sourced facts. It is not the place of the encyclopedia to lend any credence to false pretense, marketing, "grey areas" or cutsey celeb-prose.IP#9999.151.162.53 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

title NOUN
6: a descriptive name : appellation
8 a: an appellation of dignity, honor, distinction, or preeminence attached to a person or family by virtue of rank, office, precedent, privilege, attainment, or lands b: a person holding a title especially of nobility ---MIRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY ↜Just me, here, now … 19:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If you think that the dictionary definition you quote above for 'people', 'persons', or 'family' is definitive then you should have no problem whatsoever with the Wikipedia entry on Title_(animal). "In animal husbandry and animal fancy, animals compete for titles signifying excellence.". It's a dog. A title, if one had been earned, would have been bestowed upon it in virtue of excellence in competition. I'll guess that my Wiki definition for animals trumps your dictionary definition for people and closes the topic? IP#9999.151.162.53 (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. WRT titles/distinctions among persons/places/things -- could a thing ever be thought to have a title? mineral ores from a particular locale? a certain festival thought superlative? ↜Just me, here, now … 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Bo happens to hail from a "name" family...and he turns out to be quite photogenic! However, I must say, if Bo ever wants to be taken more seriously than, say, Paris Hilton he really must step out from his owners' and others' shadow. Alas, Bo is fixed, so he'll never be able to compete with his own father's claim to fame (the Washington Post reports that Bo's sire, Watson, is "a studly Portie with a history of siring champion dogs"); but still my advice to Bo would be to have reporters and photographers sign an agreement stipulating they make absolutely ZERO mention of the First Family or of canine relatives' achievements in order to have Bo's own career as a model/spokesdog or whatever rise or fall on its own merits. ↜Just me, here, now … 21:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The InfoBox is not special. It's a fact, there are multiple sources, and, aside from you, it's apparently undisputed. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
So it can't be defended, but who cares because you two want it. I think i'm beginning to understand Wikipedia now. Talk is used to delay but never to justify, rules are used when convenient, etc Waste of time. IP#99—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.162.53 (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
IP: "So it can't be defended."
Sources are listed above in this thread for the contribution you question, IP. Incidentally, the pertinent guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, reads (in part)

Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

Meanwhile, you yourself have offered exactly zero sources nor appeals to WP guidelines. Please support your argument that it isn't yours but rather others' contribution that has failed to be defended. How so? ↜Just me, here, now … 12:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not one reliable source reports that "title" has been given or "title" passed. No source claims to record such titles. It's a play on words - only wikipedia editors have found it to be title through a little extrapolation that makes the leap from phrase to assumption. It is the same logic that wouldd recognize a claim or grant of "Title" to Queen Latifah, Prince, Prince of Bel Air or the Mayor of Bourbon Street and Mayor_of_Castro_Street. Words mean something - Title does not grant by virtue of using the words associated with individual awards.IP#9999.151.162.53 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In your cited examples (ie, Queen Latifah not Dana Owens, etc) what you appear to object to is the imprecision of terming such appelations "titles." Would you accept the compromise (per WP:BRD) of moving first dog to another infobox entry such as "known for" or "role"? ↜Just me, here, now … 14:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Correct, my objection is not that the term "first dog" exists or is used, it's on the applied usage itself.IP#9999.151.162.53 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually I personally would whistle and call for a beast of such exalted station only in the third, well, person (akin to the mayor of New York City's nickname Hizzoner): "First pup Bo!...His excellency!...Come here!" But then I'm a stickler formality. ↜Just me, here, now … 19:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Except that "Queen Latifa", "Prince of Bel Air" only apply to 1 person, whereas First Dog would apply to any Presidential pet dog. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
History records at least two claimants to the title of "Prince of Bel-Air". However, the title does not exist anymore than First Dog.IP#9999.135.172.101 (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think consensus has finally been reached (judging by an edit comment) by using the "Known for" field, rather than the "Other names" or "Title" fields, to acknowledge the title/appellation/nickname/whatever of "First Dog". --Cybercobra (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I may have been too excited, it's a solid edit factually - the only quibble would be with the prose, but "encyclopedic dryness" is neither a Wiki goal nor standard. It's a good edit and a very good compromise. IP#99 99.135.172.101 (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Use of First Dog is not the primary thing the Dog is known for - I erred in my reading of an earlier placed edit. No consensus currently exists.99.142.6.186 (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I restored the IP immediately above's deletion of the comment that was just immediately above hi/rs, but I went ahead and added a strike through it, instead (I believe the 2nd IP is apparently claiming to be the same individual here, perhaps...?); in any case, I hope my restoration of the comment in this instance would be OK with everybody here. Is it? ↜Just me, here, now … 13:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the IP is strongly encouraged to get an account, if only to make identification easier. Also, we could address you in a more polite manner by username. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bo Photos

I would like to submit this wee request: When the article on Bo increases in size and another photo is needed that the photo of President Obama running with Bo down the corridor in the White House will be taken under consideration. LeahBethM (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya mean this File:Bo and Obama.jpg un? {wink} ↜Just me, here, now … 12:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Books

  1. Commander in Leash (ISBN 1-934878-70-7). Narrated by Bo. Readers go on a White House tour, then see Bo play b-ball with the Prez and also help with the annual Easter egg roll. A collage of famous WH pets and a history of the WH are included ↜Just me, here, now … 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. Which Puppy? (ISBN 978-1416991472) illustrated by Jules Feiffer. "First-dog" candidates campaign for the post (shh! some not really dogs)
  3. First Dog (ISBN 9781585364671) In addition to b-ball and egg roll, we watch also July 4th fireworks over the mall, pardon of the Thanksgiving turkey and various WH Holidays Season activities. Bo plays with the kids on the swings and helps with Michelle's garden. Joe B and Teddy K make cameos
  4. Now Hiring (ISBN 0802784860). Dog owners arrive for a WH dinner 1 by 1 and the Obama girls discreetly interview dogs hopeful for official appointment. ↜Just me, here, now … 00:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
They do meet the first test, they at least have an ISBN. How do you propose to include or exclude individual titles?IP#9999.135.172.101 (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
As suggested let's wait -- until the reviews. Then bullet them in a list. ↜Just me, here, now … 00:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC) ...since (per Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Not yet published books) the booktitles' being in the offing is notable itself.

In the News:...The Obama family’s Portuguese water dog will star in the picture book “Bo: America’s Commander in Leash.”---THE NEW YORKER

↜Just me, here, now … 14:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I seem to be missing something, the Wiki link you have above seems to say nothing more than, " Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged and such articles are only accepted under criteria other than WP:Notability (books), typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right.".IP#9999.141.245.151 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying anticipation of the books is notable in its own right. ↜Just me, here, now … 15:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, but does it necessarily require a complete and detailed list such as we have now? Is there an alternative way to cover the concept of the commercial exploitation and/or future references in popular culture such as we might see from outlets like SNL?IP#9999.141.245.151 (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Such notable material may well eventually becomes so extensive as to merit its own Wikipedia page (Cf. Nikola Tesla in popular culture) but at present all we're talking about here is brief mention of the titles of 4 kids books in a list (Cf. Socks (cat)#Cultural references). ↜Just me, here, now … 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually it's already fully 10% of the articles sentences and 1/3 of it's references. I just think the idea that the dog has been commercialized can be communicated effectively without resorting to a complete unabridged listing of all commercially available, or advertised for upcoming release, products marketed under "Bo's" image. There is a significant difference between the notableness of anticipation about books being rushed to print to exploit and market the dog Vs. the notability of any individual title.IP#9999.141.245.151 (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So, IP, your argument, I believe, is that having 100 words in an article about the puppy that's presently the most famous in the world be about children's books veers towards crufty promotion? Possibly. So we must be proceed carefully, knowing that a commercial aspect would not necessitate a block against indepedent, balanced coverage when the hurdles of notability and verifiability, etc., are otherwise met.

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.---WP:PROMOTION

As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion. Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.--WP:CRUFT

↜Just me, here, now … 22:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
What is the purpose of detailed listing of all things "Bo" related? A level of detail I might add that is not to be found in the article itself. The notability about the commercial products is that they exist, there is nothing notable about them individually in their own right.IP#9999.141.245.151 (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Above IP said, "A level of detail I might add that is not to be found in the article itself."
I don't understand. How is the mere mention of the four titles more granular in detail than the article's scrutiny of peculiarities belonging to the breed, or any other points covered in the article? ↜Just me, here, now … 00:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The articles purpose is not to be a repository for all things "Bo". Mention of the Insta-books that seek to cash in on the publicity is one thing - a detailed product listing is quite another, and wholly inappropriate.IP#9999.141.245.151 (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't censored but if it were, not high on my own personal hitlist would be these crass, commercial products introducing children to reading -- the ones known as books. ↜Just me, here, now … 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Censorship? 99.141.245.151 (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep! not allowed:

Content that is judged to violate[...]Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will'[...]be removed[; but...b]eyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.---WP:NOTCENSORED

Cf.: WP:ITSCRUFT WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. As to your question about why we would give encyclopedic coverage to all notable things Bo-related: Isn't this is an, um, encyclopedia and isn't our intention to focus this article we're creating on notable things related to, um, Bo? ↜Just me, here, now … 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not within the scope or mission of the encyclopedia to be the full and complete repository for all mankind's records and knowledge on the dog "Bo".IP#9999.141.245.151 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire! WP:NOTPAPER ↜Just me, here, now … 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion:" "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference" "Wikipedia is (not a) a repository" "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and so on ... :) IP#99.
Agreed. There are limits; yet (according to Meta:Wiki is not paper#Organization): "The key to avoiding information overload is to break an article down into more than one page[...]. These can start out as section headings and be broken out into separate pages as the main article becomes too long. [...]Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information, full of railroad timetables and comprehensive lists. But any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible." :^)13:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please "!vote"...
Mention of Obama pup children's books, yea or nay?
  • Keep They're notable. ↜Just me, here, now … 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Assuming we're talking about whether to mention the facts the books exist. Slight nay If we're talking about whether to name-drop the books. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree that mention of the books existence is appropriate. Also agree that name drop of every book is not. And it follows that a complete listing of each book, a synopsis and ISBN number is just off the charts inappropriate.IP#9999.141.245.151 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
But if at some future point in time should any of these books become notable, wouldn't they then merit more detailed coverage? ↜Just me, here, now … 06:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, should one become notable we could say, "Immediately upon the acquisition of a dog by the First Family, four children's books featuring this theme were slated for publication with the Gunter Grass book Bo's Big Night Out receiving the Batchelder Award for translated Children's work." Or however necessary to address its notability.IP#9999.141.245.151 (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

;^) ↜Just me, here, now … 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Another book is mentioned here The First Pup: The Unofficial Story Of How Sasha and Malia’s Dad Got the Presidency—And How They Got a Dog, by The New Yorker cover artist Bob Staake. LeahBethM (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Now hear this

From this time forward all IP arguments on this page will be weighted collectively. That is, if two IPs disagree on something and no other IPs show up, each IP's opinion will be weighted as coming from one-half a person. That is all. ↜Just me, here, now … 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that I agree with the above statement, but I will reiterate that simply creating an account (it's easy!) will allow one's arguments to be taken more seriously than if one merely remains a completely anonymous IP. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, am I to understand this correctly? You (justheremenow) are unilaterally declaring IP's on Wikipedia to be worth one-half of a human being? IP#9999.142.1.224 (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In reply 2 Net-addr above: OK Elephant Man. (Kidding!) But really, the short answer is yep absolutely -- IPs who start edit warring can't expect much arr eigh ess pee eigh cee tee. (While the long answer is that what we recognize as the expression IP or group of IPs is best -- if-still-ill-ly -- defined as a contributor or contributors who do(es) not want for whatever (t)hi/r own reasons to distinguish (t)hi/rself individually to fellow members of the project. Which is fine -- but the trade off, for practical purposes, is that controversial arguments advanced from IP addresses inevitably tend to be weighted less by co-contributors than those advanced by accounts with amassed edit histories. Wudnja agree, Special:Contributions/99.142.1.224?) ↜Just me, here, now … 01:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

boo on this

so guess what! no offense but some editors are fully capable of having a functioning user page too, but choose to operate when possible under IP. Wp makes it impossible to fully edit without one unfortunately, and for that reason and many others I try to use my ip. And I have a tiny provider and its registered to the right town, so I fully recommend using the whois fuctions and I am not trying to hide. Check this user page and I have links to the IPs i have done any extensive editing under. My new one also begins in the 70s but I haven't added it yet. Anyways 99 is making some fine points and not being disruptive so I think we need to deal and win on the facts and not wiki lawyering. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

meow! 72.0.187.239 (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Seal

Private entities can have seals, and according to news reports a whimsical First Dog seal is emblazoned on blankets and stuff currently in the possession of the US first family. I believe it would pass the test for inclusion eg as suggested at right margin?

File:First Dog of the US.jpg
Bo
A photo of Bo from the White House Blog
Other name(s)Charlie (by previous owner)
SpeciesCanis familiaris
subsp. aquaticus
BreedPortuguese Water Dog
Sexneutered male
Nation fromUnited States
Known forbeing "First Dog"[1]
(i.e. pet of the First Family)

↜Just me, here, now … 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to elevate whimsy to an encyclopedia supported declaration of fact. The dog does not have a seal. Or a cape, crown, scepter, or any other accoutrement of office, title or position.IP#9999.141.245.151 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Tongue-in-cheek or not, a "seal" (more of a logo) has been, at least nominally, associated with the dog, and there are sources for it. I can find no reason to object. However, there do seem to be unresolved copyright issues... --Cybercobra (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the tongue in cheek whimsical seal has any place in the Encyclopedia?99.141.245.151 (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
doesn't really matter the relative level of whimsy, if the news is reporting it... and isn't it public domain as a production of the US govt? 72.0.187.239 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The seal was taken from here:[3]. It was photoshopped by ↜Just me, here, now … to obscure the words "Blanket of" and dishonestly entered into the encyclopedia. The ridiculous "seal" reads, "Blanket of the First Dog of the United States". Do you really wish to continue pressing a case for inclusion of a blanket logo from Lillibed GmbH, a Czech manufacturer of dog stuff?IP#9999.142.5.80 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Legal protections exist against misuse of some entity's insignia -- however I believe there'd be no harm/discredit to the first dog by his insignia's appearing in Wikipedia. More seriously, here are the facts before us:
Apparently the Obama's have had dog paraphernalia custom made of a particular design. Yet it's not the Czech manufacturer that owns a copyright to the words "First Dog" and so forth -- and any straightforward representation of words cannot legally be copyrighted unless the words in turn are, plain and simple. Then the element of Obama's "waving, red-and-white stripes"...well, such a motif cannot be copyrighted, particularly since they're patterned after the United States flag. The only thing copyrightable is a particular artistic rendering of such features. Be that as it may, this particular rendering is mine, with credit given on its license page to my source. Come on folks, lighten up. ↜Just me, here, now … 00:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
By way of comparison, Shepard Fairey modified a photo of Barack Obama by Mannie Garcia (see File:Fairey poster photo source?, by stevesimula.jpg) -- which photo in turn was owned by The Associated Press -- in order for Fairey to create his Barack Obama "Hope" poster. Despite the source, the rendering is Fairey's. (Incidentally, Fairey hasn't attempted to license or restrict the use of this poster for his own profit.) ↜Just me, here, now … 00:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The seal was taken from here:[4]. It was photoshopped by you to obscure the words "Blanket of" and dishonestly entered into the encyclopedia. The ridiculous "seal" reads, "Blanket of the First Dog of the United States". Do you really wish to continue pressing a case for inclusion of a blanket logo from Lillibed GmbH, a Czech manufacturer of dog stuff? What you did was dishonest, wrong and unethical. You are NOT supposed to make stuff up and include it in an encyclopedia as some sort of official seal. Your continued attempts to argue the point are also wrong. This is black and White. No Grey here at all. Your actions are bad. Stop.IP#9999.142.6.186 (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me talk more slowly. You say the seal is from doggy stuff in the Obama's possession. I said on this talkpage that the seal is from doggy stuff in the Obama's possession. On the license page I wrote (quote) Author's artistic rendering of a design patterned after a coat of arms on an actual blanket gifted to Barack Obama for use of his pet (Bo (dog)) (unquote). On the license page I indicated that my version was (quote) Modified from a coat of arms shown at (unquote) and added a link to the FirstDogBowl.com website. I believed then and also continue to believe that these symbolic elements of insignia remain free for public use without need for compensation to anybody -- the words First Dog, etc.; a representation of the front facade of the White House; an American flag on a flagpole; and "waving, red-and-white stipes" as on an American flag (and as on Obama's 2008 presidential campaign logo) -- and furthermore, just to be on the safe side, I went ahead and passed my own artistic rendering of this design on to the public domain as well.
Furthermore, ma'am or sir, I think it may well be you who should be thought dishonest since for some reason you continue to insist that I am "dishonest"(!!) Since I have done what I've done openly, where would any reasonable allegations of dishonest conduct lie?
I think that according to your theory Shepard Fairey's HOPE poster would be considered a [clears throught] "dishonest" piece because he'd copied the AP photo of Obama; however Fairey's technique of taking news shots and the like and making provocatively iconographic images is wellknown. And he doesn't attempt to profit from his street-style renderings of popular iconography -- as borrowed in the case at hand straight from an iconic pose of Obama's in an AP photograph -- so therefore Fairey does not license them commercially but allows their free use anywhere and everywhere! In any case, if Fairey does such work completely and entirely out in the open, where would be this alleged dishonesty come in then, huh? And, in fact, the Associated Press has sued him and lost -- so the courts agree with Fairey and not with the ethical and legal theory I imagine you hold in his regard, eh, mister or m/s IP?....... ↜Just me, here, now … 05:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "version" of a commercially produced marketing gimmick has no place here. This discussion is pointless, ludicrous really. You intentionally obscured the word "blanket" and then placed it first at the top of the InfoBox as an Official Seal and then later entered it into the succession box as the official seal of the "Office" of 'First Dog'. Absolute Fantasy & Reprehensibly Dishonest. Full stop. IP#99.99.142.6.186 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I protest your characterization here and reemphasize that my contributions to the encyclopedia WRT America's current first dog have been completely and entirely in good faith! ↜Just me, here, now … 15:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Please keep in mind Wikipedia's guideline to mutually Assume Good Faith on the part of all contributors. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
justmeherenow is an old pro if I remember correctly so I wouldn't worry too much about him. more to the point, I think we need to remember inclusion guidelines mostly revolve around notability and copyright. If there is an identifiable amount of reporting on this issue, then its notable. If its property of the US government, its not copyrighted (with a few exceptions). So considering at first blush this seems to hit both benchmarks, it is includable regardless of what it looks like, used to look like, or does / does not say things. However considering it s a PS and is somewhat on the "whimsical" side of things as people keep saying... maybe a better compromise would be to include the pic in the article and not the info box. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no possible argument to support taking a commercial logo that says "Blanket of the First Dog of the United States" photoshopping it to obscure the word blanket and then presenting it as an official "Standard of the First Dog of the United States". Justmeherenow made it all up and then tried to introduce it in to two locations on the page as an official "seal" of an imaginary office, and now he's spending all his time rewriting the discussion in this section in some bizarre effort to pretend that he ever even mentioned a gift. Good faith ends when editors manipulate the truth out of photos, introduce them as fact and then seek to rewrite the discussion.IP#99.99.142.1.224 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm flattered by your kind words, 72.0.187.239. While I'm flabbergasted by 99.142.1.224's whacky accusations of alleged sneakiness.
Notwithstanding the point of order that copyright, of course, should be taken up at file pages or Commons -- whereas discussions of notability for inclusion of various items of info should take place here -- let me respond yet once again to 99.142.1.224's like-a-broken-record accusations WRT my alleged improper licensure of the image/insignia/logo.
  1. I brought the subject up immediately after LeahBethM brought the gifted items to talk. Sighs. So much for sneakiness! See the diff, where my entry is the very next talkpage line after Leah's, with zero discussion transpiring WRT her proposed inclusion than this line of discussion I'd initiated.
  2. And indeed I'd written the word gifted at the proper venue -- ie at Commons -- at 05:36 hours on the 21st of April 2009, right when I uploaded the image there and within the first line of the image's "description" field, also linking in the image's "source" field to the website of these gifted items' commercial manufacturer.
Let's please move on, shall we? ↜Just me, here, now … 21:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File image of "Blanket of the First Dog of the United States" uploaded by user:justmeherenow on Wikipedia has been deleted for violation of commercial copyright through the speedy deletion process.IP#9970.225.140.80 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In correction of sock-hopping IP: The file had been uploaded to Commons (not Wikipedia) where -- through misuse of the speedy tag (rather than an appropriate what's-comparable-to-an-IfD tag) {wink} -- it was improperly deleted! {eyes twinkle} ↜Just me, here, now … 07:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The tag for Speedy Deletion cannot be improperly used. It simply shows the source file that the copyright violation occurred from and asks a neutral third party with administrative authority to make a determination. The evidence is self-evident and the neutral judge has both the upload and the source - it is only in the most blatant and obvious cases where no doubt exists that a deletion occurs. Just as in this case where a speedy deletion was authorized by a neutral administrator. If you feel they're wrong appeal it with the administrator, he can be found here:[5] he/she will reverse themselves if in error. There also exist several other avenues of appeal and multiple venues to file a grievance.IP#9970.225.140.80 (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
so why can't we use the full image then? Yes its more encyclopedic than a p-s frankly. Again is it government property or not? What was the copyvio criteria for the speedy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.187.239 (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Catch 22. (1) Create my OWN design, NOT patterned after the one one gifted doggie stuff to the 1st fam? No go. (2) Use the image from the manufacturer's website? A no go too! (since such fair use of an insignia/logo is only authorized on WP AT AN ARTICLE ABOUT SAID MANUFACTURER. As for option (3)...
(Whispers to IP-formerly-known-as-"Cat"): Don't tell your fellow I/Ps (don't wanna puff -- or, especially, further rile -- (t)he/im up!) but -- I -- sorely -- tried!:

I/e I made an artistic rendering of near-to-the-exact insignia -- with its licensing rationale being some take on the fact its design motifs were copied in turn from O's campaign logo/various ExecBranch-WHouse logos, anyway -- but it didn't get past our fellow WPdian's eyes nor claws'n'beak......

↜Just me, here, now … 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cooper, Helen (April 12, 2009). "One Obama Search Ends With a Puppy Named Bo". The New York Times. Retrieved April 18, 2009. Other Web sites, which have been tracking the saga of the selection of the first dog, were in a frenzy over the weekend.
  2. ^ "New Obama puppy Bo knows Texas". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. 2009-04-13. Retrieved 2009-04-13.

Lexicography-or-semantics Q

(Not rhetorical, as I don't know the answer.) But, when a horse's -- function? (job? occupation? position? /____?____/) (i.) is to draught, singly or in a team (ii.) is to breed (iii.) is to be a pet (iv.) is to give public rides whether at a stable or a dude ranch (v.) is to race (vi.) is to buck gauchos (vii.) is to be shown or to perform or to be ridden, any or all of which in an exhibition or in a competition or under the "big top" or in a film...(viii.) is um to be hided or turned into another product or eaten (ix.: dunno what else!) /____?____/ -- What is this function called? ↜Just me, here, now … 03:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Forgot "function as a war horse." ↜Just me, here, now … 03:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC) (Presntly at the generic animal infobox template the field where an animal's function would be specified is termed occupation.) ↜Just me, here, now … 01:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

role is perhaps the most accurate term but its very bland. "work" might be acceptable in this case as well... you're right its a tough one. I think some of the confusion in this case is due to some very narrow and untested defintions in the info box, which are forcing a fair degree of textual hoop-jumping at the current moment. All for the sake of printing a decades old RS term. alas 72.0.187.239 (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Any useful info here...

http://www.petconnection.com/blog/ (eg, "He’s in training right now. He’s going to be a little gentleman, believe me – until he sees that fountain. He’ll be splashing around and saying, ‘Where’s the fish? Where’s the fish?’"---MARTHA STERN -- Bo's breeder)? ↜Just me, here, now … 10:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibily the first cartoon published depicting FDOTUS Bo was published April 14, 2009 in The Columbus Dispatch, artist: Jeff Stahler. The cartoon was also mentioned here. LeahBethM (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC) And another 'cute' Bo cartoon: HERE LeahBethM (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Official Website of the United States First Dog

I've removed the one page puff piece and clearly indicated blog entry on Bo's arrival that was incorrectly cited as his "Official" website. He does not, at this time, have a website. IP#99 . 99.151.172.42 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Property of:

The dog is correctly the private property of the Obama family - and even then may be more properly termed the private property of the President as it was a gift to him. It is not the "property" even broadly speaking of the "First Family" as would be the White House, Camp David, dishes, furniture or other items. IP#99 .99.151.172.42 (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"First Dog" Redux

Please see above discussion regarding the dog's "title", wherein it was decided to mention "First Dog" in the "Known for" field since it is definitely not a nickname but some feel uncomfortable calling it a "title". The fact that he's a pet of the First Family, thus making him "First Dog", is mentioned on the very next line of the infobox, as is the fact that the 2 facts are synonymous. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a nickname.IP#9999.142.6.186 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not. See above discussion. People wouldn't say "Here First Dog, here boy!"; it's not used when addressing like a name would be. It's more of a (notional/unofficial) title. The term is only used in the third-person, e.g. "It's the First Dog", "How is the First Dog?".--Cybercobra (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, are you claiming to be the same user who previously agreed above, or not? It's a tad confusing. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am the same IP user that has been party to this conversation from the beginning. And I believe my writing style is distinct enough to link and underscore that. On topic: It is no more unlikely to say "here, first doggie", then to say "Here, Amigo's New Hope, here boy!". Nicknames come in many shapes and sizes, all are "A nickname is a descriptive name given in place of or in addition to the official name of a person, place or thing." This nickname differs from the "Another class of nickname is the familiar or truncated form of the proper name, which may sometimes be used simply for convenience". Nicknames like Chemical Ali, The Big Kahuna and such are frequently used to refer to the object --- without actually being used when addressing the thing.IP#9999.142.1.224 (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you find the most recent version agreeable, with "pet of First Family" preceding "First Dog"? --Cybercobra (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I am very uncomfortable with the term being given undue weight. That it is clearly a nickname attached to this dog at the moment is without question, but as a record we should endeavor to present a clear report. Obscuring facts is not in the best interests of the project, even here at the margins of history. I propose we revisit this particular line next week and allow ourselves some time to reflect, unless you feel otherwise.IP#9999.142.1.224 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The infobox is so cluttered at this point that I think the two line style entry we have for "known for" is getting a bit clunky at this point. I fully agree that there is a neccessary distinction between title and nickname (ie one would say "here diddley" but not say "here first dog") so I think we need to acknowlege that. I hesitate to speculate on the percentage of people who find this page without having some understanding of Bo's connection to the Obamas, so the "known for- being the pet of the first family" seems general to the point of losing meaning, esp when the same info is much higher up in the lede. I also understand it is the result of compromise. However at this point I think we need to seperate the two entries into a first dog entry and an Obama pet entry. Considering "title" is not popular in any ieteration, I was wondering if "position- first dog" might work. It might be hard to accurately list all the various apellations and various tenses etc for such a famous animal, however I think its pretty easy to say what Bo does and position maybe describes that better than title. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that all these things mean something, there are dogs with titles, just as there are all sorts of working dogs that have positions on mush teams, herding, hounding and general hunting. This is a dog whose only claim to notability is to be a White House pet. Yet here we are trying to make it something it is not, it's a presidential pet, a white house pet, Obama's dog, it's all of these - but the nickname "first dog" is just a tongue in cheek joke and play on words. It doesn't exist in any recognizable sense. It is not what the dog is known for - and I'm sorry that its fame is so elf-evident you feel it's duplicative of the lead, but most all of the InfoBox is, same would likely be true of infoboxes for other famous dogs like Lassie or RinTinTin. "Known For" by definition will repeat what the dog is "know for", just like the lead. We don't "spice up the entry" by purposely obfuscating clear factual information. We can't allow ourselves the same luxuries of inaccuracy that the Hello! magazines give themselves in order to engage in illusions. IP#9999.142.1.224 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think someone found the proper encyclopedic manner by opening up a new InfoBox line. The dog has an occupation: Pet. The dog is known for: Being owned by the white house family. Clear, concise, encyclopedic. Perfect.IP#9970.225.140.80 (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are getting away from the point that this term is in regular, if not heavy, use throughout the world media. You keep on saying its just wordplay of some sort, which is true but does not eliminate the need to reflect real-world usage. I don't think its encyclopedic to attempt in our editing to build an idealized version of reality; we need accept actual conditions and move on. This term has been used in RS for years, at least that I can remember with Buddy and Barney, so frankly its highly notable in my opinion. Considering it has been in use for over a decade, the claim that "It doesn't exist in any recognizable sense" is not persuasive to me.
and as far as using "postion" or some variation, I'm glad you guys are working with that and I would just remind people that when we make an entry for Sec. of State or County Sheriff or anything else, when we do "position" we don't make a general entry like "cabinet official" or "policeman"... we put the specific job title. And Bo's specific job title is clear along with being oft-used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.187.239 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
after trying to make some edits on this too, I have discovered that you can't just insert "position" into the infobox. I like the idea but I think "occupation" is def. the wrong word as well. No pay, no college credit, no defined duties or schedule. I don't think Bo is "occupied" doing anything right now. Again I like "postion-first dog" the best but I will see what is even possible. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The existence of the term, and use, is fully recorded in the prose of the article. We do not however create Office and Title by popular acclaim - and most importantly, and let us underline, Wikipedia does NOT unilaterally declare the existence of such by riffing off a nickname. It was no more true for the King of Rock & Roll then it was here.IP#99.12.47.23.218 (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We're not creating/declaring the term. We're merely noting the existence of a popular, cited way to reference the dog. The problem at present is what to term "First Dog". Nickname? Unofficial/joking title? Position? I personally think the prior version where it was part of the "Known for' field worked fine. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
current compromise is good imo. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The dog's primary notability is derived from it being resident in the White House, the dog is primarily known as "Bo'. The dog was referred to, in some accounts, by using the play on words, "first dog". It just is what it is, nothing more. IP#99 99.151.172.42 (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll also add, in correction of my fellow IP, there is no current "compromise" - it's an item under discussion. IP#99.99.151.172.42 (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, have attempted resolution by editing infobox to make it more generic. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Clever edit, very nice. "Appellation." 99.151.172.42 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

First Dog is now official title

[6] So there it is, the WH has issued the title and I can't imagine what would make it more official than that. Combined with ALL the media usage etc... I will be adding this into infobox title, without the "unofficial" tag, and I expect this edit to be honored unless more than one user makes an strong counter argument. In particular I would like specific info from opposed editors, as to what body could make an official "first dog" designation if not the white house itself. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a typo. Bo was named American ambassador to the doge of Venice. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a blog using a play on words, and it's been included in the article for a long time. IP#99 .99.151.172.42 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
that's really not the level of justification I expected from you unfortunately. Your repetition of the phrase "play on words" is beginning to show signs of the squeaky wheel syndrome and at some level if you are the only squeaky wheel you cease to have relevance. For example why roll back from "nicknames" to "other appelations" even when another edits has expressed his unhappiness with that phrase. I have seen your talk page too where you have been presented with numerous options and not responded. The way I see it you need to choose between "title"... "occupation"... or "known for" field as being first dog. Regardless of whether its a blog or a website, its a whitehouse.gov domain and so it has a certain amount of official notability automatically. Considering your resistance to the use of title, even when the title is issued by the White House itself, I really think you need clarify under what hypothetical circumstances you would acknowledge a title for Bo, so that we might keep assuming your edits are in good faith. When the WH is using the term, as the title of their webpage for the dog, it has reached the point where the term's absence and de wiki-linking is starting to seem unencyclopedic. All because of one user. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

media nickname etc

when sources besides the media are using and even propagating the term, guess what it ceases to be a "media" term. Thats pretty simple actually so I am surprised that ip99 keeps adding it in in a knee jerk fashion. Repetitively adding in the exact same phrase without responding to direct questions on several talk subjects, and without making any of the compromises MULTIPLE other editors have suggested, is the definition of pov editing. When you start doing direct reverts instead of working around other editors, the expectation is for increased dialouge on talk, and to find you parroting the exact same arguments you made a week ago is disappointing. That is what I mean by the squeaky wheel syndrome; the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and by being the loudest (only ?) contrary voice in this first dog debate, you are getting other editors to bend over backwards trying to compromise with you, and then refusing even the compromises. At this point it is making the page less encyclopedic by the minute too! Removing wikilinks even in accepted text is totally unacceptable and you keep doing it even though you never once mention it on talk. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

I didn't originally add the term there and my edit comments specifically referenced the original editor whose text I was restoring. 99.151.172.42 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I was the one who originally added the "media nickname" parenthetical in the infobox. This was prior to when I edited the infobox template to change "Other names" to "Other appellations". My intent was to clarify that First Dog was not precisely a name per se. Now that the infobox template has been edited appropriately, I think it was entirely proper to remove the parenthetical. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree, the "media" add is removed.99.151.172.42 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PETA mention

"PETA called for Bo to be neutered, unaware that the surgery had already been completed."

Why is this relevant or notable? --Raijinili (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
this got moved when we split from just a "public reaction" section to a "heritage" section and a "public reaction." There was originally one PETA statement but I had to split it up because part referenced the heritage dispute and part was this neutering reference which yes seems a little out of place, though I do think PETA's reaction is pretty notable in this case overall. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is it notable? They asked for neutership and didn't do their research. --Raijinili (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
PETA demanded neutering and didn't do their research! The PETA statement was wrong about the dog being neutered, therefore PETA is not a relaiable source. Wikipedia deletes quotes from unrelaible sources. Why has this unreliable source not been deleted from this article? 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Move?

So, since someone has found a source that Bo is "Bo Obama", what would people think of moving this page to Bo Obama so as to avoid the "(dog)" disambiguator in the page title? --Cybercobra (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bo (dog) → Bo Obama — Relisting per request to gain more input. —harej (T) 07:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So as to avoid an unattractive parenthesized, type-based disambiguator ("(dog)") in favor of a more natural one ("Obama"). --Cybercobra (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything to suggest that the dog is actually called Bo Obama.--70.24.179.60 (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
See reference in first 2 words of article. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, since that name is clearly referenced. I'm sure that there's a zillion opinions on this, but barring the introduction of additional references, or changing the current one, "Bo Obama" is the name which WP:COMMONNAME would recommend.
    — V = I * R (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The dogs official name is just "Bo" according to the White House site [7][8][9]. TJ Spyke 21:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - he is a dog named Bo. Title is accurate. Adding family names seems to come from the same kind of mindset as owners who refer to their dogs as their "children". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    OK, so you don't like the practice of adding family names to pet's names. That's not relevant to the fact that people do add their family name to pets names, and most importantly that in this case such practice seems to have become common. Wikipedia is not here to attempt to "correct behavior", we're supposed to strive for neutrality after all.
    — V = I * R (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    It's very relevant. Do we have a consensus to add family names to dogs here? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    No one else, that I can see, is looking to build any general consensus here, and this is not the place for such activity regardless. In terms of this page, as supported by convention recommended at WP:UCN and WP:DAB, the title of this article should be "Bo Obama". You don't like that naming convention, I get that and respect it, but Wikipedia is not the place to argue such topics. I'm sure that there are plenty of forums and blogs out there which would be happy to have your participation in a discussion about this.
    — V = I * R (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    You haven't answered the question. Is there a general (outside Wikipedia) consensus on including the surname? This is what "common names" is all about. So far we have the "baseball card" (which is a novelty), and a postal address, which may be a fiction (compare the Royal Mail suggesting letters to Santa have the postcode "SAN TA1"). Do we have evidence of serious sources referring in a serious context to "Bo Obama"? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    While we're at it, see cases of Millie (dog) and Barney (dog). All other things being equal ... 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    It only took me about 10 seconds of looking at the current references to see that most news organizations are doing what the White House press corp seems to be advocating for them to do: use the name "Bo Obama". I see that Fox, The Huffington Post, the Daily News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and several others which use that form of his name directly in their article titles...
    — V = I * R (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
    Any of these in a serious sense (as opposed to a cute sense)? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    I'm not sure. What would you consider "a serious sense"?
    — V = I * R (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't really care if this page is named Bo (dog) or Bo Obama, but if it is the first, why ever would we not have a Bo Obama page set up as a redirect to this article? Many news outlets have referred to the dog as Bo Obama, and there's a good chance people will search on that name. Is there a problem with a redirect? Tvoz/talk 08:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • If you check the deletion log, the redirect was apparently deleted to make way for a page move (CSD G6). I'm guessing the move was then disputed or something, leaving it in its current state of limbo; this is just a guess though since I'm not an admin. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • In my infinite wisdom boldness, I've recreated the redirect. My guess is that someone considered this an uncontroversial move and tagged the redirect with {{db-move}}. An admin then came along, and instead of moving the page they just deleted the redirect per G6 and left it for the requesting editor to complete the move. They didn't, and the article never got moved. In any case, the G6 is no longer relevant since that criterion only applies to uncontroversial page moves. Jafeluv (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Cybercobra's three sources had me convinced, but I realized there may be more than one dog called Bo. Perhaps none as notable as Bo Obama, but still. / PerEdman 23:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The dog's name is "Bo", no last name. Even an article that used "Bo Obama" in the headline never referred to the dog by that name in the article. Previous Wikipedia style for presidential pets should set the standard. See, for example, Fala (dog) and Socks (cat). Nobody ever referred to the cat as Socks Clinton! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

More examples of Wikipedia precedent: Buddy (dog), Barney (dog), Millie (dog), Rex (dog), and Liberty (dog). --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
The difference here is that we have actual references in reliable sources calling the dog "Bo Obama". I agree that is likely not the case with any of the other dogs. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, and more importantly (in my opinion at least), this is a single movereq, not a multi-movereq. How other article names are handled can certainly be suggestive toward a course of action when there is some ambiguety otherwise. In this case however, WP:TITLE and WP:UCN seem to suggest that, based on the existence of the cited and therefore verifiable and reliable sources, the title of this article should be "Bo obama".
— V = I * R (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. The intent here is not to create or alter any wider precedent. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
And yet Wikipedia appears to be 100% consistent that the name of an animal is followed by the type of animal in parentheses. More examples: Bubbles (chimpanzee), Trigger (horse), Koko (gorilla). This has been so consistent it could actually be added to the stylebook. In a case like this where there are examples of usage both ways (actually a majority of the citations say Bo, a minority say Bo Obama) we should stick with established precedent and keep the current title, "Bo (dog)".
Also, since the citations go both ways, with a majority on the side of "Bo", I think the opening sentence should be "Bo, sometimes referred to as Bo Obama..." or "Bo, also known as Bo Obama..."
Without impugning anyone's motives, it appears that there are just two users here (Ohm's Law and Cybercobra) who are arguing strongly for the "Bo Obama" usage, and that should be taken into account when trying to evaluate consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
I just want to mention that it's easy enough to disprove either of the "equal treatment" or "majority use just Bo" arguments, simply by looking at the references in the article (which is pretty much the sole basis of my own position, IAW WP:TITLE and WP:UCN). Regardless, I have full confidence in whomever the closer here ends up being. Whatever happens, I certainly won't loose a seconds worth of thought over it, let alone any sleep... I've stated my position is all, and I think that I've done so in a manner which can be listened to.
— V = I * R (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No member of the family

Apart from the naming ('Bo (dog)' or 'Bo Obama', see above): I think Bo should not be tagged with a cat "Obama family". How cold he be a member of the family? Family (on wiki) has to do with people, mariages, children and parents, etcetera. My opposing editor Cybercobra on this reverted here says yes Bo is, but the quote from Michelle Obama in that source is "[Michelle does] a predawn walk with the “most famous member” of the Obama family, new puppy, Bo". Clearly the "most famous member" part is a joke by Michelle, why would the rest be serious? Maybe Bo is part of the family life, OK. But not member of the "Family Obama". Propose delete the cat.
(Afterthoughts here: "tagged with a cat" = no pun intended, but enjoyable; and if Bo were a member of the family, the surname Obama would be OK then.)

-DePiep (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bo (dog)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am failing this article's GAN for a lack of broadness and questionable neutrality. (WP:GACR) The background and biographical info looks great, but I'm concerned about the last two sections. The "Reactions by and in the media" section does not and should not focus only on the media. Is there any info available from public opinion polls or general reactions to the dog? Talk show reactions, editorials, anything? Also, the Washington Post stuff could be moved to the biographical information section.

In addition, the name "Disputed rescue heritage" is a misnomer for the second to last section. The dog's rescue heritage really isn't disputed; we KNOW everything about its heritage. Therefore, the section could use a name change. Also, the section itself seems to be filled with criticisms of the Obama's decision in not choosing a shelter dog. Therefore, is it really neutral in handling the controversies behind Bo's being chosen? 

Feel free to renominate this article at WP:GAN once you have addresses the issues above. --Edge3 (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bo Obama

A page move to "Bo Obama" would be ballsy. (Despite the fact that the designation is arguably more precise than "Bo [the] dog," it raises the hackles of people opposed to such cutenesses receiving encyclopedic sanction.) Yet, consider: Because of the convention in biographies to indicate full names as the first words in ledes, I added "Barney Bush" to the Barney [the] dog article (the articles for Millie Bush and Liberty Ford already had that designation in the ledes before I got there (diff)) and I added "Buddy Clinton" to the lede at Buddy [the] dog's bio, including in each case an official White House source. They were all deleted, including the two in longstanding existence, Millie and Liberty, and their supporting references were deleted, too.
In any case, its my opinion that, per WP:NPOV and WP:PRESERVE, even if, as reasonably supportable by WP:RS or stylistic reasons, it is the consensus that surnames added to pets' names ought not receive unqualified endorsement from Wikipedia, we still are required to say eg, "Some sources give 'Socks Clinton,'" in order to account for the sources extant. ↜Just M E here , now 15:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(Side note: I've now restored Mildred "Millie" Kerr Bush, at her article, with a ref.) ↜Just M E here , now 15:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, the only people who refer to pets using a last name are people who work at veterinarian clinics.70.88.213.74 (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A chuckle...

I can't help but read this page and chuckle... I can just see the next advertising campaign for Bo(dog)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is a serious case of Wikigroaning. Bo the dog's page is massive, detailed, several pages long and yet it's larger than the page for Bo (tribe) and Bo people (China). Both are obviously not important as the leader of the American empire's dog. This isn't a case of all the news that's fit to print. It's a case of Wiki nerds determining what is and is not important. Is there a useful tag that can be added to this article to convey this?TurtleMelody (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
So go write some more content for those other articles. The dog has received massive press coverage throughout the U.S. and thus clearly meets the notability guideline. The length of their respective articles does not mean that one is more important than the other in the grand global scheme of life; it likely means that it's way easier to write a lot about the president's dog than about small populations of people in India or China. Propaniac (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Improve the encyclopedia! Outback the koala (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic?

Can we have a discussion as to whether this is unencyclopedic or not, and then be done with it? Myself, I couldn't care less, but I do care about not having edit wars in Wikipedia. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As no one seems to be interested in this topic, I'll just remove the templates. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
In no other country than the USA would the dog of the Head of State warrant its own article. 82.170.244.87 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is really strange. It is about a dog right? Joe biden insults obamas dog followed by 6 sources? What's going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.2.24 (talk • contribs)

I think that this article is encyclopaedic. 81.178.210.11 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Bo photo "chilling"?

"David Axelrod...tweeted a photo of Obama sitting in a car beside first family dog Bo. 'How loving owners transport their dogs.'...

"Eric Fehrnstrom...: 'In hindsight, a chilling photo.'"---LINK

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hypoallergenic dog breed

The Wikipedia article Hypoallergenic_dog_breed states that there is no scientific basis for claims that a breed is hypoallergenic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.135.57 (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Can Bo orgasm on command?

A list of tricks that the dog can perform was added to the infobox on 17 April 2009, by a user who is now retired, assuring readers that Bo can "sit, present paw/shake, lie down, roll over, get off, wait". The citation supporting this list is a dead link now. "Get off" is slang for orgasm. Is this a joke that does not belong here, or is "get off" standard jargon in dog science for one that knows when he should "get off" the dining room table? I don't know if the inclusion of "get off" is a prank or if my one-tracked mind is obscuring an innocent interpretation. — O'Dea (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

One without a dirty mind would infer "get off" in terms of a dog would mean for the dog to, wait for it, get off of something, such as a couch, a table, or even a person.Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Source

--Another Believer (Talk) 14:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Really?

Does this page actually exist? Really? I was shocked to see Bo have a link to it, so I click on it, ended up here, and am in utter shock the dog has its OWN page, and with this amount of information. Was this really necessary? And does that much information needed to be written about this dog? There are countless pages on Wiki of actual PEOPLE and they have far less written about them as compared to Bo. Couldn't this page have just been included in the Obama Family page? He actually needed his own page? I just had to say that somewhere. Come on people. This is why the rest of the world makes fun of us.Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course the subject deserves an article. Bo passes the notability threshold. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hair/Fur

Re-edited on topic of PWD pelage. All mammals have hair. You can call if fur, but the correct biological / medical / anatomical designation is hair. I have cited a definitive source. FWIW, I am a veterinarian and own 2 PWD's, so am somewhat expert in the field. While I am absolutely fine with the generic term fur (and the awful "furbabies") in general conversation, there is no use for differentiating "hair" and "fur" in an encyclopedia, as 1) they are scientifically identical and 2) there is no non-scientific general consensus on the difference in levels of shedding and growth habit between what is referred to as "hair" versus "fur." Hiobazard (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable

{{subst:Requested move ...}} IF Sasha and, particularly, Malia, dont have their own pages here, then theres no way the 2 dogs are notable enough for their own WP page. Suggest merging it with the Obama family much as the girls' bios are.(Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).

The fact that there are many presidential pet articles supersedes this. Also, his children do not have articles because they haven't yet satisfied the notability requirements. Finally, dogs are not humans, so it would be inappropriate to merge them together. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, this discussion should explain my point further. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bo (dog). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bo (dog). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Bo's heritage excuse me, but I'd like to talk about th sectione where Ceasar Millan name is mentioned. I'd like to know why we see the name of udeducated in terms of dogs behaviour Cesar Millan case Hee lackes a fundamental understanding of dog behavior, and even dog genetics. In fact his show was frequently in direct contrast with actual research and humane methods of dog training. Should we even perceive him as any kind of trusted source? Just look at his eduaction! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foks17 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bo_(dog)/Archive_1&oldid=1155885265"