Talk:The Pet Goat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm would like to propose removing the adjective "unreputable" from the line about Bush's critics. It seems to me that it is neither objective or necessary. Simply labelling them critics is enough without inserting a value judgement. (Not to mention that "unreputable" is rather archaic word--if the adjective has to be there, "disreputable" is more standard.) --Edmondjohnson 02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is factually incorrect - see [1]. —Stormie 01:34, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting points -- and precisely the kind of article I was looking for when I was writing the Wiki entry. Could you add that to the Wiki page? Maybe we'll change the name later, although I suspect that, even if that's not the actual name of the book, it's the name by which it's best known now -- and therefore the entry under which Wikipedia readers will look for it. (Hmm -- an article on famous misapprehensions would be a good addition to Wikipedia.) -- orthogonal 01:42, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the word "to" to "with" in the statement that the President was reading "to" the schoolchildren. As actually the children were reading TO the President. He just happened to be reading along. (haamer)

"The fact that Bush considered the crash to be an accident contradicts his claim that he immediately implemented the government's emergency response plans. Also, the first plane crash was not broadcast live anywhere. There was no footage of the first plane hitting the WTC until the next day." Is this passage retarded? The footage capturing live events of 911 didn't exist as events happened and only existed the NEXT DAY?! I'm amazed....and I hope the words I'm typing right now appear immediately and don't suffer the same delay as live events under political propoganda. There at Booker Elementary school President Bush had stated,"Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack...a full scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks that commited this act...". Don't allow a political agenda to cloud the facts here on Wiki.(haamer)

Here's some clarification for "haamer": I believe that what was meant was that footage of the first plane crash was not captured by the news media as there was no reason for any television station to be filming the towers at that time. The footage of the first collision that eventually surfaced was taken by tourists and videographers who were filming the towers at the time by chance. Television stations did not get access to this amateur footage until late that day (or perhaps early the following). As such, the collision Bush would have seen on television must have been of the second tower (which, of course, was filmed by several television stations). I think the inference made by the previous poster was that since Bush saw the second collission, the idea of it being an accident was foolish. Of course, this assumes that Bush knew he was watching the second of two collision, which it appears he didn't. In conclusion, the statement you reference is faulty in its logic--and, I agree, unnecessary in this article--but it's not as "retarded" as you think. --Edmondjohnson 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this sentence a little too pedantic and POV? "The truth, of course was that Bush, like anyone who had a sense of responsibility, realized that there was nothing he could do at the moment, and found it best not to throw the children into a panic by telling them the country was under attack." The chavi 01:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

quote

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack." 89.172.63.74 21:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As there are no other "My Pet Goat" articles, this doesn't need "book" to disambiguate it. If an admin reads this could they please perform the move, as there is a redirect at the target. Trilobite (Talk) 02:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. Done. Derrick Coetzee 18:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since the name of the book is actually The Pet Goat, should the title of this article be switched to that? My Pet Goat is the more popular usage, but a simple redirect could take care of that problem, and the article would end up being a tiny bit more factual in its presentation. Beginning 02:43, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WP:RM discussion

[edit] My Pet Goat → The Pet Goat

  • The Pet Goat is the correct title of this work. Jonathunder 04:53, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes no sense to use a factual inaccuracy simply because it's common. Beginning 19:22, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Alkivar 19:46, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The article could be made more NPOV, but the book has achieved a degree of fame (notoriety?) and should have an article. I can't name a single elementary school reader—except maybe some of the ones we used in the '70s—but I know about this book. Bin Laden made reference to the book in his last video; that says famous to me... —Tkinias 20:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Addendum: I've extensively rewritten the article to NPOV it and clarify the work's cultural significance. —Tkinias 21:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Much much better, no longer reads like a Michael Moore muppet wrote it. Alkivar 00:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The work's only claim to fame is that a President read it to elementary school children while his countrymen burned and fell to their deaths. Whatever its true name, the name by which most people (around the world) know it is "My Pet Goat." The article can contain a correction on the title and a redirect can take care fo those few people who do know the correct title. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • support. So according to Tony Wiki should generalize. Forget the fact the President was read TO, forget the fact about the story title....it's most important that opinions matter when distorting REALITY and can be verified somewhere else. (Haamer)
  • support. use accurate titles--Jiang 15:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • support. john k 20:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It shouldn't be too confusing. When people get the redirect, they'll see the picture of Bush and know they're at the right page. Nathanlarson32767 21:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • support.

The factual title of the story should be used with a cross-reference to the erroneous title. It is historically accurate and a substantive issue that Michael Moore got the title wrong. This is not nitpicking, but represents Michael Moore's fast-and-loose relationship with facts. The "popularity" of the erroneous title illustrates the lack of intellectual curiosity in those who accept Michael Moore's shockumentary as gospel. Almost four years after the event, people are still erroneously parroting Moore's error. The false title should be listed properly as "erroneous" and not merely "popular".

In fact, bin Laden's speech makes the factual error of assuming that among the things that the "goat did... that made the girl's dad mad" included ramming things. The goat in this story only eats things, and does not make any attempt to force its horns on anything.

is a bit of a weak argument. It's clear in context that Osama uses the word "ramming" in order to suggest the "ramming" of the Twin Towers. It's not then a factual error, but more like "poetic license". I suggest it be removed. Dysprosia 03:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schoolchildren?

'Schoolchildren" is not listed as a word by Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition ("schoolchild" is, but "schoolchildren" isn't). A google search of the dictionaries doesn't find it in the online dictionaries either. But I'm not going to change it again. --Bubba73 01:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

schoolchild (noun) A child attending school. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2000). Houghton Mifflin.
As in most dictionaries, including the one you consulted, the word is listed under the singular, but that doesn't mean the plural is not a word. Jonathunder 03:30, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
You are right. I thought I was right when I made the change, but I was wrong.--Bubba73 00:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 68.236.180.238 Edit

I reverted the 68.236.180.238 edit as it was POV and unnecessary (though admittedly funny... this just isn't the right forum for your joke).Isotope23 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles like this...

...are why I love Wikipedia! Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning

Hey, there should be more space between the spoiler warning and the spoiler itself. I was going to read the book, and now you've ruined it for me. I hope you're all happy now. sob sob --Slashme 12:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I laughed quite a bit at the spoiler warning. --Mrdie 18:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I put it back in since it seemed so popular. If anyone wants to remove it, can I suggest a vote ... or at least a UN Security Council resolution. Alanmoss 12:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added an Template:Endspoiler as otherwise people would not know where to recommence their reading. This would lead to a situation where the bulk of the article was not read. This is not desirable. Camhusmj38 11:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The spoiler warnings have been removed. Shame! More people seem to want them here than not (see above). Alanmoss 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that the article is more amusing with the spoiler warning than without. As if the book were some kind of terrible secret that must not be seen without preparation. --Tony Sidaway 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scary Movie

This article incorrectly stated that "In the 2003 parody film Scary Movie 3, the President..." whereas it should have stated "In the 2006 parody film Scary Movie 4, the President....". I have corrected this error.

[edit] Cartoon

My Pet Goat was featured in a kids' cartoon, but I've forgotten which one. If you've seen it, reply to this.

[edit] Image moved

I've moved the Bush image from the lead to the section titled "Bush's 2001 reading of the book". As the image is of Bush's 2001 reading of the book, this is common sense. Images go in the section they illustrate. Images that would be appropriate in the lead would be things such as the book cover, the author, or an illustration from the story. - auburnpilot talk 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bush's 2001 reading of the book section

I propose that we either remove or trim back this section. Although Bush's reading is the only reason that the book has the notability to have its own article, the article currently is little more than a POV fork of Criticism of George W. Bush. Any thoughts? Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're very sincere, but (as you say) the book wouldn't have the slightest claim to inclusion as a Wikipedia article if it weren't for the Bush connection -- so that therefore it seems that the only two logical alternatives are to discuss Bush, or to delete this article entirely. I don't see much middle ground between these two, so your attempt to remove all references to George W. Bush from this page, yet preserve its status as a separate Wikipedia article, really doesn't make too much sense to me at all.
I don't really see what the other problem is, either -- Wikipedia has many groups of articles where one article is a broad overview article, while the other articles discuss specific sub-areas in detail. Unnecessary duplication of content or overlap between articles should be avoided, but in principle there's nothing wrong with such having both broad and narrow articles in a given subject area. This article discusses one specific tiny small area of criticism of George W. Bush, basically limited to one hour of his life, in great detail -- something which probably should not be done in the broad general "Criticism of George W. Bush" article, so there's room for both articles. If there are any actual contradictions between this article and the Criticism of George W. Bush" article, then you should certainly point them out so that they can be dealt with... AnonMoos 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I wasn't trying to remove every mention of Bush (I left the bit in the intro). Here's my problem: there are only a few sentences about the book, and the vast majority of the article is spent on Bush. The article is about the book, not George Bush. I would still like to see this section trimmed, so long as others agree with me. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
How about I re-write the article in userspace? I would trim down the current "Bush's 2001 reading" section, and I would also incorporate the Popular Culture section into the "Bush's 2001 reading" section (the Popular Culture section is a list of trivia, and needs to be incorporated into the article anyway. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article is connected with Bush because all the "newsworthiness" or notability of the book is connected with the Bush incident and its ramifications. Attempting to "balance" the article to get around this is like trying to "balance" an article on the Lorraine Motel motel by adding details about the colors of the drapes in the rooms, while downplaying the fact that somebody got shot there... AnonMoos 02:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case perhaps it should be merged/moved under a more appropriate title. As it is, this article gives almost no information about its titular subject, but a considerable amount about an incident involving a man who read it once; in short, an almost perfect example of a coatrack article. It could, for instance, be moved to something like George Bush's 2001 reading of "The Pet Goat", but if the article title specifies that it's an article about the book, then the body of the article should follow through on that.
Also, Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article on the Lorraine Motel.
--tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 08:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that a merge and redirect to Criticism_of_George_W._Bush#Leadership is more appropriate. I don't see how the book passes WP:BK, and the book is only somewhat notable because George Bush has been repeatedly criticized for reading it for seven minutes after receiving word of the 9/11 attacks. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If William Figueroa gets a separate article, I don't see why "The Pet Goat" can't also... AnonMoos 23:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe your argument is flawed for two reasons. 1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 2) The William Figueroa article was redirected to Dan Quayle per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Figueroa. The article was re-created without discussion or any significant additions, so I've restored the redirect. This only reason this book is notable enough for an article is because Bush is frequently criticized for continuing to read it. I think that a merge/redirect are the best way to handle the WP:COATRACK problems with this article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've trimmed the section down to the basics. Bush's 9/11 reading is the reason for the book's notability, but the section here was greatly overdone. I tried to keep it to the basics, that Bush was reading it and continued reading after being informed of the second tower, that critics, most notably Moore, have used that to criticize him, and that even Bin Laden got in on it. The long discussion of the events of the morning, complete with Bush's recollections, was unwarranted.--Cúchullain t/c 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)