Talk:Tillamook Cheddar (dog)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Tillamook Cheddar (dog) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 6 April 2007.
Wikipedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tillamook Cheddar (dog) article.
Article policies
WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous comments

This is a retarded entry. The dog is not an artist, has anyone seen the linked site? It just scratches papers. Should wiki be providing an entry advertising some rich guy trying to sell his dog's garbage? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.26.69 (talk • contribs)

It might be true that a human artist would use the same technique. There are some discernible patterns in at least some of the scracthed papers. The issue is certainly debatable or colourable to at least some degree and as such this should be acknowledged in the article. Blanket statements such as "[t]he dog is not an artist" do not contribute to the development of the article; put criticism of artistic capability of the dog, if you can properly cite it, in the article, along with any rejoinders to this, also with proper citations. That's the way to deal with it. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
How important is this entry really? I mean come on its a DOG! Its not Rembrandt! It cant even SEE the colurs its using! The only thing this article demonstrates is how stupid people can be sometimes. The Taste of Monkeys 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Saying (in an illiterate way) "I mean come on its a DOG" [sic] is question-begging: Tillamook Cheddar is a dog -- so what's your point? Then you follow that up with an ignorant statement perpetuating the common misconception that dogs only see in black-and-white (their colour perception is somewhat reduced from humans' but they can see colours to some extent). None of this helps with the development of the article; see above. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, apparently the dog's work is somewhat popular (to the point that people have payed up to 2500 bucks for a painting). If someone pulls up Wikipedia to look up this dog, I would hope that there is an entry.
Yes - Criticism? Both of the 'art' and the 'creature as something with artistic capability at all'? Stevebritgimp 17:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"Criticism... of the 'creature as something with artistic capability at all'" should be mentioned in the article, with expression(s) of such a view properly cited. Uncited, knee-jerk mentions of this confined to Talk don't really contribute much to the development of the article. Personally, I think that the vehement rejection of the notion of a dog as having artistic capability has more to do with humans trying to keep their place as unique artistic talents than anything about dogs in and of themselves. Humans shouldn't be so desperate to keep animals in a place they have purely invented for them -- relax! A dog isn't going to take your place in law school! --Daniel C. Boyer 15:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had the chance to look up more about this dog, but the article smacks of parody or something of the like. Not saying it isn't legit, but the article can certainly sound like humor. DejitaruMusouka 20:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This article reads like some sort of bizarre April Fool's prank; dogs are not human. Matfo 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. It's clearly just a dog doing doggy things who happens to have a penchant for scratching stuff. Not a freaking artist. 83.70.233.227 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there should be something here since the dog is popular, but interested people will find an article that looks like a parody. I think an overhaul of the article's style is in order. It personifies the dog too much - characterizing this playful dog as a dedicated artist who doesn't like people to interfere with its work is just silly. Qubiter
Well said, Qubiter: the subject clearly meets Wikipedia standards of notability, but the tone of the article needs to be more encyclopedic, not tongue-in-cheek as it sounds now. -Aleta 00:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
In the dog's appearance on the Conan O'Brien show, it got extremely angry when they tried to reach for the art while the dog was working. She is very possessive and protective of her art. I don't think there's room for debate on that, as it was clearly observable. The article's other statements are factually correct; I think what is meant is to change the wording so as to minimize the dog's significance, which would be POV. The only reason the article reads humorously (other than the coincidental fact that it was begun on April 1) is that the subject itself is quite humorous and unexpected. But, truth is often stranger than fiction. Regarding the dog's "playfulness," yes, I suppose that is her main reason behind doing what she does. But if you observe her at work (particularly her demonstration on the Conan O'Brien show, you'll see that it doesn't particularly appear like a "happy" kind of fun; in fact, while working, the dog appears to be angst-filled, impassioned, and even somewhat angry. Badagnani 00:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen the conan o brien show, but the youtube you link to leaves a LOT of room for debate on the "protectiveness of art". It looks like a dog playing. Ever tried to take a toy from a dog? It reacts in EXACTLY the same way. And, again referring to the video, the dog doesn't look empassioned when doing his "art"; he looks like he's digging. 83.70.160.203 11:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that in that clip it looks like it's just digging (though you do see it jumping to try to get the canvas Hastie has just taken away from it). Unfortunately the Conan clip can't seem to be found anywhere. Badagnani 11:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links don't work

None of the outside links work 140.198.169.40

They do for me, but I strongly suggest transferring them to footnotes rather than using external links. Fascinating article, and congrats on the DYK! María (habla conmigo) 18:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References...

These need some work using "ref name" tagging, as most of them are repeats... I'll see if I have time later. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain?

Wouldn't the 'works' be in the public domain, seeing as they were created by an animal? To quote our policy, Works created by animals (such as a painting produced by a chimpanzee) or machines are not copyrightable, although in the case of drawings produced by a computer program, the program itself of course may be copyrighted. So why are there no pictures about? J Milburn 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... do we even have a copyright tag for that? howcheng {chat} 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video

For those who don't believe it, click to watch video of Tillamook Cheddar in action. Badagnani 22:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cited source

This line "Her paintings have been compared to those of Cy Twombly, Jackson Pollock, William Anastasi" is supported by a link to this page: [1]. However, that page doesn't contain any sort of scholarly paper (or even review) about Tillamook's work. It just contains the line "Her work has been compared to that of Cy Twombly, Jackson Pollock, and William Anastasi."

Who is doing the actual comparing here? This information is absent in both the article and the cited webpage. I don't think that this is a valid source, and at the minimum the footnote/cite should be replaced with a "citation needed" tag. --Faits 19:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] are you kidding?

By the way: the prospect heights article claims tillamook as a resident of prospect heights, while this article claims that tillamook lives in clinton hill.

Please explain!! Very critical!

No, I'm not being serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.0.133 (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe she may have moved since the article was written. Badagnani (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)