Talk:The Pet Goat

message: I believe this is factually incorrect - see . —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)
thread_title: June 2004

message: 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)
replies: text: I noticed this as well. Done. Derrick Coetzee 18:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: August 2004

message: ==== 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)
thread_title: [[WP:RM]] discussion

message: * 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)
thread_title: [[ My Pet Goat]] &rarr; [[The Pet Goat]]

message: 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)
thread_title: March 2005

message: 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)
thread_title: 68.236.180.238 Edit

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Spoiler warning 

message: 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)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.159.236 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: April 2006

message: 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.208.117 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scary Movie 

message: 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)
thread_title: September 2006

message: My Pet Goat was featured in a kids' cartoon, but I've forgotten which one. If you've seen it, reply to this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.151.77 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found out that it was the show Arthur, and it was the episode where Prunella gets into a lot of activities in order to go to a good college.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.110.74 (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartoon 

message: 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)
thread_title: July 2007

message: 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)
thread_title: Image moved

message: the plot description in this article is exactly the same as will ferrell's plot description of the book in the HBO special..  Reliefappearance (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: will ferrell you're welcome america

message: Anyone know? It's not really the book in general that's famous, it's the Florida school's particular copy that Bush read from. If it's in a display case at the library of the school, or is eventually moved to the G.W. Bush Presidential Library or whatever, that should definitely be reported in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.164.47 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to THE book? 

message: HOW DID BUSH SEE THE PLANE HIT THE TOWER ON TV?  NO ONE SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT ON TV.  THE SECOND ABSOLUTELY AND IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THAT PLANE WAS AN AIRLINER AND NOT A 'TERRIBLE PILOT' AS WE UNDERSTOOD WE WERE UNDER ATTACK AT THAT POINT. GOSH I KNOW IT'S NITPICKING, BUT IT'S ALSO BUSH PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH FACTS! -MARC WITZ  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.53.61 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: September 2009

message: As the so called "direct reading" mantra, no, "lesson" includes words that play off the vowel stressing (Ex. KITE & KIT), and, as the "The Pet Goat" story likewise features several of these, and, as the only essential difference between the "lesson" read before and the "The Pet Goat Story" is a narrative built around well metered lines, there should be a separate page for the reading lesson previous to the "The Pet Goat" allegory, or include it in this article.
Also remarking on the comment on this page suggesting the removal of Bin Laden's reported dig at Bush and punning off the "The Pet Goat" story: Should it be removed much less people would grasp the significance of him allegedly seeking out this seemingly obscure reading lesson while, although possibly to pay for the cheap pun, he didn't accurately represent the story nor Bush's actions, as, unless he has a more complete version of the "lesson" on that day, he alleges, according to this translation, Bush was talking to a little girl about the goat "butting"? Without checking the Arabic, there is another obvious pun also.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This owes all its notability to the Bush connection; there aren't going to be any Wikipedia articles on the preceding and following booklets in the series... AnonMoos (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is partial towards "The Pet Goat" story over the full & RELATED reading lesson 

message: As the above section notes, this article is a classic coatrack—it has next to nothing to do with the book and everything to do with the September 11 attacks. All information on the book should be neatly packaged into one of the existing articles on the attack and the section on this article reduced to put due weight on other parts of the book. If other parts of the book don't matter, we should be looking at deleting/merging this article. czar 06:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fair observation.  I'd argue that six sources (with more out there, I'm sure) makes the whole kit and kaboodle notable, but would a better location be George W. Bush at Emma E. Booker Elementary School?  George W. Bush reading The Pet Goat?  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

text: The above is actually not a fair observation. The topic of the article is not a book, it is a reading exercise. Contained within the reading exercise is a goat story, along with other elements that make up the exercise titled "The Pet Goat". The reading exercise was anthologized in a book, but it is still an integral creative work on its own separate from that book or any other place the exercise has been published. True it is not typical for Wikipedia to have notable reading exercises, but they can exist, and this is an example of one. Unless or until the topic of this article is changed/merged it should not be modified in a way that takes focus away from the primary topic. We still have majority weight on the Bush episode because that is the reality of why the exercise is notable.  -- GreenC 16:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Coatrack. Flounder ceo (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:WINAC. The reader is not being misled is the defining characteristic of a coatrack ie. they didn't come to the article to learn about the story only to go off on a tangent about something else under the guise of being about the story. 9-11 is why the story is notable, thus majority focus. -- GreenC 15:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classic coatrack 

message: Commons:Deletion requests/File:George W. Bush being told about second plane hitting WTC.png czar 06:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletion discussion notice 

message: Regarding this line:
:The story and its workbook attracted attention after the release of Michael Moore's documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11.
Of course, but I imagine the workbook attracted attention prior to the release of Fahrenheit 9/11. If Moore was the first to attract attention to it, that is a significant claim, but it needs to be sourced. Also the section "Reading exercise" should not have Bush episode content, it concerns the work itself like author, publishing history, plot - standard written work material found in any article. It is also standard in written work articles to have an 'editions' section. -- GreenC 03:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Yorker confirms public interest started with Moore, and it was a blogger who made the correct identification. This is now part of the 9/11 section which gives events chronologically. -- GreenC 04:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Moore etc. 

message: With this edit, I made a number of changes that I explained in my edit summary as .  This was partially reverted by  about an hour later, who said, I don't understand what that user's... presence or... regularity? has to do with their reversion of my edits, but per their orders I looked here and found no new reliable sources offered since the  tag was added in September.  Is there an explicitly prescribed time to wait for other editors to find sources to cite their claims?  Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests there is not.  Was waiting seven months too short a time to allow GreenC & others to find and cite the sources to support their claims?  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 11:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2021

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

message: I'm honestly at a loss in the face of accusations made and the disregard policies.  Let's break down GreenC's most-recent edit summary:
* Yes, I thought I thoroughly explained the facets of Wikipedia:Verifiability at #"Editions"; hence my edit.
* Are you referring to #April 2021, as being over two years ago (actually 2.19, as mentioned)?  This isn't a… competition, I assume you mean to imply, and I've never made any declarations suggesting otherwise.  As for my absence, I was the last contributor on this talk page with my request for sources IAW WP:V; neither GreenC nor any other editors replied.
* The page at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules hasn't changed since I last checked, and it says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ."  Since removing uncited information is unquestionably an improvement of the encyclopedia, I don't understand your position.
They have insisted on including uncited information in contravention of all policies mentioned.  I would love for they or another editor to say they've found the requisite sources to keep the section GreenC themselves added to the article.  Otherwise, the uncited claims (or the section entirely) must go.  —  Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think we should list this edition in the article? Chris Troutman (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Really the question is why Fourthords thinks any edition should not be listed, since every reliable source says the story is in this book, and no source says the story is edition-specific. Furthermore a couple unreliable sources say the story is in this edition, and there is no reason to discount those sources for the purposes of common sense. Furthermore this was the edition published just prior to 9/11 so it all makes sense. It is WP:COMMONSENSE. So can we focus on why Fourthords is so bound and determined to question why the story is not in this edition, the edition published near the time of events described in this article, and thus the most relevant. -- GreenC 03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. What you call COMMONSENSE, I call OR. For that reason, I have reverted to status quo ante as you have no consensus for your version and you've provided no compelling sources. I think you'll find that IAR no longer has the political acceptance it used to have when you first registered your account. You are welcome to start an RfC. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If I buy a copy of the book with the story in it, will you accept that. I would even provide a scan of relevant pages. I may not get that exact edition but one close to it. Or is that still OR for you? I mean, WP:V assumes good faith that if someone goes to the library and finds the book and verifies the book contains what the citation says, then that's good enough. You basically would have to assume bad faith that I am lying and did not verify the book. So I am taking an extra step here and offering to not only buy and verify the book, but prove it to you, with some scans. Are you OK with that for the purpose of restoring the edition-specific information? -- GreenC 20:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I bought a copy. It will be here in a week or two, when it will be verified if it contains the Pet Goat story or not. Presumably it's the 1997 edition but used book dealers don't always get metadata right we'll see. -- GreenC 20:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I asked at the outset for your need to include that specific edition, which you chose not to answer. If I were dealing with the editor of a draft who insisted on including a particular sentence I'd ask why, with the assumption they have a CoI. With you, I have no idea why and you refuse to tell us. I will not be assuming good faith or taking your word that the story is in the hardcopy you bought. A woman once complained to me about an apparent mistake in Wikipedia about her daughter's birth date; I told her that the LA Times says her daughter was born on a Monday, despite this mother's insistence that it was a Tuesday. Sources or it didn't happen. The article gives the title of the book and that portion is sourced, which is good enough for my mind. Anything more from you raises issues of WP:DUE. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I said, "the edition published near the time of events described in this article, and thus the most relevant". The topic of the article is not a book, it is a reading exercise. The reading exercise is notable because it was read by Bush during 9/11. Thus we want to list not just any copy of the book but one that was published prior to 9/11 and that contains the reading exercise. We can't verify with reliable sources Bush was reading the 1997 edition, but unreliable sources say he was, and it makes sense this was the case (it was the last edition printed prior to 9/11). Still, so long as we can verify any edition from pre-9/11 contains the exercise, that would be better than a generic book cite with no date and no verification it contains the reading exercise. The cite makes no claim to being the edition read by Bush, but it at least can point readers to a copy we have verified contains the story, and would be available on 9/11. It would serve readers better than just saying any old generic copy.  -- GreenC 22:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the logic of your position. You think there's value-added in your original research; I don't. I think Wikipedia articles need to express what the cited sources say. To do otherwise violates WP:V. Again, if you want to gather consensus for your position, start an RfC. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What original research? If we list an edition that is verified to contain the exercise, the topic of this page, that is OR?   -- GreenC 22:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess if you include a page number, then you've sourced the assertion. It seems like a lot of trouble for not much but we don't need a source independent of the exercise and since the exercise is "published" it would be ok (although only a primary source). Chris Troutman (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2023