Talk:Tillamook Cheddar (dog)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links don't work 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References... 

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

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

message: This line "Her paintings have been compared to those of Cy Twombly, Jackson Pollock, William Anastasi" is supported by a link to this page: .  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)
thread_title:  cited source 

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe she may have moved since the article was written. Badagnani (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  are you kidding? 

message: Editing in a hyperaggressive manner without utilizing prior discussion, such as this, is not helpful to our project. Badagnani (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is perfectly fine and the image is used "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question." I ask you in all sincerity to try to edit in a less hyperaggressive manner in the future. It will be better for our project. Badagnani (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're coming across as mildly insulting. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content. Under "acceptable image use" it specifically states that cover art be used "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." One sentence does not equal critical commentary. Wikipedia's goal is to be a free encyclopedia, and that is what is better for the project. As for the link, I seriously question your desire to keep a link where more than half (15 out of 24) of the images can't display because they're not archived.--Remurmur (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I always hope for the best, so I will ask you again to refrain from editing in a hyperaggressive manner. We are all trying to do the same thing (or at least I think we are): build the best encyclopedia for our users possible. Badagnani (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, you have insulted me. Attempting to follow policy does not make me "hyperaggressive". Please refrain from such hyperbole.--Remurmur (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manner of editing 

message: Ok- Barring the fact that this article is written as though it is about a person when it is actually about an animal, there are a few specific complaints I, and any reasonable person, would have:
1) There is a section entitled "Personal life." Again, it's an animal, not a human. Can "chasing squirrels" really be labelled as an "interest?" or is it a predatory instinct retained by dogs?
Also, the "sources" listed to support the existence of these "personal interests" are links to pictures that do not exist. Also, even if they DID exist, can a picture of a dog really be cited as a credible source? How do we even know it is Tillamook? It could just be any dog. Basically, "personal life" should only be a valid section for articles about humans. Unless, of course, you want me to start editing all articles on all animals to include sections on their interests. (Hey guys, did you know boa constrictors enjoy constricting? Sure, a "scientist" could say that snakes lack the mental capacity to really "enjoy" anything, but look! I linked it to a picture of a snake eating a rat! So it's ok!) 
2) Can animals be considered "artists?" 
Is this even a valid article to have? I mean, works created by animals aren't even legally considered artwork. They're in the public domain, because animals can't have intellectual property. Also "art" seems like it would imply some emotional involvement with the paintings, something that a dog could not possibly have. This article reads like an advertisement for Tillamook, who is really just a tool her owner is using to make money.
3) To quote a previous contributor "this is a retarded entry." It IS a retarded entry, for reasons I have listed above as well as others. It's riddled with factual errors, including a section where it implies Tillamook is a zombie (which hasn't been removed even though wiki admins locked the page.) How is this dog of note? I certainly had not heard of her until I was linked here from the article on Tillamook Cheddar, the brand of cheese. 
For all these reasons, this article should be removed, or at the very least immensely scaled back. Dogs do not have "personal lives" because a dog is not a person. Similarly, whether or not dogs can even create artwork is extremely questionable. Even if you disagree with these previous two sentiments, this article has factual errors and broken links. It is a joke, and it epitomizes everything detractors of wikipedia criticize the site for.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.37.18 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Humans are animals, too, and animals certainly have aspects of their life corresponding to the personal life of humans. Your assumptions about the emotional capacity of animals is bizarre; mammals are in that direction quite similar to us. Animals certainly can be considered artists and their works art; this is just such an example of an animal being considered an artist and its works art. Whether or not you would consider it such is moot; the article is notable and verifiable. Yes, I'm sure that there are some who would criticize us for having an article on a popular modern painter who's just a dog and not a "real" painter, and instead we should be working on obscure Renaissance painters nobody but extreme scholars have ever heard of, but we are what we are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

text: My "assumptions" about the emotional capacity of animals come from a basic understanding of cognitive psychology. I would argue that the dog's inability to qualify as a "real" painter is not a result of society's pretentious bias towards artists of merit, but rather stems from the fact she doesn't actually  understand what she's doing. In fact, she doesn't even "paint" anything, she just claws up canvas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.38.164 (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Studied at the foot of Louis Agassiz himself, did you? Here in the 21st century, we've learned that the internal lives of animals and humans is more similar than we previously thought; for a popular science article, I suggest March 2008 National Geographic. She certainly produces the pieces of art shown here, and you can dismiss any artist by trivializing their work; Bach just scribbled some notes on a piece of paper, for example. Whether or not she has a goal of making something beautiful or not is an open question. What's not open, and what is most relevant to our discussion, is that the sources on the subject call her a painter. And again, we report on subjects that are notable (and Tillamook Cheddar has had sufficient publication about her) and that interest our contributors enough to write about them (apparently so.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors, please read this: The dog is not a person, this article contains broken links, and it should be deleted or fixed. 

message: The discussions above really should have been framed in the context of hoaxing.  Indeed, there have been other animal artist hoaxes (see, for example, Pierre Brassau). The over the top descriptions of how TC "creates" her paintings do not make them true -- and the descriptions lack verification.  So, to replace the recently deleted notability tag, I've added the hoax tag to the multi-issue banner.  This article (and its' ilk) should be consolidated into an Art by animals article. --S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article certainly is not a hoax. Whether the dog's owner has perpetrated a hoax is a matter for the secondary sources to decide - and then for WP to cover. I think the tag is a mistake, as it implies the article itself is a hoax. LadyofShalott 17:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While the article itself is not a boax, it is supporting the hoax created by TC's owner.  Moreover, much of the material in the article is patent fiction.  As mentioned, a new article about "Art by animals" should be/could be created, but I do not have enough knowledge of the topic to create a worthwhile article.  Instead, I've created a category for the topic and tagged the 3 other articles I could find with the category.  For now, though, I suggest we leave the hoax tag.  In looking at WP:Hoaxes on Wikipedia I see where legitimate articles had hoax material.  So keeping the hoax tag here will help in cleaning it up (or prompting another editor to create an Art by animals article.)--S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Show that it's a hoax. Give a citation to a work that says it's a hoax. Without that, adding a hoax tag violates WP:V.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The hoax tag does not require that the entire article be a hoax.  If parts of an article are hoaxing, then per WP:NOHOAXES a tag is appropriate.  And the hoax banner itself says "some ... of its content" may be a hoax. So, besides common sense which says animals cannot be "artists", I have a citation to the art critic who says this stuff is a "sham".  --S. Rich (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, you have an opinion that says it's a sham, whatever the hell that means in this context. It's means there's some controversy about the article, not that it's a hoax. In the very citation you added, it says that the works of the dog have been exhibited as art, so there's reliable sources calling this dog an artist. That satisfies WP:V.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. You asked for a source and I provided it -- Jerry Saltz.  Besides, the Michal Mills articles ends with "Gazing on her lovely work, I could understand why the artists I know who have visited 'The Tillamook Cheddar Mid-Career Retrospective' see the show as an affront — a waste of gallery space that might otherwise be filled with real art by real artists." [Emphasis added.]  Portions of the WP TC article treat TC as a real artist.  Rather than delete these portions as unsourced, I have opened the discussion within Hoax guidelines.  The tag is helpful in attracting other editors who can contribute to the discussion so that consensus is reached.  Please do not delete the tag -- we need more people to WP:POLE, and seeking to hide the tag is dis-inviting other editors to have their say/push. --S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tag doesn't attract anything. It's patently worthless, as the fact that there's other tags on this article that have been here for years. If you want to edit the article, edit the article, and we work towards consensus. A hoax tag isn't for "I disagree with how some part of this article is written."--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

text:  Added Michael Mills quote -- Tillie's work is not art.  So, getting back to the original title for this discussion topic -- is there an editor out there who can create a distinct article about animals creating "art"?  (I simply don't have enough knowledge about the topic to create such an article.)  Doing so would be a far more valuable contribution to Wikipedia than those edits which seek to defend this single pet whose owner has imaginatively taken "work" from the dog and promoted it as art.  Wikipedia should not be used to further the promotion. --S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether or not this is art is controversial, I'm not disputing that. Attacking other users for doing unvaluable contributions is hostile and stupid; one may question the value of the time you're spending here. It's not a hoax; the creature is really creating these items and people are buying and selling them as art, and that's completely verifiable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax -- new overall article on art by animals needed 

message: One editor seeks to categorize TC as an "American painter".  This is clearly incorrect.  "Category:American painters" includes "Painters from the United States of America". Next, a Painter "may refer to:
Occupations: Creative artist in the medium of painting" and an artist "is a person engaged in one or more of any of a broad spectrum of activities related to creating art, practicing the arts and/or demonstrating an art. [emphasis added]" The editor wants to say "TC has produced paintings, therefore TC is a painter. And because TC is a painter her article should be categorized as "American painters"."  Now if the parameters of the category and/or definitions were changed to specifically include non-humans then the categorization would be correct.  I composed the new category "Art by animals" to allow for a proper categorization of TC, but inclusion of TC in the American painter category merits a Template:Uw-badcat advisory.--S. Rich (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We have reliable sources, like The New Yorker, calling TC an artist ("a "parade of concepts" featuring the local artist Tillamook Cheddar"). Your common sense human exceptionalism, like many the flat earth and many other common sense notions, is simply wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, incorrect.  This is not a question of how TC is described in the media or the article. She is an animal that does art, but that does not mean she is a human being/person who does art. The issue here is a question of WP editing guidelines, specifically WP:CAT and WP:COP.  Since the WP categories, without reference to RS, are defined in the context of human beings as artists and painters, it is improper to include non-humans in these WP categories.  How about the Bowerbird? The article says the males "decorate" the structures they build -- should they be described and categorized as artists?  Since Decoration is a Decorative art, the creatures (human or non-human) who decorate must be artists.  Or suppose we had an article that described robots making art? (Here's a start -- see: http://artbots.org/2011/)  Would it be proper editing to include robots in the WP American painters category when the WP category is defined in the context of human beings? No, a separate WP category would be proper.  Or suppose someone described ancient petroglyphs or the Nazca Lines of Peru as "UFO art"?  Would it be proper to include ET in the WP artist category?  Or how about God? Art and the Universe Isn't the creation of the universe a work of art which thereby merits God being placed in a WP Category as an artist?--S. Rich (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-categorization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tillamook Cheddar (dog). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101012193409/http://www.parade.com:80/articles/editions/2004/edition_12-26-2004/featured_0 to http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2004/edition_12-26-2004/featured_0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified