Talk:Jimmy Carter/Archive 2

message: Marge in Chains, it's was stated that Jimmy Carter was "Histories greates monster". was that made up or somewhat real?
Pece Kocovski 05:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone really thinks that Jimmy Carter is history's greatest monster. Except Ann Coulter possibly, if only she'd never heard of Clinton. The writers behind the Simpson's state they don't like Carter although they say they would vote for him today if the only alternative was George W. Bush. I think they put the 'history's greatest monster' thing in partially because they don't like him but mainly because it's a funny idea that a town would be 15 dollars short of being able to afford a statue of Abraham Lincoln and so they put up a statue of Jimmy Carter instead. It would have been funnier though if they'd have put up a statue of Michael Dukakis. Also it could be kind of poking fun at some really crazy right-wing Republicans who might actually think that Carter really is history's greatest monster. 195.93.21.133 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the simpson episode 

message: Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: * When Carter took the Oath of Office to begin his Presidential term, he referred to himself as "Jimmy Carter," not by his official name as is custom.
* On July 19 2006, President Carter appeared on former U.S. Sen. John Edwards's podcast becoming the first former US President to be a guest on a true podcast
* In India, a village near Delhi is named after President Carter called "Caterpuri",during his visit in 1978.This was at the height of Cold War when Indo-US relations were not well. 
* On March 23, 2006, President Carter became the first Presidential blogger, with a post to the political blog, Daily Kos.  He has posted there several more times.
* On October 14 1978, President Carter signed into law a bill that legalized the homebrewing of beer and wine.
* On one occasion, when Jimmy Carter was asked if there was anything in life he regretted, he replied: "Yes, the time that I stole from the collection plate as a young boy!"
* In 1976, Playboy published a controversial interview in which Carter admitted to having “lusted in his heart” for women other than his wife. This was widely satirized and affected his support among women and evangelicals.
* He was the first President to make public statements in support of gay rights. In California in the late 1970s, voters were facing a law which would have banned gays and lesbians (and heterosexuals that endorsed gay rights) from working in the school system. At a speech in California, Carter urged voters to reject the bill. In the early days of the Carter campaign, Carter had promised to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but backed off on the pledge when he won the Democratic Party nomination. The Carter White House had the first official visit by a gay rights organization, and allowed a group of gay veterans to participate in an official ceremony for the Vietnam War Memorial. During his unsuccessful reelection campaign, the Carter campaign competed with the Ted Kennedy campaign for the support of the gay rights organizations. However, the Carter administration's tepid support of gay rights did not please liberal Democrats (who felt Carter was too moderate on the issue) or the socially conservative Christians that Carter had previously courted.
* In Leary, Georgia, in October, 1969, Carter claimed to see an unidentified flying object (UFO). Robert Sheaffer concluded that Carter had seen the planet Venus. Later, during his presidential campaign, Carter promised to release the truth about any alleged UFO cover-up.
* A fan of professional wrestling, Carter stated his favorite grappler was Mr. Wrestling II.
* Also a fan of Major League Baseball, President Carter is sometimes seen behind home plate at Turner Field, the stadium of the Atlanta Braves, his favorite team.  
* Jimmy Carter is the only U.S. President to not throw a ceremonial first pitch in a baseball season-opening game since William Howard Taft started the tradition in 1910.
* Carter was born on the same day as U.S. Chief Justice  William Rehnquist.
*Carter is a very close friend of his predecessor Gerald Ford, despite the fact that he defeated Ford in the 1976 presidential election. He and his wife visit Mr. and Mrs. Ford's home frequently.
*A message from President Carter appeared on the Voyager Golden Records, now in deep space.
*Carter appeared as himself in a video tape on the comedy Home Improvement.
*Carter is the only President to have served in the Military during both World War II {not on active service since he was in the the US Naval Academy} and the Korean War.
We could source some of the things and put them in under different sections. An article about a former president should not have a trivia section. Jasper23 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved earlier (contrary info) mention on this page to immediately above this section. Dunno if it had a cite when it was in the article. Andyvphil 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true, unless it was the same EWSD Kennedy used. I remember the radio ads in the 60's.(nb:refs already in place confirm this)Andyvphil 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Says who? There's a wikiPolicy demanding ex-Presidents be treated as minor gods? And, while I'm at it, where's the Crit section? This article reads like a Carter Library press release. Speaks ill of Wikipedia's POV that it's considered a "good article". (Not talking r/l this time; took a quick glance at Jerry Ford and he doesn't get much mention of crit either.) Andyvphil 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: * Jimmy Carter once greeted former Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother of the United Kingdom with a kiss on the lips. Angered, she reprimanded him by saying: "No man has done that since my husband died.""Carter kiss causes a royal grudge", The Globe and Mail (Canada), 14 February, 1983, p.11
Its from the trivia section. Maybe I am too young but I have heard nothing about this and googe turned up nada. Jasper23 16:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone have another source for this 

message: The first former president to visit since the revolution - but how many presidents or ex-presidents visited prior to that. (Several before they were president - JFK, Teddy R.) -- Beardo 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuba 

message: Perhaps there should be a small portion of the article mentioning people's criticisms of him.72.195.159.155 02:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but with a caveat - they should be discussed here first unless properly sourced and cited (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). All articles, especially bios, must meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view standards. Unsourced edits will be reversed.  Ronbo76 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Jimmy Carter 

message: :WASHINGTON —  Jimmy Carter has accused an international Jewish human rights group of "falsehood and slander" for launching a petition that resulted in thousands of signatures being sent to the former president in protest of his controversial book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250673,00.html Crocoite 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carter Accuses Jewish Group of ‘Slander’ After Questioning Controversial Book 

message: *(...)the scholarly consensus regarding his presidency is that he was weak, ineffective and unable to manage crises.
This is a POV, pushed with weasel words. "Scholarly consensus" regarding political matters is virtually impossible.--cloviz 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarly consensus 

message: Not that it was Carter's direct responsibility but it is worthwhile -- I believe -- to at least mention in passing the fact that the Allies had installed the Shah and that he was seen by many as a U.S./British puppet. That would help clarify some of the motivation behind the hostage crisis and the awkward position Carter was in. Granted people can follow the links and find this info but I think it is relevant enough to be at least briefly interjected in this text.
--Mcorazao 19:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the Shah 

message: The photo page for the killer rabbit photo - and the website from which it was taken - ask that, although the image is public domain, it be captioned as "courtesy of the Jimmy Carter Library" out of courtesy. Is there a precedent for this? A format? It seems natural to be polite to those providing us with free public domain images, eh? Discuss.Kai 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killer rabbit photo courtesy of 

message: come on guys, he is the last living president yet to be featured!!!! lets feature him asap before he passes away!!!!! come on1!!! Somemoron 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GET THE QUALITY BETTER

message: (Note that this is not related to the content of his recent book.) Apparently, the head of the ADL (a very famous organization that combats antisemitism), Abraham Foxman, perceived that Carter accused a Jewish cabal of controlling the media to stifle debate about Israel. Thus, he called Carter an antisemite. While I do not know if this criticism has merit, that is not the point. It is from the head of an extremely notable organization and I think it may warrant a mention in the article. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Where (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no allegation of anti-semitism actually cited in this section. your statement "thus, he called carter an anti-semite" is speculative at best. Reverting. Derex 01:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding! The quote did say "you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control," however. Such conspiracy theories are antisemitic, no? Anyhow, if you wish, I could use another quote from here instead, where Foxman says "I believe he is engaging in anti-Semitism". Cheers! -- Where 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, "I believe he is engaging in anti-Semitism" certainly proves the point (that wasn't in the article). As an aside, it's certainly not obvious to me why such an opinion (that the media supresses criticism of Israel) would necessarily be regarded as anti-Semitic, though many anti-Semites do of course hold that view. But, at any rate, the accusation is established. The next question is whether it's notable enough to cover in a brief bio of Carter. Keeping in mind that surely thousands of various criticisms have been leveled at Carter, it's far from obvious that this one stands out to that extent. I'd like to see (a) at least three prominent people making the accusation explicitly (b)coverage in mainstream national press.  If this accusation is related to his new book, the bar would be somewhat lower for inclusion on the article devoted to it. Derex 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. When I can find the time (as this can take a while), I will try to find the information that you request. Thanks once again, -- Where 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, see the article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which is already cross-referenced in this article; see discussion of these controversial matters pertaining to quotations of the ADL director Abraham Foxman's words about the book and about Carter as the author of the book in sources cited both in the article (e.g., Besser "Jewish Criticism of Carter Intensifies" in Jewish Week; Traub "Does Abe Foxman Have an Anti-Anti-Semite Problem?" in The New York Times Magazine) [linked in the main article on the book]; Carter's own responses to such criticism [qtd. in that article]) and in its current talk page Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and the split-off article Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and the Wikiquote cited therein.  Foxman denies having "called" Carter an "anti-Semite" in talking with Traub, but Besser does quote Foxman as having previously stated that in this book Carter is "engaging in anti-Semitism."  The quotations are already accessible in the cross-referenced article on this book. Among the links in Wikipedia's own article antisemitism is the ADL's webpage on "Global Anti-Semitism" (in "Further reading"); for those interested in the ADL public position on the book, on the ADL website, there is posted an Open Letter to Jimmy Carter (Dec. 20, 2006), co-signed by Abraham Foxman; it states (in part): "Your efforts in the letter to minimize the impact of your charge that American Jews control US Middle East policy are simply unconvincing.  In both your book and in your many television and print interviews you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control.  Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff." --NYScholar 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of antisemitism: notable? 

message: I've added "within the United States and Israel" to 7.4 on Carter's book "Peace not Apartheid". The wording as it was suggested the books content was generally controversial rather than specifically controversial within the U.S and Israel (as supported by the references). It is important to note this  in this case because the national POV differs to a large degree from the global POV. X brass 23:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S , Israel specific controversy 

message: Please, revert 12:16, January 27, 2007. Another editor disagrees with POV statement. Ronbo76 21:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I just noticed you already did that. Extremely sexy 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The previous draft attributed the failure of the Agreed Framework to the failure of the US to live up to its side of the agreement. This is far from a universal interpretation and thus violates the NPOV policy. (The Agreed Framework entry is somewhat more balanced). I've included one of the alternate explanations. JoelWest 22:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No feedback, so I went ahead and corrected assertion, then tightened the section a bit. Andyvphil 14:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea 

message: I find three mentions of the Carter Center in the article, none of which mention the controversy around its (and Carter's) funding, etc. This is covered to some extent in the Center's own WikiPage, but WikiPedia's guidelines call for its content to be summarized in the parent article, to prevent POV forks etc. I'm not going to attempt an insert here until I've digested some of the material, if I have time, but for an allegedly excellent article this one has serious POV deficiencies. Andyvphil 00:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carter Center, etc. 

message: Some of the information in the subsection is incorrect. I would have fixed it myself, except I'm rushed at the moment. For example, it is talking about the 1979 crisis, but it mentions the Dep. of Energy creation. The DOE was created in response to the 1973 crisis, not the 1979 crisis. Zreeon 02:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy Crisis Subsection 

message: Would it make any sense to have a section on Carter's current health?  Or would that require too many updates?  I ask mainly because he now the oldest living person to ever be elected President. Will (Talk - contribs) 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health notes? 

message: This section should be summarized and a main link created to the book's page. There is no reason to have such a lengthy section on this page while ignoring the very lengthy book page, which does have a full accounting of the controversy. I have tried to make such changes, and while not perfect, they did not deserve a full revert. So...in summation, a summary and main link to article brings balance to this page. Thanks. Jasper23 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Jasper on this. Let's try to avoid a POV fork. -- Kendrick7talk 04:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't that why the book has its own page? Jasper23 06:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should try to find a compromise. Jiffypopmetaltop 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, if you want to add original negative research to this article and not discuss changes, the tags stay on. Jiffypopmetaltop 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I object to removing the tag. Andyvphil 22:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is not a "POV fork"; it is a NPOV article discussing various points of view on the book in a neutral way (at least it was the last time I edited it) in keeping also with WP:POV. Until this matter is resolved satisfactorily to be a neutral presentation in this article, the tag should remain.  (Update: See below: last version I edited seemed neutral to me; last version I've commented and supported seems neutral to me.  But if it goes back to including insertion of POVs like Giza D's, the tag will be back on.  --NYScholar 08:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Another user who posts above (Jiffy...) asked me to review the content of the section of this article on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.  I have done so and made some revisions.  The citations throughout this article need to be reformatted from external links and converted to full citations, giving author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed, etc. and they need to be verified as to notability and reliability of sources (all sources).  I don't have time to do that. --NYScholar 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: The solution to the problems created by editing wars in this article re: the section on the book is simply to cross-link the two main articles re: the book, which (currently) adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Those attempting to interject their own and others' POVs on the book and to highlight them need to desist from that.  Readers of this section are simply referred to Wikipedia's articles about the book, which contain a full account of the controversy, with representative examples of conflicting views about the book.  No one POV on the book should be privileged in this section of this article on Jimmy Carter (focus).  This is an article on a living person and WP:BLP prevails.  All non-neutral comments need to be deleted from the article. --NYScholar 06:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a POV, this is relating to a major dispute about Carter's lack of knowledge and hypocricy. Giza D 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, your point of view re: Carter's so-called "hypocricy [sic]" is your POV.  The cross-linked article presents the various points of view on the controversy in a neutral manner.  I suggest that you read the article.  Apparently, you have not done so.  You keep reverting neutral point of view presentation to POV presentation (your own POV); that violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; if you continue doing that, I will ask administrators to review this article for neutrality of editing.  It has been tagged prior to my coming to this article recently.  I was directed here by another user who posted above, asking for me to provide a fair view of the article.  I have done so.  Giza D and others revert my neutral changes to their own POVs.  That violates W guidelines.  --NYScholar 05:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Am I included in "and others"? ... It is not true, by the way, that "{a}ll non-neutral comments need to be deleted from the article". WP:BLP refers you to WP:NPOV where you will find "...where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight...and all significant published points of view are to be presented..." In the case of PPNA WP:POVFORK also applies, as I've already pointed out: "Sometimes...a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure...However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material." Emphasis in original. All of which adds up to the fact that the criticism (consisting, perforce, of "non-neutral comments") of PPNA must be given its due weight in the summary here of the PPNA controversy. Andyvphil 13:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section tag on section about the book [[Palestine Peace Not Apartheid]]

message: I added the above heading and bracketed questions: I don't understand to whom the following comment is being directed.  Someone moved this from editing history to talk page? who? Please clarify. --NYScholar 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a spelling corrector though, hence. Extremely sexy 01:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E.g.  Andyvphil 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, you got it, man. Extremely sexy 11:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There's actually some talk page guideline against Bart correcting spelling errors on talk pages uninvited, but I hereby invite him to correct any I make. And Giza D doesn't seem to be complaining either... Andyvphil 12:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, so and I will just continue in the same vein. Extremely sexy 11:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, don't touch mine anymore. Jiffypopmetaltop 01:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not though? Extremely sexy 12:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two accounts? To whom is this directed?

message: It seems that a few people want to protect Jimmy Carter from criticism that they are reverting claiming NPOV as their reasoning. The orginal edit was backed up by "C-Span" and the "Boston Globe". Let's just acknowledge that Carter refused to debate the Israeli expert Dershowitz and his questions were prescreened. Giza D 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Jiffy & NYScholar seem to want to exile crit of Carter's execrable book to, in effect, a footnote, and I will not agree to that. But they have a legitimate point that the book is a minor part of Carter's life and can't be given excessive prominence in the article. As a current event it needs to be treated more fully now than it will be later, but there is still a limited amount of space that should be devoted to it here. So, OK: Carter offered to make "free" book promotion appearances, so long as a plane was sent to pick him up and he didn't have to face a challenging format. And his dismissal of Dershowitz, who is his intellectual superior in every way, was ridiculous, as is every other aspect of the unjustified self-regard of this failed politician. But is this really the best way to use the limited space available to balance Carter's assessment of his own book? All you've done is shown he doesn't want to debate Dershowitz, who would make mincemeat of him even if Carter were more right than he is. For the third time, Professor Stein, Carter associate for a quarter century, first Executive Director of the Carter Center, co-author (alternating chapters) of an earlier Carter book on the same subject, and a professional historian wrote, of PPNA: "a title too inflammatory to even print... not based on unvarnished analyses; ...replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments". Given the source, that's a devastating critique, and it's about something more important than Carter's self-importance. But the Brandeis kerfuffle is consuming all the available space. Andyvphil 23:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor is there any mention of Carter's "Too many Jews" remark... Tomertalk 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a protect Carter page 

message: See the tag at top in talkheader: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Carter article.  This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."
Therefore, just focus on how to make improvements to the article in keeping with all the guidelines and policies linked in the other tag WP:BLP.
Anyone who wants to read all of the representative criticisms of Carter's book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid can access them directly via the links already provided in the cross-referenced main articles; there are cross-links to main articles on the critics there, including Dershowitz.  There is no neutral reason following both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV to highlight his criticisms over anyone else's.
The most neutral way to handle this is to refer to the main articles on both the book and commentary on the book, which both contain Wikiquote pages, where a wide variety of comments on the book (incl. Dershowitz's) are represented.  Dershowitz's name is Wikified link here; Stein's pov is fully documented in the article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, as is Dershowitz's pov.  But it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to argue for or against those critics' points of view here or in those other main articles.  There is no way to miss what they have to say or their points of view on the book.  This article is about Jimmy Carter and not them.  There is no attempt on my part to follow anything but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in my revisions of this section.  In these revisions, and in making them, I do not make any comments on contributors instead of content: see WP:NPA.  Just read the section with a fair and balanced mind in view of the guidelines in Wikipedia (as just linked).  Try to stop injecting your own personal points of view on the controversy in reporting it.  This is an encyclopedia article, not an argumentative essay. --NYScholar 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not trying to "protect" Carter; trying to conform to [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]

message: Outsider here.  It is _beyond_ ridiculous to have the details of a debate that didn't even happen (Dershowitz) in a main biography of Jimmy Carter. I realize that a few people right now might think that so & so inviting Carter to debate so & so and Carter saying no for so & so reason but later being invited by so & so junior and speaking for x minutes with x protestors answering x questions which are not or are not available on the internet is of absolutely freaking vital importance in the scope of the man's life. But, it is not. Write all the exacting detail you want in a sub-article, but the very existence of that kind of detail in the main bio of a person of this importance is a gross violation of the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV. The Jimmy Carter article is not a playground to fight out the political tiff of the month. Derex 21:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the details are excessive. But Wikipedia is not paper, and current events are a staple. I've winnowed others' contributions to this section a couple times and I expect the process will continue as it fades into the past. But you have to be careful not to adopt Carter's self-importance, of which this event is illustrative. It appears to be his position that he is immune from facing criticism by any less exalted than himself. I won't insert that assertion in the article, but I insist that some evidence for his foibles be left to speak for iself. If not here, where? ... If the only evaluation of the book is Carter's that's an NPOV problem. I've made a suggestion several times about this but have not achieved consensus. I would appreciate your response. It would at least show that you are paying attention. Andyvphil 23:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia not being paper is a fine argument for a detailed subarticle. It is no argument at all for excessive detail in a main bio of a person with such enormously wide-ranging importance. Were we to include anything approximating that as a general rule, this would be a book not an encylcopedia article.  Derex 01:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This is a huge pov fork and details should be left on the book page and not on the main bio article. I suggest that we bring the section to talk or leave it as a redirect stub. Jiffypopmetaltop 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kill it all?