Talk:Jimmy Carter rabbit incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am putting out an RfC here on the last line of this article, and requesting a reversion or a simple deletion of the line. The line claims that the embarrassment of the rabbit incident is "synonymous" with the Carter presidency, and then cites a very short blurb from the Washington Post which is actually part of a larger piece about "media frenzies" and attacks made on Presidents in the past. The line is inappropriate first because it treats an opinion as a cited fact, and therefore breaks neutrality rules; secondly, because it fails to note the proper context of its citation (a larger piece about wild attacks in the news media). Abs7 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, no problem. Personally I feel the wording "portraying him as..." gives the indication that it's hardly an accepted fact that Carter was those things, merely that it's like saying "This story of the cherry tree was later seen to encapsulate George Washington's integrity" or something, it may or may not be true, but it's what the story is frequently associated with in common parlance. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, I think. But I guess I'd respond in two ways. 1.) The incident itself doesn't necessarily "illustrate him [Carter] as" enfeebled, but rather the media frenzy based around the incident sought to portray him that way. But the sentence as written claims the former rather than the latter. 2.) To echo my original point, I don't believe that there is enough empirical evidence to prove that this one incident, or more accurately, the way the media portrayed the incident, became "synonymous with Carter's presidency." I believe such a statement is problematic both because it is ambiguous and because it is impossible to prove with the evidence provided, and therefore ventures into non-neutral territory. Abs7 22:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to add, I'd like to suggest something along these lines as a possible compromise: "The resulting media frenzy sought to portray the perceived embarrassment of the rabbit incident as a metaphor for Carter's presidency." Abs7 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Foster
In Press Secretary Foster's 1986 book The Other Side of the Story, he recounted the story as such...
Who is Foster?
- Good catch, not sure how that screwed up - should have said Powell of course :) Thanks for the help. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Title
I am going to move this to Jimmy Carter rabbit incident because the rabbit was in no way the possession of Jimmy. BenB4 15:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Applause
This is a well-made articleSpencerk 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'd never heard of the incident myself until I saw somebody wearing a spoof t-shirt mimicking "9/11: Never forget" slogans, with one about the world never being the same after the President was attacked by a rabbit :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- You are so funny. Extremely sexy 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
--I removed a link to the George Bush pretzel incident because it didn't seem relevant to the content of this article. (Maybe it'd be worthwhile to end the article with a link to a list of embarrassing situations for presidents, but linking to the pretzel incident specifically seems almost like a non sequitur). B.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.249.210 (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- If there are similar articles for other presidents, by all means include them. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)