Talk:Jimmy Carter/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Slanted & biased

How can anyone send money to this slanted and biased excuse for an encyclopedia? The editor of this page is white-washing history. How you can explain this historic disaster and not call Carter what he is: the worst President in the last 100 Years; 20% interest rates, gas lines, inflation run amuck, natural gas shortages, high unemployment, high taxes and the creator of an ATOMIC Iran. Real history will mark Carter for what he was: a weak President and a weak leader, who allowed the Shah to fall and brought instability to the entire region. What about the hundreds of millions James Carter is taking in from pro-terrorist donors at his Carter Center? Read this biased article, and he sounds like he should be put on the American Dollar bill; yes, the $3 bill!!! This is a free encyclopedia, but it is not free of Bias!!!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.2.110 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

I love your lack of bias, so you would make a great editor. Why not try to fix the article yourself? Ustimika 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why all the irate anti Carter feelings? Stagflation wasn't his fault. Stagflation was a direct effect of LBJ's greater society and Nixon's move to take the country off the Gold standard. Gas lines didn't just happen hear, they also happened in Europe because of further western support for the nation of Israel, and the other OPEC countries (like Venezuela) went along for the ride. Taxes are necessary as no one can enjoy social programs with out revenue to the state. The atomic Iran is the fault of Cold War policy which installed a dictator in the Shah, and arrogance that continued into the current administration. Carter didn't bring the instability to the middle east you speak of; it already existed. Carter brought more security to Israel than any other president. Carter was able to deliver a peace between Egypt, at the time Israel's greatest enemy, and Israel. No other president can say they were able to truly make Israeli borders safer. LBJ couldn't take control of the situaton before 6 day, and further administrations have struggled to make any true accords that have worked with the other Arab elephant in the room the Palestinian populace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berto517 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ustimika, I don't know about the above poster, but I gave up fighting. The Wikipedia format hasn't worked. In the end, the "articles" are only brochures by the Most Interested Parties with the Most Free Time. You can see that forty percent of this Talk one is about the elderly, irate Carter's anti Israel bias. If he could buy Peace in Our Time by giving them the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia he would, but all he has to offer them is Israel. (Many of us would like to write this off to old age, not anti Semitism.) Yet Dershowitz's point of view on Carter is barely noted in the article. Profhum 12:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of whitewashing history, how is further military engagement going to solve nations hating the way the US is militarily involved in the world?--Kbbbb 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What does any of what's currently going on in the world have to do with white-washing Carter's history? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SolInvictus (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Dear Other Nations, Please don't hate us. What can we do to make you love us? Lestrade 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article that would be a useful citation for this man.

The Current Crisis Ruinous in Retirement By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. Published 4/17/2008 12:08:42 AM

WASHINGTON -- In the 1980 presidential election the American people did the best they could with President Jimmy Carter, given the limitations imposed on them by our Constitution. They retired him from office (44 states participated in the ceremony). Looking back, however, on how the scamp has abused his retirement, I, for one, wish we could have done better. Perhaps he could have been put in a jar. He has, in the succeeding twenty-eight years since his exit from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue , remained almost as ruinous a nuisance out of office as he was in office. This cannot be said of any other president.

When Jimmy was given the heave-ho, the Misery Index, an index combining rates of inflation and unemployment, was at an all time high of 21.98% -- up from 13.5% when he was elected in 1976. After his last full year as president, inflation was at 13.5% and unemployment at 7.2%. Today the Misery Index is at 8.83%, though the Democrats have not a nice thing to say about Jimmy's Republican successors. In Jimmy's day the prime rate moved from 7% to 20%, and the home mortgage rate was almost 18%. Think about those figures this autumn when you are asked to choose between Senator John McCain and either Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton, two Democrats with even less experience than Governor Jimmy Carter in matters economic.

As for foreign policy, Jimmy presided over a steady decline in American influence, as the Soviets went on a worldwide offensive and the American military atrophied. American diplomats were jailed in their own embassy in Tehran and the military rescue mission mounted by Jimmy to free them was one of the few American military embarrassments of the 20th century. Incidentally, Iran 's present president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, played a major role in holding our diplomats, according to retired FBI agents who monitored Ahmadinejad's communications from Tehran to fellow conspirators then in New York .

Yet Jimmy remains quite full of himself. In fact, his sense of moral superiority has grown as the memory of his failed presidency recedes into history. Rather than retire to a library to read, as former President Harry Truman did, in the hope that he might understand what went wrong during the Carter Administration, Jimmy founded The Carter Center for Waging Peace, Fighting Disease, and Building Hope. Perhaps it is his intention to spread the failure of his presidency throughout the world. Think of it, a worldwide Misery Index of 21.98%!

There was a time when former presidents were reluctant to criticize their successors and absolutely refused to do so while on foreign soil. Jimmy broke from that discipline years ago. He attacked the Reagan Administration from Cairo in 1984 where he scoffed at the President for being "more inclined to form a Contra army to overthrow the Sandinistas or inject the Marines into Lebanon or use American battleships to shell villages around Beirut " than to negotiate. In the run up to Gulf I, he interposed himself, warning that if the Bush Administration attacked Iraq the United States "would reap great and very serious deleterious consequences politically." To the consternation of Clinton Administration officials in 1994, Jimmy popped up in North Korea to work out a nuclear agreement with President Kim Il Sung that proved utterly futile. The North Koreans detonated a nuclear device 12 years later.

Now against the wishes of the Bush Administration Jimmy is in the Middle East , holding meetings with Hamas and laying a wreath on the grave of the deceased Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Hamas regularly lobs rockets and mortars into Israeli neighborhoods and is dedicated to Israel 's destruction. Arafat was a famously corrupt leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front and over a lifetime responsible for the deaths of Americans and Israelis alike, as well as hundreds of other innocent people. Of course, the Bush Administration's opposition to Jimmy's arrogant journey only encourages this impudent man.

The Israelis are for the most part ignoring his visit after making it abundantly clear that they do not favor it. They are right to snub him. That he has been greeted by Hamas speaks volumes about the public life of Jimmy Carter. A failure as a president, Jimmy is appraised as a useful tool by our enemies.

Baximvs 10:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Carter's early years

I assume someone has 'edited' at least the first paragraph of the sub-section entitled 'Early years', inclusive of indications of Carter's reputed large manhood. I imagine that any such material will need to be removed/re-edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.69.144.112 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

This has already been taken care of though. Extremely sexy 23:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Misleading sentence in article's Domestic Policies section

The sentence, "Initially, Carter was fairly successful in getting legislation through Congress, such as pardoning Vietnam-era draft-dodgers..." is misleading if not entirely incorrect. There was no legislation involved with this act as the power to pardon is vested to the President by the Constitution[1][2]. The pardon was issued on Carter's first day in office, January 21, 1977 as Executive Order 11967[3]. Carter pledged to do this during his campaign for the Presidency[4]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.83.86.48 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Be WP:BOLD - do it. Your cites are good, so I did it. Thanks. Andyvphil 23:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Electoral History section

User Bart Versieck wants to ad the section about the elections results of 1976. I believe this is a useless section because there is already an article about the elections. I invite Bart to come and talk about it. John 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well: someone had already added this to the very article, but also to the articles about other former Presidents, and, as for "JFK", he mustn't be double linked, or must he? Extremely sexy 18:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, someone else added the section, but after I removed it you re-added it. Then there is still the question of why it should be added. It doesn't serve any purpose. Like I said, there is already a section about the 1976 election in the article. And with other former presidents? I didn't see similar sections in articles about other Presidents. And of course JFK musn't be linked twice, but there is a link to LBJ's page. It looks better when there is also a link to JFK's. Or delete both links. John 18:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed similar sections in other articles. But there were just a few acticles with the same section in it. John 19:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You found them, supposedly by checking this page, but LBJ hasn't been linked before since this is the first and only reference to him in the entire article, hence. Extremely sexy 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Great solution: full marks for you then. Extremely sexy 19:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I changed the first link, so the second link is possible. And I asked the user who added the sections to stop doing that, because they serve no purpose. John 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are the greatest: a thumbs up. Extremely sexy 19:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone please remove the [citation needed] from after the loss of the 1980 statement please. It's very obnoxious since it's common knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.71.224 (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a discussion of the unprecedented challenge by Sen. Ted Kennedy in the 1980 election? The media can't talk enough about Sen. Clinton refusing to drop out of the race, but I haven't seen a single story about 1980 when Kennedy took the nomination all the way to the convention and Carter barely won. If that discussion does not go here, where should it go? 1980 Democrat Convention? That only talks about the actual convention and the delegate votes; there is no discussion of the 1980 Democrat primary campaign. GregE625 (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights?

Can we really consider Carter to be so pro-Human rights, when he openly criticized the Jackson- vanik Amendment? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.14.190.240 (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

This is a controversial area. He was more pro-human rights than other Presidents in his willingness to criticise and reduce aid to right-wing dictatorships who were U.S. allies, such as Pinochet, several dubious Latin American regimes and ultimately the Shah as well, but he apparently continued giving a great deal of aid to Suharto in Indonesia and I don't think he ever criticised him, and he was one of the most tyrannical Western allies, he was effectively committing genocide in East Timor at the time. He also called the Shah a "force for moderation in the region" and it was only later that he began to reduce support for him (and of course, that had unforeseen consequences). Seems to me that Carter only pressed for human rights when it was viewed as politically possible to do so while bearing in mind U.S. interests. He certainly reduced support for dubious Central American dictators and resistance groups but perhaps he viewed the likes of Nicaragua and Chile as less important than countries like Indonesia, which was seen as vital in the Cold War. It is, however, hypocritical to emphasise human rights while giving aid to someone like Suharto. He was also criticised for not complaining about human rights in Communist countries enough, although perhaps he thought human rights in allied nations were more immediately open to U.S. influence. He did, however, move towards ending detente and taking a more confrontational approach. So while he did emphasise human rights and was generally not as willing overlook abuses in allied countries as other Presidents, the record is mixed.

217.38.66.40 02:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Very sad man. Clearly, this man is the worst and most deplorable President certainly since the start of the 20th Century. He clearly now has become senile and why his family allow him to wander around the globe unsupervised, and worse let him speak, is a little concering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.8.177 (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Carter's arming and financing of the Khmer Rouge, effectively bringing them to power (along with West Germany, UK, Sweden, et al), all in the name of "anti-communism" (ironic, since Khmer Rouge was openly Maoist in philosophy). The whole policy, begun with Nixon's Illegal, covert attack on Cambodia was continued under Carter, and was basically the Vietnam war by other means. In short Carter's reputation as the "human rights" president is a clever concoction of the establishment Left, since his policies in Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand were indistinguishable from the policies of Nixon, Reagan, and H.W. Bush.72.78.167.244 (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

USA under his government also played a critical role in the bloody 1980 military coup in Turkey. Thousands faced torture and liberties of the citizens were taken away. Therefore, a person doesn't have to be good, just because he looks like one. Deliogul (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Longest surviving ex-Prez & VP

Article says Carter/Mondale have had longer post-presidential lifetimes than any other pair. Is this also true as individuals (not a pair)? Andyvphil 07:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The longest surviving ex-President was Herbert Hoover with over 31 years of retirement. I believe the longest surviving ex-Vice President is Richard Nixon. He left the Vice-Presidency in 1961 and died in 1994. That is 33 years. Libs23 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Should add at least the Hoover info to the article, I think. And Nixon to the Mondale article if the same trivia item is there. Andyvphil 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Olympics boycott details

In the article it states that Carter prohibited Americans from participating in the 1980 Summer Olympics. While it is true that Carter threatened to revoke the passports of any Americans participating, he was not the one that made the final decision to boycott the games. That was decided by a vote of the United States Olympic Committee, which is independent of government control. 12.226.97.238 04:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Carter used his cronies to make sure that his wishes were instituted. That screwed over a whole group of men and women who devoted their lives to competing at the Olympics that year. A disgusting affair and Carter should be condemned for his participation in ruining the lives of these Olympic hopefuls. Jtpaladin 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First, how about even a hint of a source for your claim that Carter used "cronies" to make sure his "wishes" were "instituted"? Second, protecting human rights around the world saved and improved lives, and not one Olympian's life was "ruined."Info999 03:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

East Timor and other human rights abuses

"Inaugurated 13 months after Indonesia's December 1975 invasion of East Timor, Carter stepped up U.S. military aid to the Jakarta regime as it continued to murder Timorese civilians. By the time Carter left office, about 200,000 people had been slaughtered."

from "Jimmy Carter And Human Rights: Behind The Media Myth" by Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon. Originally published in Media Beat, 9/21/94.

Could we please try adding something about this and the other things he was involved in mentioned in the article to this Wikipedia article? -- LGagnon 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course you could TRY to add something about that little issue, just as you could TRY to add something about Carter's statement (today) that the U.S. Government should initiate some sort of dialogue process with (guess who?) the Maoists in Nepal. You could probably TRY to put something in about that rabbit attack, or Carter's constant increase in the money supply CAUSING his own inflation problems. You could TRY to put in something about Carter's UN Ambassador, Andrew Young, and his feeling that the Ayatollah Khomeini was a great spiritual leader.

You could TRY, but the people running this page have already made up their minds. Try putting something accurate (and negative) on the "Anarchism" page, or the "Noam Chomsky" page. You could work your fingers to the bone, and wind up with what? Bony fingers!! JaafarAbuTarab 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Killer Rabbit

• Regarding mention of the rabbit, above. the "killer rabbit" is there, but really folks, you do think that incident is important? It's trivia. The only reason it the media picked it up was the popularity of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." It should be in the trivia section of the article on the movie, not here. What does this tell us about Carter? Not a damn thing. But it tells a lot about Wikipedia and the urge for editors to act like teenagers. One would think we could be more serious than this. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an online version of "People Magazine." I think I'm going to "be bold" and remove it.--Paul 00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I should have known. The Carter/Rabbit incident IS mentioned as trivia in the Rabbit of Caerbannog article. --Paul 00:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems in the lead

Hey everyone. From reading the lead, it sounds as if Jimmy Carter was the hero of the nation, which he surley wasn't. Take a listen:

"Carter's presidency saw the creation of two cabinet-level departments: the Department of Energy and the Department of Education.[true statement] He established a national energy policy, removed price controls from domestic petroleum production, and advocated for less American reliance on foreign oil sources. [ok, but what about the deficits?] He bolstered the Social Security system by introducing a staggered increase in the payroll tax.[what about the effects on the American economy?] In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, and the second round of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.[true statement] He explicitly identified the support of basic human rights as a critical component of American foreign policy.[human rights?] The final year of his term was dominated by the Iran hostage crisis, during which the United States struggled to rescue diplomats and American citizens held hostage in Tehran. [true statement] Carter lost the 1980 presidential election to Republican Ronald Reagan.[true statement]"

What about the inflation? What about the unemployment? What about the staggering ecnomy? What about the ensuing recession? All this happened during Carter's tenure as President. It definetly should be mentioned in the lead, and I'm looking for some good sources so I can add it. If you read Ronald Reagan's page, the lead mentions both the good and the bad. This is not adequately represented in Jimmy Carter's article. Happyme22 00:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA

Wow. Just looking at this article, I'm wondering how it even made it to GA. Citations are not in the proper format (see Wikipedia: Citation_templates) and there's POV in the lead, for the problems of Carter's presidency (i.e. double-digit inflation, high unemployment, homelessness, an ensuing recession, etc.) aren't even mentioned. The article has an extreme lack of citations, and a person like Jimmy Carter needs citations in his article. The article does not cover the negatives about Carter's presidency as much as it covers the positives. Again, it needs some work. Happyme22 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Democrat?

You have to look half way down the page to find out wether he is a democrat or republican. This is one of the most important factors about him and is what many people come to this page to find out. There needs to be a mention of it within the first few lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.125.153 (talk) 15:18, May 19, 2007

Good point... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Within the first inch of the article, it reveals his liberal colors as a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Then before the paragraph ends, it states, "He and Senator Ted Kennedy were the unofficial leaders of the Democratic Party".

I object to the characterization "Carter remains an important and relevant national figure today".

Carter is the kook who broiled the Middle East to warfare. --The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent situation involving the anti-Bush quote's

Is it an idea to submit a piece about the latest situation around Carter? I mean the anti-Bush quote's, stating that Bush is one of the worst presidents ever, the only president ever to start a war when the USA or it's citizens are in danger, etc. In the Netherlands it was on tje news, but on this Wikipage I can't find anything about it :-s Could/ would somebody chage that? I'm not in the loop completely (I'm not living in the US, so I probably don't know all the facts). BTW, I agree with the user above me; I also wanted to know if Jimy Carter was a Democrat or a Republican (again, I'm not from the US, I don't know those facts), and I could find that info at the bottom of the page :-s Robster1983 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it definitely should be added. Happyme22 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessarily relevant to an encyclopedic article? Perhaps a biography, but simply listing every current event that occurs would result in quite a bit of nonsense. -Ajmastrean 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be added. 67.171.254.181 07:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

GIBBIDHSDHDDHDH!!!!

President Bush did not start a war!

The war began when an concerted act of Muslims attacked three points in the United States 9/11/01.

If it had been a single attack, it would not have garnered a response of warfare. If it was a concerted attack on any of our allies, the United States would respond with warfare. Our president responded with the only weapon we have to protect us all.

As Commander in Chief, President Bush responded with the full force of our patriotic volunteers.

The war in the Middle East began when Jimmy Carter insulted Muslims in Iran. Jimmy Carter is a democrat. --The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 03:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

President Bush did start a war when he attacked Iraq. Iraq was not involved in 9/11/2001's incidents, nor was it involved in the U.S.-Afghanistan fracas. You are clearly biased. Cernansky (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

BLATANT Bias in first paragraph

"Thank God Reagan saved us!

After leaving office, Carter decided to become a gigantic pest, which is one of the few things he has done well in his pathetically miniscule life. He has traveled all over the world, making friends with the enemies of the United States, and when he is not being a doofus he is taking pictures of young children. As of 2007, it is still a wonderment why he is still brain-dead."

C'mon, people... this is Wikipedia, could someone please fix this?

• Exactly...this is wikipedia. Inherently not the most credible source. But I would argue that Carter is doing good work in other countries, regardless if they are our "enemies". Human beings live there, too, and they deserve to be disease-free as much as you do. According to a Carter interview in Time magazine, the Carter Center has basically done away with Guinea worm, which is a primarily African disease where a 100 cm worm lives in your digestive tract, then breaks through your skin to lay it's larvae in water. Not fun, but luckliy has almost disappeared thanks to humanitarian efforts like Carter's. He's not just 'taking pictures of young children', he's fighting to give them a chance at a better life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.25.226 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep!

According to Time Magazine, Fidel Castro and Yassir Arafat were the men of the year!

The mission of the Carter Center is to whitewash James Earl Carter. The Carter Center would never reaveal he was the worst President of the United States.

The only reason he became President is because of Watergate -

Then United States woke up when they found Carter to be the ignoramous as he was and is. --The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 03:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong photo

Someone uploaded the photo of Eddie Murphy as Buckwheat to replace President Carter's photo. I hope this is addressed very soon.

138.88.82.214 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Jenn, 21:33, May 20 2007 (UTC)

Martin Bartesch

The following was removed and I just want to make sure others give their input; I feel it should not have been removed, but others may disagree (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 17:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"In an article in its 19 January, 2007 edition, the New York Sun claimed that it had obtained a copy of a note which the Sun alleges shows that, in 1987, Carter had "interceded" on behalf of Martin Bartesch. Bartesch was deported from the U.S. in 1987 for concealing the fact that he had served as a guard at a Nazi concentration camp. According to the Sun, Carter forwarded a letter he had received from Bartesch's daughter to the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigations, adding a handwritten note that stated "I hope that, in cases like this, that special consideration can be given to affected families for humanitarian reasons."

To be readded? Extremely sexy 10:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

English or Irish Roots?

The Irish American page claims Carter as a US President of Irish descent. I had always heard, however, that his forebears were in the main from north-east England. One of the Daly family, Irish Americans from Chicago, famously described him as "an Englishman", and he once visited his ancestral county of Northumberland, commencing his address to a welcoming crowd in Newcastle-upon-Tyne with the local football chant of "H'awa the Lads". There's also a place called Carter Bar on the English-Scottish border. So I wondered how the Irish claim came about? Millbanks 08:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good question indeed: who reacts? Extremely sexy 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Carter & Hamas

How should Carter's full hearted support of the terrorist organization Hamas be noted in the article body? - MSTCrow 17:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that something about this belongs in the article, because it has become noteworthy. However, even hinting that Carter is in "full hearted" support of terrorism is not only factually wrong, but defamatory and against wiki policy. I think that Carter quotes suffice, as long as they are not cherry picked to be misleading either way. In the past, Carter's argument was philosophical: if we want to "spread democracy to the Middle East" then we have to be prepared to support the outcome of a free and fair democratic election, which is what happened with Hamas. The Palestinians elected them, Carter was advocating for the US to accept and support the duly elected leaders of the Palestinians - and his comments should be included. Also, I think, his recent comments, even after Hamas' hideous actions, should be included, but I don't think we should suggest that Carter endorses the violence, unless you can find a verifiable quote directly stating that. Info999 03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am wanting to add a section

I am wanting to add a "Controversy" or "Controversial Comments" Section. This man has made some pretty stupid comments here of late, and I think they bear being added into a section on his page. Can I do this, and can I get some help in doing it?Nimrauko 23:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I support that move. Happyme22 17:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound like a broken record, but here's a great example of POV. Nimrauko calls Carter's comments "stupid" and believes that since they are stupid (to him) they belong in the article. He wants to demonstrate, by using wikipedia, how he thinks Carter is stupid. It's plain and absolute POV. If Carter makes a statement that becomes widely reported, and it's not just a flash in the pan mini news story that goes away after a brief time, AND it has meaning that goes beyond the little news item, then it should be considered for inclusion. But even then, it has to be significant and meaningful; these articles aren't chronicles of every word that escapes from people's mouths, and they're not means of holding up or breaking down someone we love or hate.

Related to this is that I believe, like many here of late, that "controversies" sections are a bad idea, and that these items - if they meet the criteria - belong in the normal sections. There is way too much possibility of POV, and worse, defamation, both of which are against [WP:BLP].

Info999 03:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

New Approval Rating Graph

I made that graph, maybe you would like to put it on the page.

--Jean-Francois Landry 17:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics' Guide interview of Carter on UFOs

The skeptics' guide podcast interviewed Carter, and he talked in depth about his UFO encounter. Should this be linked or discussed on the main article? I think it's relevent since his UFO encounter is mentioned, and the interview is meant to clarify what he thought about the encounter.

Listen to the interview here --Havermayer 02:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter was the Best president in U.S. History

This article does not mention the fact that Jimmy Carter was the best president this country ever had. It seems to have bias of homophobic and racist Reagen supporters who are still ranting and raving over disco. I wish Jimmy Carter was running for president in 2008, he would restore the prestige of this country so that it would become a country that the world loved, like the world did back in the 1970's, and Americans could once again hold their heads up high and not be ashamed to be American because of the cowboy in the White House. Jimmy Carter is a saint!JimmyCarterFor2008 00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Source? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly now Jimmy Carter when he was president was thought to be very bad. However now he sometimes mentioned as the best ex-president i'd give you that but for a source i have not heard of one sorry Gang14 01:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Like the world back in the 1970s? When the Reds advanced into the Western Hemisphere thanks to Carter's total incompetence? When Brezhnev could have stormed through Fulda and expanded the USSR to the Bay of Biscay at a second's notice because Carter eviscerated American defense spending? When the seeds of Islamofascism were planted in the soil of an Iran lost to radicals? If it wasn't for his vacillating, the Sovs wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan to begin with, Osama bin Laden would never have become a muj, and Al-Qaeda would never have been founded.

I seriously hope you're joking about Carter being the "best president this country ever had." If this were a just world, Carter would be hung, drawn, and quartered. Then Congress would issue a damnatio memoriae against the shame of his too-long presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.5.165 (talk)

Amazing. It's like getting a glimpse inside Richard Perle's head or something. "Lost to radicals?" The "Reds"? Are you aware that you sound like you just stepped out of rehearsals for the Manchurian Candidate? The world has changed, friend. While it's certainly true that the U.S. bears responsibility for the creation of Bin Laden, it should also be noted that he uses us as a target merely for political reasons - we are a convenient bogeyman, and foolish enough to keep acting out the black-hat role for him - and not for any real grievance we committed against him (to the contrary - since we helped make him rich and powerful, he has no right to be angry with us!). Therefore only in the karmic sense could it be argued that America brought Bin Laden down upon itself, and to lay it at Carter's feet specifically is nonsense. And it's foolish to blame any American for the cruel and stupid things Russia did in Afghanistan.

I would tend to say that Carter was among the least effective presidents in history, partially due to an opposed Congress and partially due to his own character. But the quality of his intentions and actions, if rarely successful, have always impressed me with their intent. I believe him to be one of our poorer presidents, but one of the few, if not the only, truly good man to occupy that office since the fifties. His actions since his presidency have only reinforced me in this belief. It seems clear to me that the role Carter was born to fulfill was not Commander in Chief, but diplomat, peace broker, and goodwill ambassador to the world. In fact, I am almost tempted to say it would have been better had he never run and had become an ambassador or diplomat instead (hmmm... President Udall, anyone? ;). Perhaps he missed his calling in life, but who can say? If he weren't an ex-president, he might never have been able to gain the access he needed for his later accomplishments.

So yeah, JimmyCarterFor2008 is not really making a lot of sense (though I certainly appreciate & understand his admiration of this remarkable man); but then, the Carter-haters don't generally make a lot of sense either, preferring to gloss over his many accomplishments and focus solely on foreign and domestic policy catastrophes, some of which, such as the fuel shortage, were not within his power to control.

It has taken me a long time to understand why the Reagan Republicans loathe Carter so endlessly and with such passionate venom. Most of the time, an easily defeated rival (and Reagan certainly crushed Carter in 1980) is, after a time, viewed with a sort of magnanimous, even friendly contempt. Not so with Carter and the Reaganites: he is hated more deeply than anyone except possibly the Republican Devil, aka FDR.

The clue for me was in Carter's life post-presidency. One humanitarian award after another, the Nobel Peace Prize, building a reputation as an effective (if overly independent) diplomat. But most particularly, I feel it's the way Carter has lived a Christian life, and has done so far more fully than any of the presidents that succeeded him, despite their loudly asserted religious fervor. Actions speak louder than words, and the charity and advocacy for peace with which Carter (whether you feel deservedly or not) has come to be identified, are of course the principle virtues preached by Jesus of Nazareth. In the deliberate, orchestrated passion and illogic of an electoral campaign, people are easily swayed by rhetoric, but give them thirty years to study someone's behavior and they will judge someone by what they do, not what they say. And Carter's actions are too embarassingly Christian for supporters of Reagan and the Bushes to tolerate much study of. I'm convinced that this embarassment is at the core of anti-Carter vitriol as displayed by Republicans.

Here I went and strayed far off on a tangent. My apologies. In short, a poor president but a great man. Kasreyn (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but it was my understanding that the purpose of these talk pages was to discuss improvements to the articles, not to engage in either vitriol or adulation. I would ask for editors to voluntarily strike through their comments not related to the crafting of this article. Cheers. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed the headlines, Jimmy Carter is running for president in 2008. His name is Barack Obama. (Dont take this too seriously, I jest :D ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense about Carter distributing basketball player photo

I'd hate to be a fussy Freddy and all, but this incident in the 1970 gubernatorial campaign never happened. It was made up by a right-wing author named Steven Hayward in a book titled The Real Jimmy Carter. (I don't think this is the same Steven Hayward who has an entry here.) This book was published by Regnery, which specializes in right-wing books like Ann Coulter's garbage. If Encarta's actually dumb enough to consider this book a legitimate source, then we shouldn't be using Encarta as a source for this. 4.225.138.243 04:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your attribution is correct (e.g., [5],[6]) but, sorry, we can't use you as a source to discredit Hayward or Encarta. If you have an RS for the debunking please provide it. Andyvphil 11:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I agree with Info999's placing of a citations template on this article. As he correctly summerized, there are "more uncited claims than sources, no matter how many footnotes." Happyme22 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Disrespect

Mentioning Carter's resemblance to the 1950s icon H. Doody shows a lack of respect towards a former president. President Carter was never photographed with a red bandanna around his neck. Lestrade 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Refusal to debate" issue

I am unsure if this is a legitimate source. It is is a letter to the editor, and furthermore, it asserts Carter's "refusal" to debate, but doesn't clarify what this means? Just that he didn't debate the letter writer? This is dubious at best - I think a more concrete source should be found before we put something this controversial in the article. Minute Lake 23:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is valid that in the Brandise talk Alan Dershowitz who has published several books on Israel was barred and that the questions were prescreened by a pro Carter faction. He also refused to debate Dennis Ross.Since he said he wanted to encourage debate but refuse to himself shows Carter's hypocracyWinterflyer 01:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• In that case, I think you should find a source that says just that, and the article should be edited to only specifically address this issue. The original statement was too broad, saying that he refused to debate "anyone who disagreed." Minute Lake 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Above user Winterflyer is an obvious sock puppet of MagicKirin and should be blocked. Check his talk or user page. This conversation will go nowhere and you will regret wasting your time. Turtlescrubber 03:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Minute Lake: Unlike Turtlescrubber who just deletes anything he doesn't like, you are willing to discuss. Do you object my putting in hypocracy and it is adjusted to say Carter has refused to debate Isreali exprerts Alan Dershowitz and Dennis Ross would that work? Winterflyer 09:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Iran

I have a real issue with Jimmy Carter..as decent and honorable as he appears, he never takes any questions about his involvement with Iran in any public forum; and has paid staff constantly 'white-washing' his public image so that none of the truth about his involvement with Iran is ever revealed. Everytime, anyone puts a note about his administration toppling the Shah of Iran and supporting Khomeini's rise to power ...its immediately deleted, even though it is well chronicled now by many in his former administration (Gary Sick's several books(who was on his national security staff), General Huyzer (Mission to Iran, Book), Former Iranian Operatives (and their books) etc. etc. Moreover, Al Haig has published memoirs where he categorically stated that during his visit to Saudi Arabia (early in the Reagan Presidency) King Fahd had informed him that in August of 1980 he was instructed to convey a message to Saddam Hussein to Invade Iran on behalf of Jimmy Carter. This is absolute, irrefutable fact. Why try to re-write or deny history and facts?? ...69.251.04 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamdadb (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Find a proper source and suggest a more NPOV wording and we can maybe do something. What do others think? --John 23:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Carter Administration didn't "topple the Shah of Iran" the students at two major universities in Tehran did; nor did the Cart folks support the Ayatollah's rise to power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.221.101.186 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just typed a large batch of text - which I saved and has now dissapeared. Regardless, General Huyser's trip to Iran is well documented and proof positive of 'instructions' to ensure that the Iranian Military did not stop the revolution. McNair's article for the Institute of Strategic Studies - recounts specific instructions from Cyrus Vance to Huyser. Gary Sick's Book, All Fall Down, page 132 also clearly establishes the intstruction Huyser was given. Gary Sick was on Carter's national security staff and is currently a professor at Columbia University. There are also other articles, and books that establish these facts. General "Dutch" Huyser's own Biography and Ambassador Sullivan's own biography. Here there are two University level documents, and two Biographies. And not the least of which Jimmy Carter has NEVER refuted any of this OR, appears willing to have an open dialogue about these events. There really is NO question the Shah was toppled. John, I am not sure on what authority you are deleting my text and trying to deny me access to this article. These are simple points of fact. I could give you a long list of additional sources. Do you want those...how many would you like? Carter made a big mistake supporting the rise of Islamic Fundamentalists...not just in Iran, but also in Afghanistan, and actually the whole strategy was to undermine the Soviet Union so they were supporting fundamentalists all over Central Asia. It was Bryzenski's Doctrine 'use religion as an anti-communist force'. There can be no denying that was the strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.0.84 (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, John, if you delete my text I will report you to Wikipedia and have your access denied. Given the blood and treasure spent in Iraq these past 5 years, and given the scale of threat from Iran's Mullahs, these acts and policies by Jimmy Carter's administration are arguably the biggest strategic blunders in US history; and worthy of a primary mention in a review of his accomplishments or failures. I do not deny that he is a well intentioned sincere man ...he has worked hard for the cause of peace. He just doesn't nor ever will understand the true 'nature' of these problems. He is naive...and none of that is reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamdadb (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reagan and the hostages What about Reagan's role in delaying the liberation of the hostages ? The selling of weapons to Iran later on... Not mentioned... PS i don't know how to sign... check out my IP if you feel like it.

Cabinet

Recommend converting the cabinet table to use {{Infobox U.S. Cabinet}}. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Swamp rabbit

I put the swamp rabbit mention back in. Such a well-publicized matter deserves at least one sentence. We have an entire separate article on it, so it seems the Carter page should at least provide a link to it. -R. fiend (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

naval career corrections

There are some mistakes in the description of Carter's military service. Carter should have every reason to feel proud of his conventional service and of selection to the nuclear power program. But it is a mistake to say that he was on the bubble for command of a nuclear submarine. He was a junior officer at the time. I am a served submarine officer, went through the navy nuclear program, and researched Carter's service.TCO (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Threw out baby with bathwater?

A whole bunch of stuff got removed around November 19, 2007, when material was deleted, some of which was "embarassing" to Carter, some of which had dubious value to the article, but some of which was essential, like categories. All the categories were erased! Carter experts need to reassemble something coherent. Student7 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Palestine Peace not Apartheid POV

In the Palestine Peace Not Apartheid section, it stated:

"While some have praised Carter for speaking honestly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, others have accused him of anti-Israeli bias and of making significant factual errors, omissions and misstatements in the book."

There is a problem there, whether some people like it or not. That sentence implies that Carter is speaking honestly; it implies that Israel is too agressive because Jimmy Carter said so and those the people who disagree are not "honest." I added in three little words that change all that:

"While some have praised Carter for speaking what they consider honestly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict..."

Poof! The POV is gone. But the edit was undone by User:Turtlescrubber with the edit summary of: "rvt. to compromise version" First, that is an absolutely bogus edt summary because it is not thorough, nor does it explain what was supposedly wrong with the edit. All it says is that there was a "compromise version" which I'm saying is POV. Unless anyone, particularly Turtlescrubber, has a legitimate reason as to why this should not be kept, I have reinstated the material. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You know that speaking honestly and speaking truthfully are two different things, right? Its the same thing as speaking frankly, which he does. It doesn't mean that he is speaking truthfully but only to the best of his abilities. I will replace the section with "speaking frankly" if the word honesty bothers you so much. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you know, frankly is a better match for the source. I do think it will be harder for non-native speakers to understand. Your version does not read well at all. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And your version is still POV. No, I do not favor replacing it with frankly. That still resonates with me, and probably will with others as well, as a pro-Carter "he's saying it honestly" (or frankly). There was a ton of controversy regarding that passage of Carter's book, and it appears that this article is saying that Carter's take on it is honest and those of others is not. And my version is not hard to understand for non-native speakers, nor does it read poorly. It's adding in three words to balance out the sentence and show that that is merely the POV of those who believe Carter is correct. There's nothing wrong with that, but it needs to be distinguished that it is not everyone's POV. Happyme22 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happyme22's version is much better because it eliminates all POV. An article cannot take a certain side in a debate and characterize what one side is saying as honest on an issue and implying that the other side is dishonest. Particularly since the same article also has a quote from Lester Maddox that labels Carter as "the most dishonest man [that Maddox] ever met". The fact is that much of what Carter says is not "honest" but what he perceives, which in my opinion is through his misguided ideology. All of this is irrelevant, the bottom line is that whether you want to use the word "honesty", "frankly", "truthfully", or whatever, all you are doing is substituting opinion for fact. The fact is that those who praise Carter believe what he is saying is what they consider to be honesty. Those who criticize him believe what he is saying is what they consider to be dishonesty. It is that simple.--STX 06:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How is speaking frankly pov. You could be speaking frankly and be completely wrong on all accounts. There is no pov attached to the phrase "speaking frankly". Jesus guys, does anyone understand the English language anymore? Speaking honestly or being frank have nothing to do with being right or wrong. These phrases assume that the speaker believes they are right (i.e. speaking from the heart) and nothing more. I mean, really. Do you have to push your political agenda on all levels? Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not pushing any sort of agenda. It's you that seems to want to keep this pro-Carter POV in the article by using excuses such as "it will be harder for non-native speakers to understand" and "your version does not read well at all". Besides them both being false, substituting a word (frankly) for other words (honestly, truthfully) is not acceptable; according to the dictionary, frankly means "in truth; honestly". There's all three words and all three appear to be synonymous. Therefore, replacing "honestly" with "frankly" means the same thing, and the outcome is just as POV as before. Happyme22 (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my comment. The non-native speaker statement was aimed at my own revision (frankly). And in truth, your version does not read well but it would be pretty easy to fix. But you really don't understand the meaning of the word changes when you put "speaking" in front of it? Here is an example: "Honestly speaking, I think you are completely wrong." Does that make me right? I think I am right and that's why I am speaking honestly. Nuances. English language. Think about it. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people might feel that he is misrepresenting the situation for political reasons or perhaps for his legacy. One side may feel his lack of frankness accounts for the book's factual errors. To be frank you have to believe you are telling the truth.--STX 06:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That is what I have been trying to get across from the beginning. I have never heard anyone say that the factual errors in his book come from him purposefully lying. Is there a good source for that? Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's really not what I've been getting from all this, but okay. I think Turtlescrubber's example above would be the harder one to understand (especially for those non-native speakers), so why don't we eliminate all POV and abide by the English language by writing something like this:

"While some have praised Carter for what they view as truthfully speaking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, others have accused him of what they view as anti-Israeli bias and of what they view as making significant factual errors, omissions and misstatements in the book."

This seems to encompass all of our versions and points. Thoughts? Happyme22 (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, try reading your version out loud. Anyway, the conversation above isn't over yet. Oh, and no, not yet. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I think I'm the one trying to abide by Wikipedia's core policy of writing with a neutral point of view. Happyme22 (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking frankly I think we both are. Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Lelyveld, e.g., is right that "'apartheid' in [Carter's] hands [is] basically a slogan, not reasoned argument" [7], and sloganeering is incompatable with speaking "honestly " or "frankly", IMHO. But inserting "what they consider" in the sentence is uncalled for and not NPOV. It is the equivalent of scare quotes, an unnecessary distancing of the statement from the editorial voice of Wikipedia to indicate that it is especially dubious. We ought not point out that anyone praising Jimmy Carter for "speaking honestly" is a jackass -- the source of the opinion is clear ("some", not Wikipedia) and they are entitled to have their opinion recounted without editorial comment. Andyvphil (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree "what they consider"/"what they view as" is a WP:WEASEL term which shouldn't be in there. Stick to honestly. You do not have to be right to be honest. --BozMo talk 11:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Carter supporter. Still I wonder at the Maddox quote. This seems to speak more clearly to why most states and the federal government run top exec and vice-exec (Lt Gov) as a single ticket rather than separately. (Vermont does the same stupid thing by the way). Of course they are not going to get along! Of course they are going to say unpleasant political things about each other. Is his relationship with Maddox important? Since, by the brilliance of the Georgia constitution, relationships are bound to be strained. Other than worrying about assassination of what value is his relationship with Maddox? I would think Maddox is important as governor. In the article on Maddox, I suppose we can say, among his other hatreds, that he thought Carter dishonest. I think a simple statement of that here might be considered. The actual quote, an overstatement, should probably be eliminated. How good a judge of character was Maddox? He did not really hold a job in character analysis but in character assassination! Student7 (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Turtlescrubber is right that neither “frankly” nor “honestly” should imply truth (a nuance Happyme22 also correctly observes may be lost on some), however when taken with the preceding sentences in the paragraph and the “about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” language, the sentence in question could cause some readers to understand “truth” whether erroneously or not. Avoiding the use of a WP:WEASEL construct, an alternative that I think works is: “While some have praised Carter for articulating his frank perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, others have…” Thoughts? --Middleston (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Far from being a slogan, 'apartheid' is the most obvious term to describe two populations, closely intertwined, with differential right in transport, work, and recourse to law. For anyone with even casual interest in the matter, Mr Carter has made it abundantly clear - first of all in the book, and thereafter in countless interviews - that his reference was explicily to the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza. You may prefer a different word, which will amount to a synonym of 'apartheid.' But to call Mr Carter's choice of that word 'a slogan' is to deny the presumption of good faith, which is one of the grounding principles of Wikipedia. It is for this reason and one other that I have made an edit to narrow the discussion 'Israeli-occupied territories.' For, when Mr Carter's argument centers on the daily , normal, and peaceful experiences of civilians in the Occupied Territories, with respect to their right to work, right of movement, access to medical care, property rights, and right to a predictable and accountable administration, it becomes clear that referring to the Israeli-Palestinian 'conflict' is to misrepresent the issue.

(With apologies, I've forgotten my official handle and nickname, so I will sign with an informal nickname, Justice for Adversaries.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.65.151 (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

policies

what where some policies or events in the office durring your term —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.227.173 (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominal influence

What influence did his initials, J.C., have on his life? Did he ever read Imitatio Christi (Imitation of Christ)? If so, how did it affect his foreign policy?Lestrade (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Bible studies

The narrative seems to be surprised that Jimmy Carter would call Irgun a terrorist group. What should it be called? In fact, the article is part of WikiProject Terrorism. I would have been surprised if it weren't!

Also the narrative says Carter criticized Israel for occupying Bethlehem. True, so did a lot of other people including most western governments. Israel no longer occupies Bethlehem. I think the narrative should somehow reflect that.

Disclosure: I am not a JC fan, but IMO this section is a bit off the mark in its criticism.Student7 (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Home brewing

In the article, we have Carter taking credit for home-brewing. Presidents sign hundreds if not thousands of bills in which they have scant interest. I think this was one of them. I don't think this was very high on his agenda at all. IMO frivolous to take responsibility for it. Student7 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

James Earl Carter, Jr.

The Infobox says "James Earl Carter, Jr.". While his full name certainly belongs in the article, isn't Carter unique in that he always insisted on using Jimmy Carter for biographies, official correspondence, and official use? Shouldn't the infobox reflect this? For example, compare the White House biography for Jimmy Carter[8] with that of Bill Clinton[9]. Cogswobbletalk 15:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt a ton of people are paying attention to the Talk section on this page, so I went ahead and made the change. Cogswobbletalk 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It isn't a matter of what Carter called himself; it's a matter is consistency. See Richard Milhous Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Jr., Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, etc. I've never heard Nixon reffered to as Richard Milhous, nor a Jr. for Gerald Ford. Reagan was always simply Ronald Reagan, and before his son became president, George H. W. Bush was simply George Bush. Also, I don't think I've ever heard Bill Clinton reffered to as William Jefferson, other than in encyclopedia articles or other written works.

So it's not a matter of whether Carter was more well known by one name than another, but it is a matter of consistency with other presidential articles and official documentation. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's not an issue of whether he's more well known by one name or another - I think it's an issue of official documentation. Unlike the other Presidents you mentioned, Carter has always used his "informal" name for all official correspondence and use, and every official reference to Carter has always been "Jimmy Carter", for example, see the White House links I posted above, or compare the "Jimmy Carter Library" to the "William J. Clinton Library". Cogswobbletalk 04:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. I still disagree because of consistency, but how about we get an outsider's opinion? User:Arcayne is someone whom I have worked with many times on multiple pages, and although he is a Democrat, he provides balanced, NPOV views. I've dropped in him a line, and hopefully he'll weigh in. Happyme22 (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Heya, Happ asked me to weigh in, and I think both Happ and Cogswobble (awesome name, btw) are correct here. It is a matter of official documentation. In almost every piece of literature, Carter refers to himself as, and is known politically and professionally as "Jimmy Carter", he was not sworn in as such. When he took his oath of office on Inauguration Day, he was sworn in as 'James Earl Carter Jr.', which was the name he was born with. Therefore, no matter what he called himself before or after, he was elected to the office that provides the basis of his notability for inclusion by the more formal name.

As well, a brief survey of US presidents notes that the usage of a nickname ( "Teddy" Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, both featured articles and "Ike" Dwight D. Eisenhower) is not part of the official name of the article. Continuity is vitally important to an encyclopedia, unless that consistency is outdated or blindly followed. I don't see that here. I will note that it would be beneficial to discuss the addition of the nickname to the infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents, as I think it is a discussion worth having. The persistence of the nicknames of Teddy, Ike and Jimmy (not to mention Honest Abe, Old Hickory and Old Muthaf***ah - just kidding with that last one) implies that recentism isn't necessarily at odds with our needs as an encyclopedia.

I hope that helped. Now get these muthaf***in' snakes off this muthaf***in' plane. ;)- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion with a bit of bemusement and thought I'd weigh in as well. There are compelling arguments for each side, and despite being a Democrat as well (Happyme22!!!), I have to say that I think his legal name is the official one that should head the infobox. I would support the addition of a nickname feature to the infobox. As for Old Muthaf***ah, is he a Democrat? Could he be vice president with Obama?? Would this mean that the eagle would be replaced by a snake as our national symbol?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahaha Wildheartlive you actually made me laugh out loud! And my best friend (in the real world, of course) is also a Democrat, so no hard feelings :) I guess that a concensus has been established that his official name should be the one in the infobox. I too would support a James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. proposal, but that should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents or Template talk:Infobox Officeholder, and the official name (excluding Jimmy) be inserted for the time being. Great discussion! My best to all, Happyme22 (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Carter's voter registration information is available through the website of the Secretary of State of Georgia and on that record, his name is shown as James E. Carter.

This article is very one-sided favorable to Carter. For another account of his life and activities, I suggest Steven F. Hayward's, "The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators, and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry," published at Washington, D.C., by Regnery Publishing, Inc., in 2004.

John Paul Parks (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This article says Jimmy Carter (as well as Ronald Reagan) omitted his middle name when he took the oath. So did he take the oath as "James Carter" or "Jimmy Carter"? --HYC (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I believe there needs to be a criticism section in this article. Carter's activities, including his upcoming visit with the leader of Hamas and 2002 visit with Fidel Castro, have drawn criticism and ire from many. If the article is to carry a NPOV, then it would be necessary to include one of these sections. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a terrible idea. Criticism sections are always a bad idea and are being dismantled where they already exist so that anything relevant can be woven into the article. By way of example, ask yourself whether you would support a general "praise" section that just listed favorable comments about the subject. Also, given your edit history, ([10] [11], etc.) you're not really in a position to lecture anyone on the subject of NPOV. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny! I have seen tons of criticism sections on pages for people with conservative political views, yet I have seen very few on those for people with liberal political views. The McDermott edit was a joke, and I had planned to erase it after about half an hour, but someone else got there before me. On the Pelosi article, I am only telling the truth about what conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity thought about the trip, I was not trying to vandalize it. Additionally, Wikipedia's global warming policy clearly promotes a left-wing agenda. I take it that NPOV really means LWPOV (Left Wing Point of View) at Wikipedia. Perhaps someone should undertake an effort to fix the problems with this website before it becomes another version of the New York Times. Thank you. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro looks like a bad first draft

Reads like a biography of an imaginary friend written by a committee of six-year olds. Commonly-known and easily-accessible facts are sourced, while anything that a reader might want to verify is not. Also, it contains blatant statements of opinion, without explanation. Is this why the page is locked, or a result of it? 24.184.97.102 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is fair.

please explain why you feel the "Bible Study With Jimmy Carter" article is unbalanced or biased. Otherwise, I will remove the disclaimer box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazeartist (talk • contribs) 03:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge problem when someone takes exception to a maintenance tag and leaves a message like this one, then immediately goes and removes the tag before anyone can respond. The section is a problem because a) it contains only one side of the question, which is only what the JewishPress.com article says about the tapes - it contains no opposing viewpoint or response from Carter, or for that matter, anyone else; and b) it improperly quotes the article, at least stylistically. Whether that was done out of ignorance of properly abridging quotes or done purposely, it also tends to bias the section. That's what is wrong with the section and removing the tag doesn't fix the problem. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Go fix the mistake, don't just put in "biased" tags.

If you find the reference to Jimmy Carter's Bible tapes to be biased or inaccurate, go find a better source, don't just put in a tag that it is biased. Just because you don't like the source, doesn't mean the source is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazeartist (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is challenging the source of this section, and no one is saying the reference itself is biased or inaccurate. The source exists for, and does, present one viewpoint of an issue. The problem with the section in this article is that it only presents one side of an issue, and does so in an unbalanced and biased way. I only restored the tag to the article and answered your post, in which you asked for explanation of the tag. I'm fairly certain I was clear in my response about the issue in this section. A third person placed the tag originally, so it is apparent that more than one person believes the section to be biased. I merely explained why it is and it isn't necessarily my job to fix it. Maintenance tags are placed for a purpose, which is to point out issues to those who routinely, or in passing, care to edit the article. It is inappropriate to remove those tags because you don't like them. Please assume good faith and don't make the placing of a maintenance tag into a personal issue.

Again, the section is a problem because a) it contains only one side of the question, which is what the JewishPress.com article says about the tapes - it contains no opposing viewpoint or response from Carter, or for that matter, anyone else; and b) it improperly quotes the article, at least stylistically. Whether that was done out of ignorance of properly abridging quotes or done purposely, it also tends to bias the section. That's what is wrong with the section and removing the tag doesn't fix the problem. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New Article?

I would suggest creating a new article about Carter's post-presidential political and diplomatic activism. I believe there will be enough information for a new article considering the attention and reaction he has received about the trips he has taken. I notice there is an article about the comments Rick Santorum made (see Santorum Controversy). If there is an article about that then there should certainly be an article about Carter's activities as they seem to garner more attention and have been going on over a long period of time. Also, it appears to me that those activities affect more people than Santorum's comments do. I noticed there is an article on his book, and maybe it could be merged into the new article. I feel that if there is an article critiquing a conservative politician like that then there should be one critiquing a liberal politician given the circumstances above since Wikipedia should be neutral. SouthJerseyConservative (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing parentheses

The image for the election vote turn out that has the caption of:

The electoral map of the 1976 election (note: the current "red state-blue state" color coding system had not been established when this graphic was created; in this case the "red" states went for Carter and the "blue" for Ford

Is missing an ending ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.159 (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Korban (Corban)

In the Criticism section it lists his teaching on Korban as possibly anti-Semitic but it fails to note that that teaching comes almost word for word out of the bible [[12]]. I am not sure whether to add that or to cut the whole section as being pretty small and irrelevant. Or maybe people think it should stay?

Any thoughts or comments?

CaptinJohn (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is political commentary allowed?

I think not. (I added a "citation needed" to the part that the Democratic Party did not have a grudge against Carter for opposing McGovern.)

Especially if it is not referenced because then it is your opinion or my opinion.

What if it is referenced, is it allowed? DianeFinn (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias in "Governor" section

There is a bias in the Governor section. I am speaking particularly of the "[He] made government efficient". That is a subjective point of view. I am not sure how to fix this and will simply bring it up for someone more knowledgable to fix. I will remove the bias quote and leave the entry about the reduction of 300 agencies to 30, although im not sure on the validity of that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, the article is locked. Can someone do as I planned to do above, and remove the subjective "effeciency" sentence, or provide a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Burial plans

The text for the burial plans seems a bit ridiculous. It says something to the effect of "every president since the one from 1928 was buried in [x], except for this one, and this one, and another one..." Three exceptions out of 9(?) samples(aka deceased U.S. presidents) is a bit much. Any objections to it being changed? Sarysa (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

past tense ?

I have noticed that seems (I have done only a quick glance) that the article is written using the past tense, even for his most recent activities and initiatives, and Mr.Carter is current living; I have the vague impression of a subtle vandalism.. Hope to be wrong (after all, English isn't my mother tongue (I'm Italian) Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the events of his presidency are in the past; that tense is appropriate for anything except that which he is doing presently. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Carter, the Panama Canal, and the Monroe Doctrine

The lead of the article makes this statement: "His return of the Panama Canal Zone to Panama was a major reversal of U.S. claims of influence over parts of Latin America dating to the Monroe doctrine..."

I find this statement to be too highly debatable to belong in the lead. Even if you believe that ceding the canal to Panama was a very bad thing, I think it's hard to argue that it's apropos to the Monroe Doctrine, or even the Roosevelt corollary to the Doctrine. The idea of the Doctrine was that the US would act to prevent military (and later economic) intervention by powers outside of the Western Hemisphere. There's nothing like that implicated in this case. Panama is a Western Hemisphere country, and with the permanent neutrality of the canal assured by treaty, there's no other power threatening to or actually intervening.

Therefore, I have changed the statement in question to the following:

"His return of the Panama Canal Zone to Panama was seen as a major concession of U.S. influence in Latin America, and Carter came under heavy criticism for it."

As always, revert or edit if you disagree.

--- Mike (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

POV edit to section concerning Roe vs. Wade

In that section, it mentioned that Carter was the first president to "endorse legalized abortions." I changed it to him being the first to "take a pro-choice stance" on the matter. Much less harsh, and it naturally links to the article pro-choice.

Come on! This page is absolutely ridiculous. The article is supposed to be a neutral, objective biography of the man! I don't care what your views are, who you're voting for, or whether you think labelling Carter an "official endorser of legalized abortions" is appropriate or not. If you want to share your opinions about an ex-president, whether glowing, condemning, or what have you, there are plenty of sites where you can do so.

If you feel hostility toward a person, place, thing, or idea that is the subject of an article on Wikipedia, you probably should just stay away from said article. If you wish to discuss something you don't agree with, please do so - respectfully. Dmodlin71 (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

final year?

The final year of his presidential tenure was marked by several major crises, including the 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Iran

But the article says earlier his term was from 1977-1981. --86.164.126.9 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the hostage crisis lasted from November of 1979 to January 20, 1981. Ergo, the entire last year of his presidency (1/20/80 to 1/20/81) was marred by this crisis. HuskyHuskie (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "excerpt" :
  • [http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=25&pid=522298&agid=2 "Simon & Schuster: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (Hardcover) - Read an Excerpt,"], ''[[Simon & Schuster]]'', November 2006, accessed [[April 9]], [[2007]].
  • In an Op-Ed entitled "Speaking Frankly about Israel and Palestine", published in the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' and other newspapers, Carter states: "The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort."<ref name="latimes">[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,7999232.story?coll=la-home-commentary] "Speaking Frankly about Israel and Palestine", ''[[The Los Angeles Times]]'', [[December 8]], [[2006]], Op-Ed, accessed [[January 4]], [[2007]].

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

democrat

I think it should be said in the first lines of the introduction that Carter was a democrat. 193.17.19.230 (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"david loves erika so much its crazy" under farming section vandalized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.164.26 (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deep south?

The article states that Carter was the first president elected from the deep south since the 1848 election. Any way you slice it, that simply isn't true. In 1848, Zachary Taylor was elected; he was a Virginian. Virginia is not the deep South by usual definitions, but if you think it is, then Woodrow Wilson should count. He was born and raised in Virginia, and always considered himself a Virginian, even though his political home, so to speak, was New Jersey. Or else, Lyndon Johnson; Texas has a stronger claim to being part of the deep south than Virginia does. Wikipedia's article on the Deep South defines it as AL, MS, LA, GA, SC, and marginally TX and FL.

So to summarize, if your definition of the Deep South is AL, MS, LA, GA, and SC, Carter was the first president from the Deep South ever. If you include TX and FL, he was the second, after Lyndon Johnson. If you disinclude TX but include the entire south up through Virginia, he'd be the first since Wilson. In no instance is Carter the first Southerner elected to the White House since Taylor, unless you find some reason to disqualify both WW and LBJ. (There's also Andrew Johnson, from TN, but of course he was not elected president.)

I'd amend the statement in the text to reflect this, but I'm not sure which of these definitions the author had in mind. 69.7.203.153 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

1976 Presidential Campaign Expansion

Can someone expand the 1976 Presidential Campaign section? I think that Carter's specific proposals to government reorganization are needed. 98.204.240.195 (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Malaise speech

The text says the speech was well-received by the public. It then goes on to say that recent commentators have seen the speech in a more positive light and quotes a full paragraph from US News and World Report to that effect. So, was it loved by the public and hated by the commentators at that time? Is the article incorrect when saying it was well-received at the time? Has it not ever been received in a positive light? Was it a reason he didn't get elected in 1980? Whatever the case is, the article contradicts itself and needs to be fixed.--Gloriamarie (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard one good comment about it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Question for those with books on the Carter administration on Treas. Secretary Miller

Awhile back I was editing the article on G. William Miller, Carter's 2nd Treasury Secretary. The cabinet shakeup described is easily sourced and did happen, as is some conflict between Miller and Blumenthal, but some lines in the article (before I edited it) suggest that Miller was angling for Blumenthal's job. I tagged 'em with citation needed because it sounds completely plausible yet also potentially controversial. Still, nobody's cited it yet. Anyone know more about this? For reference, here are the lines...

Miller was Fed chairman for just over a year when Carter appointed him Secretary of the Treasury in August 1979, replacing Michael Blumenthal as part of a major cabinet shuffle in which five Cabinet members were replaced.[11] Blumenthal had previously clashed with the administration, and Miller desired his post.[citation needed] Miller leaked certain unsavory personal details about Blumenthal to Carter, and soon Blumenthal was gone.[citation needed]

SnowFire (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)