This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
There needs to be a section about his legacy, what people think of him now. Can someone with good knowledge of this write it? TheDavesr 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter, has been on a book tour recently. He just published his 22nd book: “Palestine – Peace not Apartheid”, and has been on a virtually every talk show promoting his book, pretending he cares about the condition of the Palestinians.
Not one of the shows would allow questions related to Iran. The closest anyone got to asking him a question related to Iran, was directly from one of his hosts. The host asked: what he knew about the Republican Party’s schemes to undermine his presidential campaign in 1980 with a secret deal with Iran’s Mullahs to delay the release of the hostages (October Surprise).
His answer: “Well, I know several books have been written about the subject, but I have not seen any direct evidence to prove this actually happened.”
As if the murder of 19 people directly involved in the scheme was not evidence enough… many died mysteriously during critical moments (like the just before providing evidence to congressional committees or speaking to journalists). How about the indirect evidence from his National Security staff team member (Gary Sick), or Reagan’s own political campaign staff (Barbara Hoeneger), or reports detailing these events from foreign intelligence services providing surveillance data for important meetings and events.
With his response, Jimmy Carter actually confirmed what has been suspected all along – that the Republicans and Democrats have come to some sort of accommodation on all this and agreed to “move on” and run the country. Incidentally, Lee Hamilton who chaired the House Select Committee to investigate this probably helped negotiate a ceasefire, which is why he keeps getting asked to chair ‘bi-partisan’ commissions like the 9/11 or Iraq Study Group…as a professional whitewasher.
Carter would also not answer direct questions on the Camp David accord – which he claims is his single foreign policy achievement! Now, in retrospect, it is clear that it was an incomplete document, leaving many critical elements for long-term peace unresolved without any commitments or deadlines on Israel to resolve them.
It is clear now, that the Camp David accord, only really served Israel’s interests – by splitting the Arabs apart and neutralizing Israel’s most potent opponent (Egypt). Without Camp David, Israel would probably have reconsidered its excursions into Lebanon or Gaza or even more settlements on the West Bank. No one, it seems, can stand up to Israel today. Wittingly or unwittingly, Carter carried out Israel’s strategic objectives, and banished the Palestinians to hell.
Carter now has the audacity to blame Israel for Palestinian woes, when in fact it was his accord that created the conditions for the current situation. Israel will never commit to a comprehensive peace without some arm-twisting or fear. Right now, with Saddam gone, there is no one that can exert any pressure on them. It’s all Carter’s fault!
And when it comes to Iran, there is a long laundry list of Jimmy Carter mishaps. Everything from engineering the downfall of the Shah, to supporting the rise of the Mullahs (and Islamic Fundamentalism) in Iran and Afghanistan , and then ‘regretting’ it (after the hostage crisis) resulting in the 180 Degree turn by the Mullahs against Carter, to attempting a failed coup in Iran, and then failing in the hostage rescue attempt, to then asking Saddam Hussein to invade Iran (when all else failed).
There is a memo from Al Haig, Reagan’s Secretary of State, upon his visit to Saudi Arabia with extensive details of his conversations with the Saudi Royals – confirming that they had conveyed messages from Carter to Saddam Hussein encouraging Saddam to invade Iran.
With over 1 Million people dead in the Iran-Iraq war, countless thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese etc killed during Israel’s several incursions into Lebanon, Gaza and West Bank, over 1 million Iranians fleeing overseas …and not to forget over 2 million Afghan refugees during Soviet Union’s incursion into Afghanistan…not to mention the two US led Gulf wars which were directly precipitated by “Carter’s push” (… if Iraq had not invaded Iran, he would not have amassed the arms and the debt obligations that led him to invade Kuwait)… all as direct result of Carter’s actions! I wonder how Jimmy Carter sleeps at night.
He is guilty of significant policy failures with horrendous consequences on millions of human beings.
Perhaps these books are designed to help him somehow shed his guilty! Some form of Haiku!?
He comes off as a Saint in these talk shows. He looks and sounds like the best ex-president ever. But, in truth, he is one of the most evil, most dangerous and most irresponsible leaders the United States has ever had. He should be hiding at home in Plains, Georgia and keeping a very low profile. The more he appears in large public forums, the greater chance he is taking that all this will eventually be revealed publicly and really humiliate him publicly and expose his false façade. He is an imposter, and he will not be able to hide the truth forever.
The red vs. blue map is backwards! It shows that red color states = Carter, but then it shows all the southern states in red and the northern states in blue, which MUST be backwards from reality.
p.s. Sorry for throwing this in the legacy discussion section, but I didn't know where to put it.
Nope, that's the way the election went down. Check out uselectionatlas.org if you want more in depth results. --
Haven40 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This section needs to be edited. It is somewhat boosterous in favor of Carter. Had John Anderson not run Carter still would have lost states like New York and Massachusettes. In fact Reagan won both in 1984 when he had only one major opponent, Water F. Mondale. Carter's popularity before the election was rather low and several text books note that the election was a combination of Democratic weakness and Republican strength. The Senate was regained by the republicans for the first time in over two decades and seats in the House were also won. The Democratic debate left Carter tongue tied against the impressive acting abilities of Reagan. Lastly, the misery index soared during carters tenure in office. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.92.166.215 ( talk) 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Removing the quotes because there are quotes listed elsewhere (Wikiquote) is a good idea, but to say that the quotes have been removed because they aren't "balanced" is ridiculous. If Carter said it and it is notable or relevant, then it can or should be listed. If what he said wasn't "balanced" (or was unbalanced?) it would seem like that would be his problem...
Wouldn't the Snoogle-Fleejer book, published in 1995, be the first work of fiction? (I'm assuming that it's not a true story!) Also, I would change written to published here.
Again a small sentence providing an alternate to the ludicrously one sided intro to Carter's page has been removed, under the auspices that it is 'POV'. Frankly if "In the decades since he left office, Carter has been seen by some people as an elder statesman and international mediator, and has used his prestige as a former president to further many charitable causes." isn't POV then nothing is.
The sections on his early life and his early political career are quite thorough and appropriate. However, the sections on President Carter's presidency and post presidency need to be cleaned up. There is hardly anything written for his domestic policies and not enough written for his foreign policies. Also, in the section about the Presidency before the subtopics, why should there be such a large focus on the killer rabbit issue? Also, everything in the Presidency and Post Presidency sections are in an illogical order. I propose that over the next couple of weeks, people begin to rework these sections. Let's see where that gets us.
AS A FORMER STATE SENATOR, GOVERNOR, NAVAL OFFICER, AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY AS A HUMANITARIAN, PEACEMAKER, AND GOOD MAN, CARTER DESERVES THE SAME TYPE OF ARTICLE THAT RONALD REAGAN HAS.
I have taken it upon myself to change this, "Carter's administration marked the decline of U.S. power overseas and an economic recession. Polls showed Americans doubted his abilities as a leader, but supported him as a person." to this, "Political opponents see Carter's administration as a point of decline for U.S. power overseas and as an economic recession. Carter's defenders point to his efforts after the presidency as his real role in society as a humanitarian. They also note that Carter was coming off of a legacy of bad White House policy and only had four years to try to put that in the past
Please don't take any research from this page. The whole entire article is skewed.
I don't believe that this is neutral."Carter's administration marked the decline of U.S. power overseas and an economic recession." I think it needs to be changed to represent a less biased point of view. This is especially so when it is the first line.
The table here causes the text of the page to extend into the right hand column where the Special features are located. -- Zoe
Sorry, I'm a newb, but I think there's an error in the article: It says "The USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) was named on April 27, 1998, making it ... perhaps the only US Navy vessel to be named for person who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." And yet, Theodore Roosevelt (as mentioned) also received the Nobel Peace Prize, and had a (US naval) ship named after him as well. Is this a mistake in the article?
24.234.119.134 20:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, someone just added that line recently, probably without checking (since they used the word "perhaps". I will change it. There is no reason that this type of factual historical stuff should be wrong. except that someone else already did. (BTW, Woodrow Wilson shares the distinction of having being a former US president who has a nobel peace prize, AND a nuclear sub named after him.)
Morris 22:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Talk on disambiguation block format moved to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.
What is his religion? I thought that his religion influenced heavily his politics. Isn't it so? -- Error
-- He is still a practicing Baptist. You don't have to be a hippie-hating conservative to be part of the Christian religion. Even if you're a fundamentalist.
Once again, I do not see any reason to delete the U.S. Presidents table, since it is helpful and include's Jimmy Carter's name. -- 65.73.0.137
From the page: Some "have alleged that a secret agreement between the Reagan campaign (orchestrated by George H. W. Bush) was responsible" for the end of the Iran hostage crisis. Between the Reagan campaign and whom? (Don't ask me, I was born in '81.)
User:Old Right wants to have a statement that Carter's presidency is considered as a failure by historians. The link that he supplied lists Carter as "Below Average" instead of "Failure", which is why I reverted it. I think a more nuanced and balanced paragraph could be written about how history ranks Carter's presidency against others. I am not the one to write it. Perhaps User:Old Right could start a new section and others could supply balancing sources. Edwinstearns 17:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Who cares? This hardly seems worth reporting, specifically in such detail, and the beginning of the article on his presidency. At the very least, it makes the article much harder to read. 137.53.21.173 19:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I've never posted anything on Wikipedia. But I noticed that the article states the rabbit attacked both a "small boat" and "the presidential yacht." The image shows him in a small boat with no motor. The language seems sarcastic. I had never heard of this story, but it seems more of a public overreaction to a high-school-grade embarrassing moment than a worthwhile bit of history. I was interested enough to read it, but it is at least out of place. 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 168.166.54.11
I agree. I move this part of the article be scrapped.-- Kbbbb 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Just an info, it did happen, Carter was seriously satirized for it though, hardly seems worth mentioning, I agree. That sort of thing belongs in the same place as Taft getting stuck in the bathtub and G. W. Bush choking on a pretzel. Emmett5 02:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I really like the killer rabbit story. I thought it was funny and interesting. I ended up downloading the picture of him in the boat. Without Wikipedia, I would never have come across that little tidbit. Don't be so exclusionist. - Rollo44 10:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is this being removed? -- Golbez 23:55, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
It is sort of odd that this gets it's own section juxtaposed to the unrelated Voyager mission. Furthermore the fact that the sighting was most likely Venus is not mentioned. I'm going to move this to pre-presidency (since it happened in '69, and mention Venus. BillCosby 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The lead-in of this article, the 2nd paragraph specifically, strikes me as of verious dubious neutrality. While most sentences probably could be defended as factual in isolation, this paragraph still mostly reads like it came off a conservative blog. For the moment, I'm adding the npov check tag to invite attention from other editors. I'm not disputing neutrality per se, but I do think it could use some attention. Wolfman 00:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The prevailing notion is that Carter is a good guy but was a horrible president. In his defense, we can note that:
Other than this, I don't think a not-so favorable era of history deserves to be billed as an era prosperity when it was otherwise not. Camp David, Salt II, etc. are already mentioned as accomplishments. Let's not whitewash in the name of NPOV. -- Jia ng 21:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I rearranged some things in the lead and would like some comments. -- Jia ng 23:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article currently only mentioned Three Mile Island in the harsh sentence:
Carter has been accused of ordering a cover-up of the events at Three Mile Island following the near meltdown of that nuclear plant.
What's the source on this? The Three Mile Island article makes no such accusation, instead saying:
U.S. President Jimmy Carter ordered a full investigation of the TMI incident. According to Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the key figure in the development of nuclear power plants and a close confidant of the president, the original report was so critical of the nuclear power industry's safety lapses that if it had been released, all nuclear plants in the U.S. would probably have been forced to close. Rickover said the final version was more muted, at the command of Jimmy Carter.
As I recall, Carter was pretty heavily involved in Three Mile, during as well as after the incident; it'd be nice if someone would write a paragraph on it. -- LostLeviathan 23:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
---
The whole contoveseries section needs to be removed. The 3 mile island comment is unsubstantiated. And the "October Surprise" part is both unsubstantiated and about Ronald Reagon NOT Carter!
While I think Billy Carter should definitely be included in this article, I think it might be better if he had his own sub-heading, or was discussed as part of Controversies (as it was his notoriety and alleged involvement with Libya that is of note to Jimmy Carter's presidency). Billy Beer, I'm glad you've added a reference to Billy, but I question whether it should be in the first paragraph, up with the presidency and governorship. Jimmy is the most well-known of the two, and I'm not sure Billy is sufficiently important to warrant a first paragraph reference. Any thoughts anyone? I'll be glad to help construct a Billy section for this article (I'm just reading a book which discusses his impact on the Carter presidency). Amelia Hunt 02:18, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
I see that this phrase has come and gone from the opening part of the article several times in the last few days. Personally, I think that it is appropriate (The 52 hostages were clearly one of the defining events in the Carter administration). If anyone either agrees or disagrees, it would be most useful to express the agreement or disagreement without reference to the reputation or history of the other editors. Yes, I know that there are some difficult people on wikipedia. My suggestion is to treat each case de novo. Morris 14:59, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
This article is about Jimmy Carter, not about "things which happened from 1976 to 1980". By putting a lengthy paragraph in the lead describing a variety of events which Carter bore little to no responsibility before (including interest rates, which are set by the Fed) we come very close to suggesting that Carter's presidency was a disaster, which is inappropriate. Moreover, everything being described is covered further down in the article in detail; the purpose of the lead is to summarize. RadicalSubversiv E 19:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can remove the part about interest rates from the lead part of the article, and augment the discussion in the lower part of the article. Do you think that that would be a good idea? I don't see anything in the article about domestic policies and the economy. I see your point, but it is hard to separate the topics of the Carter administration from US History from 1976 to 1980. Don't forget that Carter appointed both Frederick Schultz and Paul Volker (vice chair and chair of the Fed). I was thinking I might also put in some information about the boycott of the Moscow olympic games and the Panama canal treaties. Let me know if you have any thoughts about these. Morris 20:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that someone (with just an IP address) seems to have undone the last several edits (discussed above on this talk page) with an edit summary of just something like "Here we go". Unless someone articulates some objection shortly, I think that I will revert to the last edit by User:Old Right. Morris 19:30, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the second paragraph, and the photo caption. I took out the sentence in the 2nd paragraph that was both duplicated below and had a typo in a link. Morris 22:05, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Someone put a tag on the article: title/subject matter dispute, but I don't see anything new on the talk page. If someone wants to move the article to James E. Carter I think that that would be a bad idea, although with a redirect, I guess it wouldn't matter that much. I've never seen him called "James" anywhere. Morris 18:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, Jimmy Carter is not a neutral title. Peanut Lips would be much more neutral. -Mike Reason
(Reading from the history page I see that DavidWBrooks has reverted my edit. If Mr. DavidWBrooks would be kind enough to brief me a bit on the nature of this Carter photo I would appreciate this very much)
I see that someone has reverted my post on the funny photo of Carter posted in this article awhile ago. I'm not a troll/vandal, so I'm not going to repeatedly post this request.
But there's something I miss here, didn't Wikipedia call for NPOV? So what's wrong with Jimmy Carter sticking finger in his nose if it reveals an aspect of Carter's life that's not well-known to outsiders? I mean, even photos of Abu-Ghraib are shown in this encyclopedia for crying out loud!
Unless the photo has been doctored in Photoshop, in which case I apologize for my ignorance. Otherwise I demand to know the reason why I can't see that funny photo!
According to the USNA offical website, Jimmy Carter graduated in 1947, not 1946.
just wanted to add,that there is an important saxophone player James Carter. So redirection is not so good.
I don't understand why the section on the Venezuela elections was omitted from the post-presidential section.
Nobs has now twice added a sentence offering a list of supposed "Communist regimes" established during Carter's presidency. In addition to the list itself being inaccurate and POV (labelling the Sandinistas as Communist is controversial at best), I question its purpose here -- the obvious intent seems to be to imply that Carter was somehow responsible for these developments. This article is about Carter and his administration, not about concurrent historical events. RadicalSubversiv E 02:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
can be easi
How is labeling the Sandinistas communist controversial? They themselves claim to be Marxists.
Removed "Carter is 5 feet, 10 inches (178 cm) tall." from the lead section. Please keep trivia out of this article. If you insist that it stay, please keep it out of the lead section, which is already too long. -- Ji ang 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted Jiang's edits by replacing refs to the Misery index and Martin Luther King Day
I have also created a miscellaneous section to include the information about Carter's height. Jiang pls discuss if you wish to revert. Your edit summary said you had shortened the lead. You did much more than this. Mccready 01:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Jiang 1.The Misery Index is well known with 95,400 google hits. 2. MLKD gets 314,000 google hits and none describe it as a "stinking holiday". 3. You have removed my attempt to meet your concerns that his height is trivia. Given this, will you please revert you edits? Mccready 02:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Jiang Since you ack MI and MLKD are "perhaps" important enough to belong but not the the "lead section", I would be grateful if you would include them where you suggest they belong. Mccready 17:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I've added an item to the Miscellaneous section about Carter legalizing homebrewing. I think it's relevant to a lot of people who engage in this hobby, but is minor enough to be in this Miscellaneous section. I think this is at least as relevant as the mans height. Vellmont 01:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I reverted an edit that claimed thatCarter was the only one who'd released his IQ score, and that it was 176. It is a matter of public record that JFK's was 119, Nixon's was 143, and (VP) Al Gore's was 134, so the first part of the claim appears false. As to the second, it sounds suspiciously like it was gleaned from this famous urban legend. Please re-insert if there's an excellent source. enceph alon 11:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"I've never been able to believe that Jesus Christ would approve abortions unless the mother's life or health were directly threatened, or was the result perhaps of rape or incest. I was very concerned about espousing or promoting the concept of abortion and tried to do everything I could within the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade to discourage abortions." He does not believe all abortions should be illegal but adds that "late-term abortion is something that causes me deep concern; it wouldn't grieve me if the Supreme Court (ruled to prohibit it)."
http://www.azcentral.com/ent/arts/articles/1109carter09.html
The key point is that he states that he doesn't think all abortions should be illegal, which is not stated in the article. The article leaves the impression that Carter opposes abortion rights, which appears not to be the case.
"On November 4, 2005, Carter condemned all abortions and chastised his Democratic Party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who oppose abortion saying "I never have felt that any abortions should be committed -- I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors."
This is worded in such a way as to imply that Carter is resolutely antiabortion, when, in fact, if you read his book, Our Endangered Values : America's Moral Crisis, he addresses the fact that, specifically, Belgium and the Netherlands, have less abortions per 1000 people because of comprehensive sexual health education and abortion on demand. He notes that countries, mostly Catholic, where abortion is illegal, have inordinately higher numbers of abortions performed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.191.58 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 21 November 2005
last night on a rerun of the dailyshow I saw Carter interviewed and he wondered out loud how he had in some peoples views become such a threat to social conservative values?
My memory is as a President he was a supporter of capital punishment, Christianity, capitalism, labor unions, Democracy, and clean living. He was against communism, gun control.
IMHO socialy he sounds rather conservative.
So how did he become in some peoples views such a threat to social conservative values?
It is somewhat degrading to presidents Clinton and Carter to place them under articles using their "familiar" names. To put this article under "Jimmy" Carter is entirely inappropriate, notably since other wikipedias use James E. Carter or James Earl Carter. It seems that foreigners have more respect for democratic presidents than we do.
It is also entirely unencyclopedic. We don't place Ernest Hemingway under "Papa" Hemingway, nor Elizabeth II under "Queen Elizabeth". What about "Dick" Nixon, or "Gerry" Ford? "Ron" Reagan?
I think it's pathetic to use a nickname such as Jimmy or Bill when you're supposed to hold serious office, it shows a lack of class.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.243.218.135 ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 February 2006
Took out the sentence "He even mentioned Admiral Rickover in his inaugural address" since it wasn't mentioned in the following texts of the aforementioned address: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/carter.htm http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres60.html http://www.re-quest.net/history/inaugurals/carter/index.htm
"In 1979, Carter out of humanitarian concerns allowed the deposed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi into the United States for political asylum and medical treatment."
Please provide sources or exact events to support this such as the date and the location of his landing in the United States. I have heard from Iranians that President Carter did not allow Shah's plane to land in the United States. So Shah went to Mexico and then Egypt. Patchouli 07:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the material under 1980 Election by 68.66.86.19 as it belongs on the October Surprise Conspiracy page, not here. Extremely controversial, speculative, questionable, etc. material is not appropriate for a serious article on a President -- especially in a block of text as lengthy as 68.66.86.19 posted. -- Varenius 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing questionable or speculative about the October Surprise. But it is controversial... they have systematically killed more than two dozen people involved in the events...and they will kill anyone else that comes forward with with first hand accounts of what happened. I suggest books from Robert Parry, Gary Sick, Barbara Hoeneger, published interviews with Russbacher who flew Bush to Paris etc. TO me if this is a serious article about Carter - then this is the most serious event/issue that he was involved with. More important than Camp David. The Iran-Iraq war is a direct result of his screw-ups and the current IRaq war is a direct result of his screw-ups. More than a millions people have died...and the effect on the region and the world has been huge. Carter's engineering of the Shah's downfall and the support for the Mullahs in Iran and the Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan ... has now led to more terrorism and instability through out the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.12.115 ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 December 2006
Yeah,really. I was extremely surprised when Iran released hostages so aburptly - weren't you. Carter really goofed creating the mess - normal US arrogance - forget parts of the event but we dared them to do somthing and by jimminy they did something. If Carter doesn't believe in an October Surprise he is one dumb (killer rabbit) bunny. Didn't the October Surprise eventually morph into Iran-Contra, an Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War 1 and 2 - there was a Shah or two mixed up in this, then someone called Osama.......?
I noticed some vandalism by a user (151.188.16.58) , something about redneck peanut farmers and dog feces(sic), and have removed it, replacing with what I believe was there before. Apologies if I made any mistakes I'm not a very experienced wiki user 212.219.116.4 12:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell where or what all the headers are but they are missing or typed incorrectly;
Are there any Wiki entries on the Gas/Energy Crisis of the late 70s?
The first paragraph includes the clause "He is remembered by many as a president who was, in essence, not up to his office, and that he made America itself seem weak."
I would dispute not only the neautrality of this, but also the factual correctness. The internet provides many oppertunities to bash whoever is disliked, Wikipedia is not one of these.
They can take a look here: Historical rankings of United States Presidents.
I'm not really sure what 'OR' means... but saying that "some polls were left out, which may skew the average" without mentioning that Carter's presidency hadn't taken place yet at the time of those particular polls seems a bit misleading. Also, playing down the fact the the 'polls' were surveys taken of scholars (historians and political scientists) leaving the impression that they were opinion polls is also more than a bit misleading. Not mentioning the scope of the polls (stating 10 polls rather than polls of 1000 scholars) underplays their importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.172.97 ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 July 2006
Is the first paragraph "balanced" if it doesn't mention at all that Carter's presidency was considered at the time and for years afterward to have been pretty much of a failure? Only after a couple of decades of his post-presidential public service and humanitarian work has public opinion of his performance improved... how can any article be "balanced" and lack POV if it doesn't mention this?(UTC)
He was mentioned as "history's greatest monster" in several simpson's episodes.(as far as im aware) hes the second president they most make fun of.
Would someone like to replace the intro paragraph to this section with something that is actually meaningful? The number of books he's written should be a sub-paragraph, and the date of death of Adams and Jefferson belongs elsewhere. Have Carter and Mondale even done anything jointly in the last couple of decades? HOW ABOUT SOME SORT OF SUMMARY OF CARTER'S ACTIONS as an intro to this section instead? Major wikifan 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No mention of the BCCI scandal? I think it is very significant that he loaned the prestige of being a former President of the U.S. to become a shill for the biggest banking scandal of all time.
The section on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon needs to be fized big time. It sounds like the PR men for the Israeli Defense Force wrote it. To claim that all Lebanese casulties during the bombing is Hizbollah' fault is really unbalanced and makes Carter sound like an apologist for Hizbollah. Change it.
A Please would be nice. I'm happy to change it
-Israeli PR man who wrote section in question
Rudy Breteler 03:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please change the above - wiki needs alot of changes on similar issues. What happened to wiki - not a peep about his about apartheid on the discussion page. You guys are learning - just ignore the truth, it will go away - complain and it will stay forever.
Well, I'm pretty sure he is, so I added a line to the trivia section indicating such about Carter's postings to Daily Kos. Never heard of Clinton blogging, nor Ford, Bush Sr and I really can't imagine Bush Jr getting on the internets. It seemed to fit right under the bit about him being the first Presidential podcaster, though I'll confess we may be doing original research here unless we can cite something claiming he's the first to do such things (even though it's pretty obvious and should be non-controversial).-- FNV 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hopiakuta 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If I recall correctly from my studies, this was a major event in his election campaign. This should definitely be in the '76 election section, and not as a mere note in the trivia. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have an "approval rating" graph over his entire presidency (as Clinton and GWB both have). Just a thought.
I am guessing whomever wrote this BIO was a Democrat since the facts of his presidency are not correct. Someone gave him far too much credit as being a good President. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chauncy44 ( talk • contribs) .
Credit for being a good president - you have to be dead for a least 100 years before everyone who knew what a scumbag you were is dead, and noone alive gives a damn. Remember Lincoln or Washington - of course not everyone who knew them is dead and "historians" gloss over everything ( why? who hires these guys to lie).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
There needs to be a section about his legacy, what people think of him now. Can someone with good knowledge of this write it? TheDavesr 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter, has been on a book tour recently. He just published his 22nd book: “Palestine – Peace not Apartheid”, and has been on a virtually every talk show promoting his book, pretending he cares about the condition of the Palestinians.
Not one of the shows would allow questions related to Iran. The closest anyone got to asking him a question related to Iran, was directly from one of his hosts. The host asked: what he knew about the Republican Party’s schemes to undermine his presidential campaign in 1980 with a secret deal with Iran’s Mullahs to delay the release of the hostages (October Surprise).
His answer: “Well, I know several books have been written about the subject, but I have not seen any direct evidence to prove this actually happened.”
As if the murder of 19 people directly involved in the scheme was not evidence enough… many died mysteriously during critical moments (like the just before providing evidence to congressional committees or speaking to journalists). How about the indirect evidence from his National Security staff team member (Gary Sick), or Reagan’s own political campaign staff (Barbara Hoeneger), or reports detailing these events from foreign intelligence services providing surveillance data for important meetings and events.
With his response, Jimmy Carter actually confirmed what has been suspected all along – that the Republicans and Democrats have come to some sort of accommodation on all this and agreed to “move on” and run the country. Incidentally, Lee Hamilton who chaired the House Select Committee to investigate this probably helped negotiate a ceasefire, which is why he keeps getting asked to chair ‘bi-partisan’ commissions like the 9/11 or Iraq Study Group…as a professional whitewasher.
Carter would also not answer direct questions on the Camp David accord – which he claims is his single foreign policy achievement! Now, in retrospect, it is clear that it was an incomplete document, leaving many critical elements for long-term peace unresolved without any commitments or deadlines on Israel to resolve them.
It is clear now, that the Camp David accord, only really served Israel’s interests – by splitting the Arabs apart and neutralizing Israel’s most potent opponent (Egypt). Without Camp David, Israel would probably have reconsidered its excursions into Lebanon or Gaza or even more settlements on the West Bank. No one, it seems, can stand up to Israel today. Wittingly or unwittingly, Carter carried out Israel’s strategic objectives, and banished the Palestinians to hell.
Carter now has the audacity to blame Israel for Palestinian woes, when in fact it was his accord that created the conditions for the current situation. Israel will never commit to a comprehensive peace without some arm-twisting or fear. Right now, with Saddam gone, there is no one that can exert any pressure on them. It’s all Carter’s fault!
And when it comes to Iran, there is a long laundry list of Jimmy Carter mishaps. Everything from engineering the downfall of the Shah, to supporting the rise of the Mullahs (and Islamic Fundamentalism) in Iran and Afghanistan , and then ‘regretting’ it (after the hostage crisis) resulting in the 180 Degree turn by the Mullahs against Carter, to attempting a failed coup in Iran, and then failing in the hostage rescue attempt, to then asking Saddam Hussein to invade Iran (when all else failed).
There is a memo from Al Haig, Reagan’s Secretary of State, upon his visit to Saudi Arabia with extensive details of his conversations with the Saudi Royals – confirming that they had conveyed messages from Carter to Saddam Hussein encouraging Saddam to invade Iran.
With over 1 Million people dead in the Iran-Iraq war, countless thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese etc killed during Israel’s several incursions into Lebanon, Gaza and West Bank, over 1 million Iranians fleeing overseas …and not to forget over 2 million Afghan refugees during Soviet Union’s incursion into Afghanistan…not to mention the two US led Gulf wars which were directly precipitated by “Carter’s push” (… if Iraq had not invaded Iran, he would not have amassed the arms and the debt obligations that led him to invade Kuwait)… all as direct result of Carter’s actions! I wonder how Jimmy Carter sleeps at night.
He is guilty of significant policy failures with horrendous consequences on millions of human beings.
Perhaps these books are designed to help him somehow shed his guilty! Some form of Haiku!?
He comes off as a Saint in these talk shows. He looks and sounds like the best ex-president ever. But, in truth, he is one of the most evil, most dangerous and most irresponsible leaders the United States has ever had. He should be hiding at home in Plains, Georgia and keeping a very low profile. The more he appears in large public forums, the greater chance he is taking that all this will eventually be revealed publicly and really humiliate him publicly and expose his false façade. He is an imposter, and he will not be able to hide the truth forever.
The red vs. blue map is backwards! It shows that red color states = Carter, but then it shows all the southern states in red and the northern states in blue, which MUST be backwards from reality.
p.s. Sorry for throwing this in the legacy discussion section, but I didn't know where to put it.
Nope, that's the way the election went down. Check out uselectionatlas.org if you want more in depth results. --
Haven40 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This section needs to be edited. It is somewhat boosterous in favor of Carter. Had John Anderson not run Carter still would have lost states like New York and Massachusettes. In fact Reagan won both in 1984 when he had only one major opponent, Water F. Mondale. Carter's popularity before the election was rather low and several text books note that the election was a combination of Democratic weakness and Republican strength. The Senate was regained by the republicans for the first time in over two decades and seats in the House were also won. The Democratic debate left Carter tongue tied against the impressive acting abilities of Reagan. Lastly, the misery index soared during carters tenure in office. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.92.166.215 ( talk) 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Removing the quotes because there are quotes listed elsewhere (Wikiquote) is a good idea, but to say that the quotes have been removed because they aren't "balanced" is ridiculous. If Carter said it and it is notable or relevant, then it can or should be listed. If what he said wasn't "balanced" (or was unbalanced?) it would seem like that would be his problem...
Wouldn't the Snoogle-Fleejer book, published in 1995, be the first work of fiction? (I'm assuming that it's not a true story!) Also, I would change written to published here.
Again a small sentence providing an alternate to the ludicrously one sided intro to Carter's page has been removed, under the auspices that it is 'POV'. Frankly if "In the decades since he left office, Carter has been seen by some people as an elder statesman and international mediator, and has used his prestige as a former president to further many charitable causes." isn't POV then nothing is.
The sections on his early life and his early political career are quite thorough and appropriate. However, the sections on President Carter's presidency and post presidency need to be cleaned up. There is hardly anything written for his domestic policies and not enough written for his foreign policies. Also, in the section about the Presidency before the subtopics, why should there be such a large focus on the killer rabbit issue? Also, everything in the Presidency and Post Presidency sections are in an illogical order. I propose that over the next couple of weeks, people begin to rework these sections. Let's see where that gets us.
AS A FORMER STATE SENATOR, GOVERNOR, NAVAL OFFICER, AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY AS A HUMANITARIAN, PEACEMAKER, AND GOOD MAN, CARTER DESERVES THE SAME TYPE OF ARTICLE THAT RONALD REAGAN HAS.
I have taken it upon myself to change this, "Carter's administration marked the decline of U.S. power overseas and an economic recession. Polls showed Americans doubted his abilities as a leader, but supported him as a person." to this, "Political opponents see Carter's administration as a point of decline for U.S. power overseas and as an economic recession. Carter's defenders point to his efforts after the presidency as his real role in society as a humanitarian. They also note that Carter was coming off of a legacy of bad White House policy and only had four years to try to put that in the past
Please don't take any research from this page. The whole entire article is skewed.
I don't believe that this is neutral."Carter's administration marked the decline of U.S. power overseas and an economic recession." I think it needs to be changed to represent a less biased point of view. This is especially so when it is the first line.
The table here causes the text of the page to extend into the right hand column where the Special features are located. -- Zoe
Sorry, I'm a newb, but I think there's an error in the article: It says "The USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) was named on April 27, 1998, making it ... perhaps the only US Navy vessel to be named for person who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." And yet, Theodore Roosevelt (as mentioned) also received the Nobel Peace Prize, and had a (US naval) ship named after him as well. Is this a mistake in the article?
24.234.119.134 20:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, someone just added that line recently, probably without checking (since they used the word "perhaps". I will change it. There is no reason that this type of factual historical stuff should be wrong. except that someone else already did. (BTW, Woodrow Wilson shares the distinction of having being a former US president who has a nobel peace prize, AND a nuclear sub named after him.)
Morris 22:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Talk on disambiguation block format moved to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.
What is his religion? I thought that his religion influenced heavily his politics. Isn't it so? -- Error
-- He is still a practicing Baptist. You don't have to be a hippie-hating conservative to be part of the Christian religion. Even if you're a fundamentalist.
Once again, I do not see any reason to delete the U.S. Presidents table, since it is helpful and include's Jimmy Carter's name. -- 65.73.0.137
From the page: Some "have alleged that a secret agreement between the Reagan campaign (orchestrated by George H. W. Bush) was responsible" for the end of the Iran hostage crisis. Between the Reagan campaign and whom? (Don't ask me, I was born in '81.)
User:Old Right wants to have a statement that Carter's presidency is considered as a failure by historians. The link that he supplied lists Carter as "Below Average" instead of "Failure", which is why I reverted it. I think a more nuanced and balanced paragraph could be written about how history ranks Carter's presidency against others. I am not the one to write it. Perhaps User:Old Right could start a new section and others could supply balancing sources. Edwinstearns 17:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Who cares? This hardly seems worth reporting, specifically in such detail, and the beginning of the article on his presidency. At the very least, it makes the article much harder to read. 137.53.21.173 19:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I've never posted anything on Wikipedia. But I noticed that the article states the rabbit attacked both a "small boat" and "the presidential yacht." The image shows him in a small boat with no motor. The language seems sarcastic. I had never heard of this story, but it seems more of a public overreaction to a high-school-grade embarrassing moment than a worthwhile bit of history. I was interested enough to read it, but it is at least out of place. 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 168.166.54.11
I agree. I move this part of the article be scrapped.-- Kbbbb 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Just an info, it did happen, Carter was seriously satirized for it though, hardly seems worth mentioning, I agree. That sort of thing belongs in the same place as Taft getting stuck in the bathtub and G. W. Bush choking on a pretzel. Emmett5 02:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I really like the killer rabbit story. I thought it was funny and interesting. I ended up downloading the picture of him in the boat. Without Wikipedia, I would never have come across that little tidbit. Don't be so exclusionist. - Rollo44 10:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is this being removed? -- Golbez 23:55, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
It is sort of odd that this gets it's own section juxtaposed to the unrelated Voyager mission. Furthermore the fact that the sighting was most likely Venus is not mentioned. I'm going to move this to pre-presidency (since it happened in '69, and mention Venus. BillCosby 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The lead-in of this article, the 2nd paragraph specifically, strikes me as of verious dubious neutrality. While most sentences probably could be defended as factual in isolation, this paragraph still mostly reads like it came off a conservative blog. For the moment, I'm adding the npov check tag to invite attention from other editors. I'm not disputing neutrality per se, but I do think it could use some attention. Wolfman 00:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The prevailing notion is that Carter is a good guy but was a horrible president. In his defense, we can note that:
Other than this, I don't think a not-so favorable era of history deserves to be billed as an era prosperity when it was otherwise not. Camp David, Salt II, etc. are already mentioned as accomplishments. Let's not whitewash in the name of NPOV. -- Jia ng 21:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I rearranged some things in the lead and would like some comments. -- Jia ng 23:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article currently only mentioned Three Mile Island in the harsh sentence:
Carter has been accused of ordering a cover-up of the events at Three Mile Island following the near meltdown of that nuclear plant.
What's the source on this? The Three Mile Island article makes no such accusation, instead saying:
U.S. President Jimmy Carter ordered a full investigation of the TMI incident. According to Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the key figure in the development of nuclear power plants and a close confidant of the president, the original report was so critical of the nuclear power industry's safety lapses that if it had been released, all nuclear plants in the U.S. would probably have been forced to close. Rickover said the final version was more muted, at the command of Jimmy Carter.
As I recall, Carter was pretty heavily involved in Three Mile, during as well as after the incident; it'd be nice if someone would write a paragraph on it. -- LostLeviathan 23:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
---
The whole contoveseries section needs to be removed. The 3 mile island comment is unsubstantiated. And the "October Surprise" part is both unsubstantiated and about Ronald Reagon NOT Carter!
While I think Billy Carter should definitely be included in this article, I think it might be better if he had his own sub-heading, or was discussed as part of Controversies (as it was his notoriety and alleged involvement with Libya that is of note to Jimmy Carter's presidency). Billy Beer, I'm glad you've added a reference to Billy, but I question whether it should be in the first paragraph, up with the presidency and governorship. Jimmy is the most well-known of the two, and I'm not sure Billy is sufficiently important to warrant a first paragraph reference. Any thoughts anyone? I'll be glad to help construct a Billy section for this article (I'm just reading a book which discusses his impact on the Carter presidency). Amelia Hunt 02:18, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
I see that this phrase has come and gone from the opening part of the article several times in the last few days. Personally, I think that it is appropriate (The 52 hostages were clearly one of the defining events in the Carter administration). If anyone either agrees or disagrees, it would be most useful to express the agreement or disagreement without reference to the reputation or history of the other editors. Yes, I know that there are some difficult people on wikipedia. My suggestion is to treat each case de novo. Morris 14:59, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
This article is about Jimmy Carter, not about "things which happened from 1976 to 1980". By putting a lengthy paragraph in the lead describing a variety of events which Carter bore little to no responsibility before (including interest rates, which are set by the Fed) we come very close to suggesting that Carter's presidency was a disaster, which is inappropriate. Moreover, everything being described is covered further down in the article in detail; the purpose of the lead is to summarize. RadicalSubversiv E 19:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can remove the part about interest rates from the lead part of the article, and augment the discussion in the lower part of the article. Do you think that that would be a good idea? I don't see anything in the article about domestic policies and the economy. I see your point, but it is hard to separate the topics of the Carter administration from US History from 1976 to 1980. Don't forget that Carter appointed both Frederick Schultz and Paul Volker (vice chair and chair of the Fed). I was thinking I might also put in some information about the boycott of the Moscow olympic games and the Panama canal treaties. Let me know if you have any thoughts about these. Morris 20:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that someone (with just an IP address) seems to have undone the last several edits (discussed above on this talk page) with an edit summary of just something like "Here we go". Unless someone articulates some objection shortly, I think that I will revert to the last edit by User:Old Right. Morris 19:30, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the second paragraph, and the photo caption. I took out the sentence in the 2nd paragraph that was both duplicated below and had a typo in a link. Morris 22:05, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Someone put a tag on the article: title/subject matter dispute, but I don't see anything new on the talk page. If someone wants to move the article to James E. Carter I think that that would be a bad idea, although with a redirect, I guess it wouldn't matter that much. I've never seen him called "James" anywhere. Morris 18:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, Jimmy Carter is not a neutral title. Peanut Lips would be much more neutral. -Mike Reason
(Reading from the history page I see that DavidWBrooks has reverted my edit. If Mr. DavidWBrooks would be kind enough to brief me a bit on the nature of this Carter photo I would appreciate this very much)
I see that someone has reverted my post on the funny photo of Carter posted in this article awhile ago. I'm not a troll/vandal, so I'm not going to repeatedly post this request.
But there's something I miss here, didn't Wikipedia call for NPOV? So what's wrong with Jimmy Carter sticking finger in his nose if it reveals an aspect of Carter's life that's not well-known to outsiders? I mean, even photos of Abu-Ghraib are shown in this encyclopedia for crying out loud!
Unless the photo has been doctored in Photoshop, in which case I apologize for my ignorance. Otherwise I demand to know the reason why I can't see that funny photo!
According to the USNA offical website, Jimmy Carter graduated in 1947, not 1946.
just wanted to add,that there is an important saxophone player James Carter. So redirection is not so good.
I don't understand why the section on the Venezuela elections was omitted from the post-presidential section.
Nobs has now twice added a sentence offering a list of supposed "Communist regimes" established during Carter's presidency. In addition to the list itself being inaccurate and POV (labelling the Sandinistas as Communist is controversial at best), I question its purpose here -- the obvious intent seems to be to imply that Carter was somehow responsible for these developments. This article is about Carter and his administration, not about concurrent historical events. RadicalSubversiv E 02:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
can be easi
How is labeling the Sandinistas communist controversial? They themselves claim to be Marxists.
Removed "Carter is 5 feet, 10 inches (178 cm) tall." from the lead section. Please keep trivia out of this article. If you insist that it stay, please keep it out of the lead section, which is already too long. -- Ji ang 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted Jiang's edits by replacing refs to the Misery index and Martin Luther King Day
I have also created a miscellaneous section to include the information about Carter's height. Jiang pls discuss if you wish to revert. Your edit summary said you had shortened the lead. You did much more than this. Mccready 01:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Jiang 1.The Misery Index is well known with 95,400 google hits. 2. MLKD gets 314,000 google hits and none describe it as a "stinking holiday". 3. You have removed my attempt to meet your concerns that his height is trivia. Given this, will you please revert you edits? Mccready 02:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Jiang Since you ack MI and MLKD are "perhaps" important enough to belong but not the the "lead section", I would be grateful if you would include them where you suggest they belong. Mccready 17:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I've added an item to the Miscellaneous section about Carter legalizing homebrewing. I think it's relevant to a lot of people who engage in this hobby, but is minor enough to be in this Miscellaneous section. I think this is at least as relevant as the mans height. Vellmont 01:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I reverted an edit that claimed thatCarter was the only one who'd released his IQ score, and that it was 176. It is a matter of public record that JFK's was 119, Nixon's was 143, and (VP) Al Gore's was 134, so the first part of the claim appears false. As to the second, it sounds suspiciously like it was gleaned from this famous urban legend. Please re-insert if there's an excellent source. enceph alon 11:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"I've never been able to believe that Jesus Christ would approve abortions unless the mother's life or health were directly threatened, or was the result perhaps of rape or incest. I was very concerned about espousing or promoting the concept of abortion and tried to do everything I could within the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade to discourage abortions." He does not believe all abortions should be illegal but adds that "late-term abortion is something that causes me deep concern; it wouldn't grieve me if the Supreme Court (ruled to prohibit it)."
http://www.azcentral.com/ent/arts/articles/1109carter09.html
The key point is that he states that he doesn't think all abortions should be illegal, which is not stated in the article. The article leaves the impression that Carter opposes abortion rights, which appears not to be the case.
"On November 4, 2005, Carter condemned all abortions and chastised his Democratic Party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who oppose abortion saying "I never have felt that any abortions should be committed -- I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors."
This is worded in such a way as to imply that Carter is resolutely antiabortion, when, in fact, if you read his book, Our Endangered Values : America's Moral Crisis, he addresses the fact that, specifically, Belgium and the Netherlands, have less abortions per 1000 people because of comprehensive sexual health education and abortion on demand. He notes that countries, mostly Catholic, where abortion is illegal, have inordinately higher numbers of abortions performed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.191.58 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 21 November 2005
last night on a rerun of the dailyshow I saw Carter interviewed and he wondered out loud how he had in some peoples views become such a threat to social conservative values?
My memory is as a President he was a supporter of capital punishment, Christianity, capitalism, labor unions, Democracy, and clean living. He was against communism, gun control.
IMHO socialy he sounds rather conservative.
So how did he become in some peoples views such a threat to social conservative values?
It is somewhat degrading to presidents Clinton and Carter to place them under articles using their "familiar" names. To put this article under "Jimmy" Carter is entirely inappropriate, notably since other wikipedias use James E. Carter or James Earl Carter. It seems that foreigners have more respect for democratic presidents than we do.
It is also entirely unencyclopedic. We don't place Ernest Hemingway under "Papa" Hemingway, nor Elizabeth II under "Queen Elizabeth". What about "Dick" Nixon, or "Gerry" Ford? "Ron" Reagan?
I think it's pathetic to use a nickname such as Jimmy or Bill when you're supposed to hold serious office, it shows a lack of class.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.243.218.135 ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 February 2006
Took out the sentence "He even mentioned Admiral Rickover in his inaugural address" since it wasn't mentioned in the following texts of the aforementioned address: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/carter.htm http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres60.html http://www.re-quest.net/history/inaugurals/carter/index.htm
"In 1979, Carter out of humanitarian concerns allowed the deposed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi into the United States for political asylum and medical treatment."
Please provide sources or exact events to support this such as the date and the location of his landing in the United States. I have heard from Iranians that President Carter did not allow Shah's plane to land in the United States. So Shah went to Mexico and then Egypt. Patchouli 07:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the material under 1980 Election by 68.66.86.19 as it belongs on the October Surprise Conspiracy page, not here. Extremely controversial, speculative, questionable, etc. material is not appropriate for a serious article on a President -- especially in a block of text as lengthy as 68.66.86.19 posted. -- Varenius 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing questionable or speculative about the October Surprise. But it is controversial... they have systematically killed more than two dozen people involved in the events...and they will kill anyone else that comes forward with with first hand accounts of what happened. I suggest books from Robert Parry, Gary Sick, Barbara Hoeneger, published interviews with Russbacher who flew Bush to Paris etc. TO me if this is a serious article about Carter - then this is the most serious event/issue that he was involved with. More important than Camp David. The Iran-Iraq war is a direct result of his screw-ups and the current IRaq war is a direct result of his screw-ups. More than a millions people have died...and the effect on the region and the world has been huge. Carter's engineering of the Shah's downfall and the support for the Mullahs in Iran and the Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan ... has now led to more terrorism and instability through out the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.12.115 ( talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 December 2006
Yeah,really. I was extremely surprised when Iran released hostages so aburptly - weren't you. Carter really goofed creating the mess - normal US arrogance - forget parts of the event but we dared them to do somthing and by jimminy they did something. If Carter doesn't believe in an October Surprise he is one dumb (killer rabbit) bunny. Didn't the October Surprise eventually morph into Iran-Contra, an Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War 1 and 2 - there was a Shah or two mixed up in this, then someone called Osama.......?
I noticed some vandalism by a user (151.188.16.58) , something about redneck peanut farmers and dog feces(sic), and have removed it, replacing with what I believe was there before. Apologies if I made any mistakes I'm not a very experienced wiki user 212.219.116.4 12:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't tell where or what all the headers are but they are missing or typed incorrectly;
Are there any Wiki entries on the Gas/Energy Crisis of the late 70s?
The first paragraph includes the clause "He is remembered by many as a president who was, in essence, not up to his office, and that he made America itself seem weak."
I would dispute not only the neautrality of this, but also the factual correctness. The internet provides many oppertunities to bash whoever is disliked, Wikipedia is not one of these.
They can take a look here: Historical rankings of United States Presidents.
I'm not really sure what 'OR' means... but saying that "some polls were left out, which may skew the average" without mentioning that Carter's presidency hadn't taken place yet at the time of those particular polls seems a bit misleading. Also, playing down the fact the the 'polls' were surveys taken of scholars (historians and political scientists) leaving the impression that they were opinion polls is also more than a bit misleading. Not mentioning the scope of the polls (stating 10 polls rather than polls of 1000 scholars) underplays their importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.172.97 ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 July 2006
Is the first paragraph "balanced" if it doesn't mention at all that Carter's presidency was considered at the time and for years afterward to have been pretty much of a failure? Only after a couple of decades of his post-presidential public service and humanitarian work has public opinion of his performance improved... how can any article be "balanced" and lack POV if it doesn't mention this?(UTC)
He was mentioned as "history's greatest monster" in several simpson's episodes.(as far as im aware) hes the second president they most make fun of.
Would someone like to replace the intro paragraph to this section with something that is actually meaningful? The number of books he's written should be a sub-paragraph, and the date of death of Adams and Jefferson belongs elsewhere. Have Carter and Mondale even done anything jointly in the last couple of decades? HOW ABOUT SOME SORT OF SUMMARY OF CARTER'S ACTIONS as an intro to this section instead? Major wikifan 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No mention of the BCCI scandal? I think it is very significant that he loaned the prestige of being a former President of the U.S. to become a shill for the biggest banking scandal of all time.
The section on the Israeli invasion of Lebanon needs to be fized big time. It sounds like the PR men for the Israeli Defense Force wrote it. To claim that all Lebanese casulties during the bombing is Hizbollah' fault is really unbalanced and makes Carter sound like an apologist for Hizbollah. Change it.
A Please would be nice. I'm happy to change it
-Israeli PR man who wrote section in question
Rudy Breteler 03:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please change the above - wiki needs alot of changes on similar issues. What happened to wiki - not a peep about his about apartheid on the discussion page. You guys are learning - just ignore the truth, it will go away - complain and it will stay forever.
Well, I'm pretty sure he is, so I added a line to the trivia section indicating such about Carter's postings to Daily Kos. Never heard of Clinton blogging, nor Ford, Bush Sr and I really can't imagine Bush Jr getting on the internets. It seemed to fit right under the bit about him being the first Presidential podcaster, though I'll confess we may be doing original research here unless we can cite something claiming he's the first to do such things (even though it's pretty obvious and should be non-controversial).-- FNV 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hopiakuta 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If I recall correctly from my studies, this was a major event in his election campaign. This should definitely be in the '76 election section, and not as a mere note in the trivia. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have an "approval rating" graph over his entire presidency (as Clinton and GWB both have). Just a thought.
I am guessing whomever wrote this BIO was a Democrat since the facts of his presidency are not correct. Someone gave him far too much credit as being a good President. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chauncy44 ( talk • contribs) .
Credit for being a good president - you have to be dead for a least 100 years before everyone who knew what a scumbag you were is dead, and noone alive gives a damn. Remember Lincoln or Washington - of course not everyone who knew them is dead and "historians" gloss over everything ( why? who hires these guys to lie).