![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
Marge in Chains, it's was stated that Jimmy Carter was "Histories greates monster". was that made up or somewhat real?
Pece Kocovski 05:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current
Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the
Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found
here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to
WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the
verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project
talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project.
Agne
23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
We could source some of the things and put them in under different sections. An article about a former president should not have a trivia section. Jasper23 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are some more that sprouted up.
These should be sourced and placed in relevant parts of the article and not in a trivia section. Ex-presidents should not have trivia sections. Jasper23 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The subject needs specifics. "Carter struggled for 444 days to effect the release of the hostages." How did he "struggle?" What did he do? Specific examples should be given, or the word "struggled" should be removed and the sentence should be rewritten as "The hostages were not released for 444 days." 146.145.125.187 15:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Gabriel
Carter is the biggest con artist on the planet. He engineered the downfall of the Shah, then had the audacity to then realize what a huge strategic blunder that was. Then he turned on the Mullah's he placed in power... except the Mullahs outsmarted him and began a long drawnout process of humiliating him with the embassy hostages and carefully negotiated with the republicans to destroy Carter in the election. With his back against the wall, and the presidency slipping out of his hands Carter got Saddam to invade Iran... an immense tragedy! Carter is in effect literally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians and Iraqis... and now American and coalition forces in Iraq trying to clean up the mess. And the mess goes on.. the Mullahs in Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and are untouchable state sponsors of terrorism. Carter's decisions have had profound impact - even today almost 30 years after the fact. To make matters worse he will not talk to anyone about these decisions or answer direct questions about them. How does he sleep at night? If you want specifics look at Haig's memo after meeting Faisal after Reagan took over, talk to the pilots who took Bush to Paris to meet the Mullahs on October 19th 1980, corner Zbig, read Gary Sick's book, read Barbara Hoeneger's book, read Parry's book, talk to the Iranian Mullahs (Karrubi - who met Bush), or talk to the arms suppliers (senior executives at SCI who copied electronic boxes of fighter plane parts and supplied to Iran via intermediaries), talk to Olive North... Lets be adults about this, lets have some decency and let this stuff emerge in at least a neutral forum like Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.12.115 ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 December 2006
All the sarchasm in the world, or accusations of 'conspiracy theory mongering' do not change basic facts. If you are patriotic and a seeker of truth, and would like Wiki to truly reflect the facts then simply research the matter as I have done for the past 5 years. This is a very serious matter. It should be telling to you that even today, Carter does not and has never denied these facts. There is also a written document (which is held in secrecy like the US/Russia memo on Cuba) called the "1980 Algiers Accord" that was signed by the US government, ratified by congress that provided the Mullahs in Iran with security assurances and arms etc. just before the hostages were released - the very essence of the agreement between the republicans and the Mullahs. Yet another factual document proving the facts. Finally this is not a partisan issue .. I think its a fundamental issue that reflects on the state of democracy in the United States and what both parties will do to win! The American people lost out. The people of Iran and Iraq lost out. It was all a major strategic blunder! As for Oli North - he was nothing but a foot soldier for the big boys. His trial did end up derailing the investigation - they labeled the whole thing Iran/Contra (pretending it was a deal to stop communism in central america) instead of "Reagan's Deal" or something like that (which more accurately reflects the theft of the presidential elections in the U.S.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.12.115 ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 December 2006
The words patriotic and "seeker of truth" should never be used in the same sentence - or page or boook or mind - except in humor.
Its from the trivia section. Maybe I am too young but I have heard nothing about this and googe turned up nada. Jasper23 16:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The first former president to visit since the revolution - but how many presidents or ex-presidents visited prior to that. (Several before they were president - JFK, Teddy R.) -- Beardo 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a small portion of the article mentioning people's criticisms of him. 72.195.159.155 02:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Mike Reason
This is a POV, pushed with weasel words. "Scholarly consensus" regarding political matters is virtually impossible.-- cloviz 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that it was Carter's direct responsibility but it is worthwhile -- I believe -- to at least mention in passing the fact that the Allies had installed the Shah and that he was seen by many as a U.S./British puppet. That would help clarify some of the motivation behind the hostage crisis and the awkward position Carter was in. Granted people can follow the links and find this info but I think it is relevant enough to be at least briefly interjected in this text. -- Mcorazao 19:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The photo page for the killer rabbit photo - and the website from which it was taken - ask that, although the image is public domain, it be captioned as "courtesy of the Jimmy Carter Library" out of courtesy. Is there a precedent for this? A format? It seems natural to be polite to those providing us with free public domain images, eh? Discuss. Kai 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
come on guys, he is the last living president yet to be featured!!!! lets feature him asap before he passes away!!!!! come on1!!! Somemoron 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
(Note that this is not related to the content of his recent book.) Apparently, the head of the ADL (a very famous organization that combats antisemitism), Abraham Foxman, perceived that Carter accused a Jewish cabal of controlling the media to stifle debate about Israel. Thus, he called Carter an antisemite. While I do not know if this criticism has merit, that is not the point. It is from the head of an extremely notable organization and I think it may warrant a mention in the article. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Where ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
"Carter then began urging the Torrijos regime to soften its policies and move Panama towards gradual democratization. This treaty ultimately helped relations with Panama and Latin America."
To say "this treaty ultimately helped relations with Panama and Latin America" is subjective, at best, and errant, at worst. In light of the fact that American military troops were later required to displace drug-trafficking Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, it is spurious to say that the treaty "helped" relations with Panama.
I recommend the sentence be deleted. Rob Purdie, 5:12PM, 1/12/06
I've added "within the United States and Israel" to 7.4 on Carter's book "Peace not Apartheid". The wording as it was suggested the books content was generally controversial rather than specifically controversial within the U.S and Israel (as supported by the references). It is important to note this in this case because the national POV differs to a large degree from the global POV. X brass 23:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by X brass ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Not where it could go, but it would "interesting" to see what others had to say about the military under Carter. I was in the Army during his presidency, and we didn't have enough money in the budget (because of his $6 billion budget cut) to even use blank ammo (here in the States). When we went to the field for training, we had to run around yelling "Bang, bang, I shot you". We very rarely even got to shoot live ammo here in the States, though overseas, ammunition wasn't a problem. wbfergus 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, revert 12:16, January 27, 2007. Another editor disagrees with POV statement. Ronbo76 21:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The previous draft attributed the failure of the Agreed Framework to the failure of the US to live up to its side of the agreement. This is far from a universal interpretation and thus violates the NPOV policy. (The Agreed Framework entry is somewhat more balanced). I've included one of the alternate explanations. JoelWest 22:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Post-Presidency Diplomacy section begins "In 1994, Carter went to North Korea at the behest of President Clinton." IAW [6] in "A Moment of Crisis: Jimmy Carter, The Power of a Peacemaker, and North Korea's Nuclear Ambitions" by Marion Creekmore, Jr.("a former diplomat who served as Carter’s adjutant on this mission"), introduction by Carter, Carter decided "if Washington objected, he would go anyway and involve himself directly in a major international dispute" and Clinton acquiesced to the inevitable. So the sentence needs correction, it would seem. Comments? Andyvphil 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I find three mentions of the Carter Center in the article, none of which mention the controversy around its (and Carter's) funding, etc. This is covered to some extent in the Center's own WikiPage, but WikiPedia's guidelines call for its content to be summarized in the parent article, to prevent POV forks etc. I'm not going to attempt an insert here until I've digested some of the material, if I have time, but for an allegedly excellent article this one has serious POV deficiencies. Andyvphil 00:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of the information in the subsection is incorrect. I would have fixed it myself, except I'm rushed at the moment. For example, it is talking about the 1979 crisis, but it mentions the Dep. of Energy creation. The DOE was created in response to the 1973 crisis, not the 1979 crisis. Zreeon 02:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it make any sense to have a section on Carter's current health? Or would that require too many updates? I ask mainly because he now the oldest living person to ever be elected President. Will ( Talk - contribs) 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Will: Actually, Carter is the second oldest living former president, at this time... George 41 is currently the oldest, but only a few months older. I think to make a section for Carter's health would be pointless, as there haven't been ANY reports of his health anywhere on the news (or if there's been, I've obviously missed it). I'm thinking, once people actually start to report on any health deteriorations, or once Carter is THE oldest former president...Maybe. Otherwise, no, not now. -Nicole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.1.214 ( talk • contribs)
Someone edited that Carter took a wide range of questions at the Brandies speech. That is patently untrue, it was restricted to invitation only and challenging questions from knowledgeble critics were barred. Reapor 20:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That is directly from the C-Span broadcast. Giza D 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
C-Span did a taping of Carter's talk followed by Dershowitz' rebuttle, and there was commentary and note stating that Carter critics were barred. Giza D 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
As there has been a lot of controversy about the accuracy of this book and Carter's unwillingness to debate or take challenging questions from critics should that be put on the page? Giza D 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Or should it be covered in depth on the book page. Wait, it's already there. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Carter's comment about trying to create discussion since he refuses to discuss with his critics, I think it should be mentioned on this page, because it gives insight to Carter lack of knowledge and hypocracy. Giza D 13:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it is a little hard to responde because I just saw this section on the talk page. If you are looking for a little more balance then I have no issue with that. As you mentinioned there are three quotes from Carter in that section. That makes sense because it is Carter's books. I am not against the carter statement but dont know if it summarizes the situation well. My main point is that this summary leads to a long and very thouroughly written page on this subject. This summary should be very vague and without specific details. Those are for the book page. If someone added negatives details, then someone else will add positive details and then you must add background so people can understand the arguments. That is the book page. It is not important enough to add here. I am just trying to stop this from becoming a pov fork with a condensed summary of the book. Jiffypopmetaltop 18:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
O.K.: I read the entry for the book, but I still think it should be mentioned on this page as this was a major news story and Carter has been widely criticised for writing it. Giza D 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it was a minor news story. Not noteworthy enough for this page, but noteworthy enough for the book page. He has also been widely praised for writing the book. Can't we keep the merits of the book on the book page? If not it becomes unmanageable. Jiffypopmetaltop 21:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Carter has been roundly panned, and even had 14 people resign from his center due to the book. Since we can not agree, will you accept if a third party rules one way or another? 65.96.132.149 [12] 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we are at that point yet. What exactly do you want to add? Jiffypopmetaltop 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
What's with the attitude? What is the stein quote? What does this mean "It is not idiosyncratic to see the content of the book is the logical expression of the trajectory". If you think the rest of the page is npov, why are you focusing on this section? Why don't you do a quick writeup, post it to talk and then we can take a look. Jiffypopmetaltop 01:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As two of us seem to think that the criticsm of Carter belongs on the page in regard to his book, is there any objection to putting it back? Giza D 14:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is. I object. Jiffypopmetaltop 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I also object. Strenuously. See later comments. --NYScholar 08:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This section should be summarized and a main link created to the book's page. There is no reason to have such a lengthy section on this page while ignoring the very lengthy book page, which does have a full accounting of the controversy. I have tried to make such changes, and while not perfect, they did not deserve a full revert. So...in summation, a summary and main link to article brings balance to this page. Thanks. Jasper23 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The controversy is as relevant as the book itself to Carter. It is of more importance that the book itself and must be referenced in any discussion of Carter today.
Another user who posts above (Jiffy...) asked me to review the content of the section of this article on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. I have done so and made some revisions. The citations throughout this article need to be reformatted from external links and converted to full citations, giving author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed, etc. and they need to be verified as to notability and reliability of sources (all sources). I don't have time to do that. --NYScholar 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Corrected heading and moved from inappropriate posting on my personal talk page; post comments about editing articles in the articles' own talk pages. --NYScholar 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)]
Wikipedia has a policy of "no original research"; cite reliable sources, as I have done throughout my work on the book. See WP:NOR. It is not necessary to repeat information already cited and documented thoroughly in the main articles Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, including in Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestin Peace Not Apartheid. Your personal impressions of the book are not germane to this article. See the policy linked. See also the talkheader: This talk page is for making improvements to the article (as an article), not for discussing the subject (Jimmy Carter or any of his work). You need to follow Wikipedia editing guidelines. You are not doing that. --NYScholar 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not original research, Carter claims he wanted to encourage debate. He refused to debate when challenged. Giza D 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The solution to the problems created by editing wars in this article re: the section on the book is simply to cross-link the two main articles re: the book, which (currently) adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Those attempting to interject their own and others' POVs on the book and to highlight them need to desist from that. Readers of this section are simply referred to Wikipedia's articles about the book, which contain a full account of the controversy, with representative examples of conflicting views about the book. No one POV on the book should be privileged in this section of this article on Jimmy Carter (focus). This is an article on a living person and WP:BLP prevails. All non-neutral comments need to be deleted from the article. --NYScholar 06:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
NYScholar, you were the one who started reverting. Giza D 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Check the editing history: my own making bonafide good faith neutral editing changes after being asked to do so to remove bias and POV (see earlier comments and explanations in editing history) is not "reverting": see W:3RR. I came to this article after being requested to do so by another user on my talk page. The other user was concerned about the lack of neutrality in this article and asked me, the user said, an "objective" and "fair" editor, to take a look. I did so and contributed what I could to the section on the book, which he/she asked me to examine. (I don't have time to "cleanup" the problems throughout the whole article; they remain.) --NYScholar 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the above heading and bracketed questions: I don't understand to whom the following comment is being directed. Someone moved this from editing history to talk page? who? Please clarify. --NYScholar 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)]
Are you using two accounts? Why do you keep editing this user's comments? Jiffypopmetaltop 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that a few people want to protect Jimmy Carter from criticism that they are reverting claiming NPOV as their reasoning. The orginal edit was backed up by "C-Span" and the "Boston Globe". Let's just acknowledge that Carter refused to debate the Israeli expert Dershowitz and his questions were prescreened. Giza D 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
See the tag at top in talkheader: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Carter article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."
Therefore, just focus on how to make improvements to the article in keeping with all the guidelines and policies linked in the other tag WP:BLP.
Anyone who wants to read all of the representative criticisms of Carter's book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid can access them directly via the links already provided in the cross-referenced main articles; there are cross-links to main articles on the critics there, including Dershowitz. There is no neutral reason following both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV to highlight his criticisms over anyone else's.
The most neutral way to handle this is to refer to the main articles on both the book and commentary on the book, which both contain Wikiquote pages, where a wide variety of comments on the book (incl. Dershowitz's) are represented. Dershowitz's name is Wikified link here; Stein's pov is fully documented in the article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, as is Dershowitz's pov. But it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to argue for or against those critics' points of view here or in those other main articles. There is no way to miss what they have to say or their points of view on the book. This article is about Jimmy Carter and not them. There is no attempt on my part to follow anything but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in my revisions of this section. In these revisions, and in making them, I do not make any comments on contributors instead of content: see WP:NPA. Just read the section with a fair and balanced mind in view of the guidelines in Wikipedia (as just linked). Try to stop injecting your own personal points of view on the controversy in reporting it. This is an encyclopedia article, not an argumentative essay. --NYScholar 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Now the way you have made the entry makes it appear that Carter's actions were thoughtful and reasonable. Either the whole Brandies situation should be put on this page, including Carter's contradictory stance on the debate, or all of it should be moved to the book page. I have to correct your errors now. Giza D 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Outsider here. It is _beyond_ ridiculous to have the details of a debate that didn't even happen (Dershowitz) in a main biography of Jimmy Carter. I realize that a few people right now might think that so & so inviting Carter to debate so & so and Carter saying no for so & so reason but later being invited by so & so junior and speaking for x minutes with x protestors answering x questions which are not or are not available on the internet is of absolutely freaking vital importance in the scope of the man's life. But, it is not. Write all the exacting detail you want in a sub-article, but the very existence of that kind of detail in the main bio of a person of this importance is a gross violation of the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV. The Jimmy Carter article is not a playground to fight out the political tiff of the month. Derex 21:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
Marge in Chains, it's was stated that Jimmy Carter was "Histories greates monster". was that made up or somewhat real?
Pece Kocovski 05:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current
Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the
Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found
here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to
WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the
verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project
talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project.
Agne
23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
We could source some of the things and put them in under different sections. An article about a former president should not have a trivia section. Jasper23 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are some more that sprouted up.
These should be sourced and placed in relevant parts of the article and not in a trivia section. Ex-presidents should not have trivia sections. Jasper23 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The subject needs specifics. "Carter struggled for 444 days to effect the release of the hostages." How did he "struggle?" What did he do? Specific examples should be given, or the word "struggled" should be removed and the sentence should be rewritten as "The hostages were not released for 444 days." 146.145.125.187 15:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Gabriel
Carter is the biggest con artist on the planet. He engineered the downfall of the Shah, then had the audacity to then realize what a huge strategic blunder that was. Then he turned on the Mullah's he placed in power... except the Mullahs outsmarted him and began a long drawnout process of humiliating him with the embassy hostages and carefully negotiated with the republicans to destroy Carter in the election. With his back against the wall, and the presidency slipping out of his hands Carter got Saddam to invade Iran... an immense tragedy! Carter is in effect literally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians and Iraqis... and now American and coalition forces in Iraq trying to clean up the mess. And the mess goes on.. the Mullahs in Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and are untouchable state sponsors of terrorism. Carter's decisions have had profound impact - even today almost 30 years after the fact. To make matters worse he will not talk to anyone about these decisions or answer direct questions about them. How does he sleep at night? If you want specifics look at Haig's memo after meeting Faisal after Reagan took over, talk to the pilots who took Bush to Paris to meet the Mullahs on October 19th 1980, corner Zbig, read Gary Sick's book, read Barbara Hoeneger's book, read Parry's book, talk to the Iranian Mullahs (Karrubi - who met Bush), or talk to the arms suppliers (senior executives at SCI who copied electronic boxes of fighter plane parts and supplied to Iran via intermediaries), talk to Olive North... Lets be adults about this, lets have some decency and let this stuff emerge in at least a neutral forum like Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.12.115 ( talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 December 2006
All the sarchasm in the world, or accusations of 'conspiracy theory mongering' do not change basic facts. If you are patriotic and a seeker of truth, and would like Wiki to truly reflect the facts then simply research the matter as I have done for the past 5 years. This is a very serious matter. It should be telling to you that even today, Carter does not and has never denied these facts. There is also a written document (which is held in secrecy like the US/Russia memo on Cuba) called the "1980 Algiers Accord" that was signed by the US government, ratified by congress that provided the Mullahs in Iran with security assurances and arms etc. just before the hostages were released - the very essence of the agreement between the republicans and the Mullahs. Yet another factual document proving the facts. Finally this is not a partisan issue .. I think its a fundamental issue that reflects on the state of democracy in the United States and what both parties will do to win! The American people lost out. The people of Iran and Iraq lost out. It was all a major strategic blunder! As for Oli North - he was nothing but a foot soldier for the big boys. His trial did end up derailing the investigation - they labeled the whole thing Iran/Contra (pretending it was a deal to stop communism in central america) instead of "Reagan's Deal" or something like that (which more accurately reflects the theft of the presidential elections in the U.S.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.12.115 ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 December 2006
The words patriotic and "seeker of truth" should never be used in the same sentence - or page or boook or mind - except in humor.
Its from the trivia section. Maybe I am too young but I have heard nothing about this and googe turned up nada. Jasper23 16:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The first former president to visit since the revolution - but how many presidents or ex-presidents visited prior to that. (Several before they were president - JFK, Teddy R.) -- Beardo 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a small portion of the article mentioning people's criticisms of him. 72.195.159.155 02:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Mike Reason
This is a POV, pushed with weasel words. "Scholarly consensus" regarding political matters is virtually impossible.-- cloviz 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that it was Carter's direct responsibility but it is worthwhile -- I believe -- to at least mention in passing the fact that the Allies had installed the Shah and that he was seen by many as a U.S./British puppet. That would help clarify some of the motivation behind the hostage crisis and the awkward position Carter was in. Granted people can follow the links and find this info but I think it is relevant enough to be at least briefly interjected in this text. -- Mcorazao 19:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The photo page for the killer rabbit photo - and the website from which it was taken - ask that, although the image is public domain, it be captioned as "courtesy of the Jimmy Carter Library" out of courtesy. Is there a precedent for this? A format? It seems natural to be polite to those providing us with free public domain images, eh? Discuss. Kai 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
come on guys, he is the last living president yet to be featured!!!! lets feature him asap before he passes away!!!!! come on1!!! Somemoron 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
(Note that this is not related to the content of his recent book.) Apparently, the head of the ADL (a very famous organization that combats antisemitism), Abraham Foxman, perceived that Carter accused a Jewish cabal of controlling the media to stifle debate about Israel. Thus, he called Carter an antisemite. While I do not know if this criticism has merit, that is not the point. It is from the head of an extremely notable organization and I think it may warrant a mention in the article. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Where ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
"Carter then began urging the Torrijos regime to soften its policies and move Panama towards gradual democratization. This treaty ultimately helped relations with Panama and Latin America."
To say "this treaty ultimately helped relations with Panama and Latin America" is subjective, at best, and errant, at worst. In light of the fact that American military troops were later required to displace drug-trafficking Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, it is spurious to say that the treaty "helped" relations with Panama.
I recommend the sentence be deleted. Rob Purdie, 5:12PM, 1/12/06
I've added "within the United States and Israel" to 7.4 on Carter's book "Peace not Apartheid". The wording as it was suggested the books content was generally controversial rather than specifically controversial within the U.S and Israel (as supported by the references). It is important to note this in this case because the national POV differs to a large degree from the global POV. X brass 23:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by X brass ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Not where it could go, but it would "interesting" to see what others had to say about the military under Carter. I was in the Army during his presidency, and we didn't have enough money in the budget (because of his $6 billion budget cut) to even use blank ammo (here in the States). When we went to the field for training, we had to run around yelling "Bang, bang, I shot you". We very rarely even got to shoot live ammo here in the States, though overseas, ammunition wasn't a problem. wbfergus 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, revert 12:16, January 27, 2007. Another editor disagrees with POV statement. Ronbo76 21:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The previous draft attributed the failure of the Agreed Framework to the failure of the US to live up to its side of the agreement. This is far from a universal interpretation and thus violates the NPOV policy. (The Agreed Framework entry is somewhat more balanced). I've included one of the alternate explanations. JoelWest 22:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Post-Presidency Diplomacy section begins "In 1994, Carter went to North Korea at the behest of President Clinton." IAW [6] in "A Moment of Crisis: Jimmy Carter, The Power of a Peacemaker, and North Korea's Nuclear Ambitions" by Marion Creekmore, Jr.("a former diplomat who served as Carter’s adjutant on this mission"), introduction by Carter, Carter decided "if Washington objected, he would go anyway and involve himself directly in a major international dispute" and Clinton acquiesced to the inevitable. So the sentence needs correction, it would seem. Comments? Andyvphil 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I find three mentions of the Carter Center in the article, none of which mention the controversy around its (and Carter's) funding, etc. This is covered to some extent in the Center's own WikiPage, but WikiPedia's guidelines call for its content to be summarized in the parent article, to prevent POV forks etc. I'm not going to attempt an insert here until I've digested some of the material, if I have time, but for an allegedly excellent article this one has serious POV deficiencies. Andyvphil 00:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Some of the information in the subsection is incorrect. I would have fixed it myself, except I'm rushed at the moment. For example, it is talking about the 1979 crisis, but it mentions the Dep. of Energy creation. The DOE was created in response to the 1973 crisis, not the 1979 crisis. Zreeon 02:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it make any sense to have a section on Carter's current health? Or would that require too many updates? I ask mainly because he now the oldest living person to ever be elected President. Will ( Talk - contribs) 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Will: Actually, Carter is the second oldest living former president, at this time... George 41 is currently the oldest, but only a few months older. I think to make a section for Carter's health would be pointless, as there haven't been ANY reports of his health anywhere on the news (or if there's been, I've obviously missed it). I'm thinking, once people actually start to report on any health deteriorations, or once Carter is THE oldest former president...Maybe. Otherwise, no, not now. -Nicole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.1.214 ( talk • contribs)
Someone edited that Carter took a wide range of questions at the Brandies speech. That is patently untrue, it was restricted to invitation only and challenging questions from knowledgeble critics were barred. Reapor 20:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That is directly from the C-Span broadcast. Giza D 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
C-Span did a taping of Carter's talk followed by Dershowitz' rebuttle, and there was commentary and note stating that Carter critics were barred. Giza D 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
As there has been a lot of controversy about the accuracy of this book and Carter's unwillingness to debate or take challenging questions from critics should that be put on the page? Giza D 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Or should it be covered in depth on the book page. Wait, it's already there. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Carter's comment about trying to create discussion since he refuses to discuss with his critics, I think it should be mentioned on this page, because it gives insight to Carter lack of knowledge and hypocracy. Giza D 13:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it is a little hard to responde because I just saw this section on the talk page. If you are looking for a little more balance then I have no issue with that. As you mentinioned there are three quotes from Carter in that section. That makes sense because it is Carter's books. I am not against the carter statement but dont know if it summarizes the situation well. My main point is that this summary leads to a long and very thouroughly written page on this subject. This summary should be very vague and without specific details. Those are for the book page. If someone added negatives details, then someone else will add positive details and then you must add background so people can understand the arguments. That is the book page. It is not important enough to add here. I am just trying to stop this from becoming a pov fork with a condensed summary of the book. Jiffypopmetaltop 18:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
O.K.: I read the entry for the book, but I still think it should be mentioned on this page as this was a major news story and Carter has been widely criticised for writing it. Giza D 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it was a minor news story. Not noteworthy enough for this page, but noteworthy enough for the book page. He has also been widely praised for writing the book. Can't we keep the merits of the book on the book page? If not it becomes unmanageable. Jiffypopmetaltop 21:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Carter has been roundly panned, and even had 14 people resign from his center due to the book. Since we can not agree, will you accept if a third party rules one way or another? 65.96.132.149 [12] 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we are at that point yet. What exactly do you want to add? Jiffypopmetaltop 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
What's with the attitude? What is the stein quote? What does this mean "It is not idiosyncratic to see the content of the book is the logical expression of the trajectory". If you think the rest of the page is npov, why are you focusing on this section? Why don't you do a quick writeup, post it to talk and then we can take a look. Jiffypopmetaltop 01:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As two of us seem to think that the criticsm of Carter belongs on the page in regard to his book, is there any objection to putting it back? Giza D 14:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is. I object. Jiffypopmetaltop 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I also object. Strenuously. See later comments. --NYScholar 08:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This section should be summarized and a main link created to the book's page. There is no reason to have such a lengthy section on this page while ignoring the very lengthy book page, which does have a full accounting of the controversy. I have tried to make such changes, and while not perfect, they did not deserve a full revert. So...in summation, a summary and main link to article brings balance to this page. Thanks. Jasper23 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The controversy is as relevant as the book itself to Carter. It is of more importance that the book itself and must be referenced in any discussion of Carter today.
Another user who posts above (Jiffy...) asked me to review the content of the section of this article on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. I have done so and made some revisions. The citations throughout this article need to be reformatted from external links and converted to full citations, giving author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed, etc. and they need to be verified as to notability and reliability of sources (all sources). I don't have time to do that. --NYScholar 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Corrected heading and moved from inappropriate posting on my personal talk page; post comments about editing articles in the articles' own talk pages. --NYScholar 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)]
Wikipedia has a policy of "no original research"; cite reliable sources, as I have done throughout my work on the book. See WP:NOR. It is not necessary to repeat information already cited and documented thoroughly in the main articles Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, including in Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestin Peace Not Apartheid. Your personal impressions of the book are not germane to this article. See the policy linked. See also the talkheader: This talk page is for making improvements to the article (as an article), not for discussing the subject (Jimmy Carter or any of his work). You need to follow Wikipedia editing guidelines. You are not doing that. --NYScholar 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not original research, Carter claims he wanted to encourage debate. He refused to debate when challenged. Giza D 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The solution to the problems created by editing wars in this article re: the section on the book is simply to cross-link the two main articles re: the book, which (currently) adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Those attempting to interject their own and others' POVs on the book and to highlight them need to desist from that. Readers of this section are simply referred to Wikipedia's articles about the book, which contain a full account of the controversy, with representative examples of conflicting views about the book. No one POV on the book should be privileged in this section of this article on Jimmy Carter (focus). This is an article on a living person and WP:BLP prevails. All non-neutral comments need to be deleted from the article. --NYScholar 06:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
NYScholar, you were the one who started reverting. Giza D 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Check the editing history: my own making bonafide good faith neutral editing changes after being asked to do so to remove bias and POV (see earlier comments and explanations in editing history) is not "reverting": see W:3RR. I came to this article after being requested to do so by another user on my talk page. The other user was concerned about the lack of neutrality in this article and asked me, the user said, an "objective" and "fair" editor, to take a look. I did so and contributed what I could to the section on the book, which he/she asked me to examine. (I don't have time to "cleanup" the problems throughout the whole article; they remain.) --NYScholar 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the above heading and bracketed questions: I don't understand to whom the following comment is being directed. Someone moved this from editing history to talk page? who? Please clarify. --NYScholar 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)]
Are you using two accounts? Why do you keep editing this user's comments? Jiffypopmetaltop 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that a few people want to protect Jimmy Carter from criticism that they are reverting claiming NPOV as their reasoning. The orginal edit was backed up by "C-Span" and the "Boston Globe". Let's just acknowledge that Carter refused to debate the Israeli expert Dershowitz and his questions were prescreened. Giza D 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
See the tag at top in talkheader: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Carter article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."
Therefore, just focus on how to make improvements to the article in keeping with all the guidelines and policies linked in the other tag WP:BLP.
Anyone who wants to read all of the representative criticisms of Carter's book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid can access them directly via the links already provided in the cross-referenced main articles; there are cross-links to main articles on the critics there, including Dershowitz. There is no neutral reason following both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV to highlight his criticisms over anyone else's.
The most neutral way to handle this is to refer to the main articles on both the book and commentary on the book, which both contain Wikiquote pages, where a wide variety of comments on the book (incl. Dershowitz's) are represented. Dershowitz's name is Wikified link here; Stein's pov is fully documented in the article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, as is Dershowitz's pov. But it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to argue for or against those critics' points of view here or in those other main articles. There is no way to miss what they have to say or their points of view on the book. This article is about Jimmy Carter and not them. There is no attempt on my part to follow anything but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in my revisions of this section. In these revisions, and in making them, I do not make any comments on contributors instead of content: see WP:NPA. Just read the section with a fair and balanced mind in view of the guidelines in Wikipedia (as just linked). Try to stop injecting your own personal points of view on the controversy in reporting it. This is an encyclopedia article, not an argumentative essay. --NYScholar 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Now the way you have made the entry makes it appear that Carter's actions were thoughtful and reasonable. Either the whole Brandies situation should be put on this page, including Carter's contradictory stance on the debate, or all of it should be moved to the book page. I have to correct your errors now. Giza D 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Outsider here. It is _beyond_ ridiculous to have the details of a debate that didn't even happen (Dershowitz) in a main biography of Jimmy Carter. I realize that a few people right now might think that so & so inviting Carter to debate so & so and Carter saying no for so & so reason but later being invited by so & so junior and speaking for x minutes with x protestors answering x questions which are not or are not available on the internet is of absolutely freaking vital importance in the scope of the man's life. But, it is not. Write all the exacting detail you want in a sub-article, but the very existence of that kind of detail in the main bio of a person of this importance is a gross violation of the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV. The Jimmy Carter article is not a playground to fight out the political tiff of the month. Derex 21:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)