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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
How about the well researched, and most probable conclusion that Reagan negotiated with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election. Therefore practically changing the outcome of the election by all accounts and causing Reagan to win. If Reagan hadn't done the negotiations Carter would have been hailed as a national hero, and would almost by all accounts win re-election.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.123.37 ( talk) 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There are vastly too many ELs in this article. I will be removing them shortly, if no defense as to why so many are here, and how they conform with WP:EL is given. SD J 02:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Gandhi also expressed his dislike for partition during the late 1930s in response to the topic of the partition of Palestine to create Israel. He stated in Harijan on 26 October 1938:
Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question. My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity [...] But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.[77][78] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 ( talk) 01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I factored out the Presidency section into Presidency of Jimmy Carter in order to follow the structure of other contemporary POFUS articles. The previous article size was about 140kb and now it is down to about 80kb so perhaps we can get this to be a GA again.-- Spellage ( talk) 04:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
At inauguration in DC, when Jimmy Carter showed up on screen, I recall hearing people shout out things like, "An honest man!". Bush, Clinton, and Reagan all have "public image" sections and I thought Carter could use one too. How a President is remembered is easily the most fascinating aspect to me. It shouldn't be too hard to find articles, polls, etc... Anyone want to help out/get me started?-- Loodog ( talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A lot of key events happened during Carter's time in office. The section on his presidency needs to be expanded to discuss some of his policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.196.122 ( talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed a part about him being widely regarded as a better man than president. Loodog, you said that is verbatim in the article?? Thanks, -- Tom 22:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that throughout the article, it was not at all mentioned what he did to stop the nuclear melt down at "Three mile island" and he should be given credit for it. Joey3r ( talk) 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone interested in partnering up to improve this article to at least GA status (if not FA)? There's a plethora of good reference information available via the Jimmy Carter Library. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Carters image as a champion of democracy takes a knock when we look at Rhodesia. He persuaded Margarete Thatcher to join him in refusing to recognize the Salisbury agreement of 1980 because it was done without his involvement. He wanted to dismantle Rhodesia...and the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia that followed the Salisbury agreement to get more votes from Americas black population who would mostly only know the Rhodesia as it was put to them, a very dishonest picture. The result was that nearly thirty years of tyranny, corruption and economic chaos under Robert Mugabe have followed. It did not win him the election after all this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seawitch Artist ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is "Carter is widely considered a better man than he was a president." appropriate for this article? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess I need a little more specificity in understanding your objection. Do you take issue with (1) The Independent being a reliable source, or (2) that the Independent makes a statement about public opinion?-- Loodog ( talk) 06:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Trumam was from Missouri. Some people consider Missouri the South, but it is definately not the Deep South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.95.47 ( talk) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The thumbnail of the image "Jimmy and Lillian Carter.gif" isn't scaled properly despite having the "thumb" tag. If you check the image properties of the thumbnail, it's still at a resolution of 600px × 409px. This makes the image look distorted and unprofessional. But I'm not sure how to fix it. Deepblue9000 ( talk) 01:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God. I have been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. [...]" Jimmy Carter, Loosing my religion for equality
I think this is worth to be integrated into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.36.139 ( talk) 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The sentence in question reads: "Ultimately, the combination of the economic problems, Iran hostage crisis, and lack of Washington cooperation made it easy for Reagan to portray him as an ineffectual leader, causing Carter to become the first president since 1932 to lose a reelection bid."
I made a small change, adding the words to the end of the sentence: "after securing his party's nomination." Truman and LBJ both withdrew after poor performances in the primaries.
This was reverted by Unitanode because, "redundant; u can't lose the election UNLESS you win ur party's nom."
Fair enough. Except we were talking about "bids," not "elections." The purpose of this sentence is to show that Carter's 1980 loss was something that hadn't happened in 48 years. That would be interesting, if both Truman and LBJ didn't win renomination after making a reelection bid. But they did make those bids, and failed, if not lost. You can't keep both "lost" and "bid" in this part of the sentence. In light of Truman and LBJ, it's misleading. My correction removed the misleading angle, and now has been reverted.
I'd recommend removing the "1932 angle" altogether and simply say, "causing Carter to lose the national election." Or something like that. (Note from 7/31: I removed the angle altogether. Was Ford's 1976 loss a "reelection bid." In fact, Carter was the third of the previous four presidents to fail in a reelection bid.) Train60 ( talk) 20:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Carter won "the slave states" and kept the south solid after Nixon and before Reagan. Obviously he must have gone to some amazing lengths to stoke racism in the region. His "dog whistles" must have been positively audible. Any thoughts?
by the way, i am discussing the article. i think the article is incomplete without some attention to how he won the south. in all other wikipedia articles addressing electoral politics in the south, it is taken as axiomatic that the leading issue for voters there is race and racism and that candidates who win that electorate do so primarily by pandering to racist attitudes. clearly, since carter won every "slave state", this must also be true for his victory in the region. the article remains incomplete until something about carter's race-baiting strategy is at least touched on. - 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)]
here is a source to start with
Carter had run for governor at the time, in 1970, as a "redneck conservative," welcoming the support of segregationists and praising Maddox as "the essence of the Democratic Party."
He once attacked his opponent, Carl Sanders, for preventing George Wallace from speaking on state property. (Carter would later write to one constituent, "George Wallace and I are in agreement on most issues.") ... His campaign sent out a mailing featuring a picture of Sanders with two black basketball players—Carter's aides were later found passing out copies of this mailing at a Ku Klux Klan rally. Another campaign leaflet explained "that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr."
claremont —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.67.247 ( talk) 17:34, 19 September 2009
His term as Governor and after the Presidency are covered in fair detail. His presidency is less than an inch on my computer screen. This is terrible and unbalanced. This needs fixing. User F203 ( talk) 21:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I lived through the Carter Administration and think the "one-inch" segment about covers it. Face it, he did not accomplish much except place the U.S. in dire straits with the USSR, exhibited weakness in the Middle East and did nothing to strengthen the American economy. The failures of the Carter Administration are some explanation for Reagan's landslide victories. bf2002 talk) 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree that the information during his presidency, specifically the economic issues need to be addressed, from inflation rates, interest rates, gasoline shortages, windfall profits tax (which decimated the oil exploration and production of the US) etc. Do you not remember the "its the economy" mantra that killed his re-election. 70.167.47.106 ( talk) 22:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Honors and awards section says he intends to be buried in Plains. That is what he wants, but is the decision his to make? WP improver ( talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Earlier this month he claimed that much of the opposition to Obama is motivated by anti-Obama people believing that a black should not be President. His statement gained a lot of mainstream media coverage (abroad as well as in the US). Should it be included in the article? WP improver ( talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
As Carter's book on Israel has been derided by his own former employees of the Carter Center and experts like Alan Dershowtiz the section should reflect that in that section. Tannim1 ( talk) 11:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Carter was a mediocre President what makes him an expert? Dershowits has written several books and unlike Carter gives a more balanced view. At first I thought you were trying to be helpful to a new user but it seems you have a PC agenda. Tannim1 ( talk) 09:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Dershowitz has written several books on the Israeli conflict, his latest The Case against Israel's enemies is sufficent as a source against Carter. Tannim1 ( talk) 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Ive removed Democratic Presidential Nominee 1976 & 1980 from the Infobox again, as Presidential Nominee 'is not' an office. GoodDay ( talk) 22:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, can you imagine how long the Infoboxes at Franklin D. Roosevelt & Richard Nixon would be, if we added the 5 times they've been on the Democratic & Republican tickets respectively? GoodDay ( talk) 22:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Rod Adams, Editor of Atomic Insights, asserts that Carter never completed that course. Perhaps the Wikipedia page should be revised to say he enrolled in the course, something everyone agrees on?
Source:
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2006/01/picking-on-jimmy-carter-myth.html
Quoted text: "According to an old friend of mine who served as Rickover's personnel officer at Naval Reactors, LT Carter did not complete nuclear power school because of the need to take care of business at home."
It makes sense, if the course was six months, started in March, and he resigned in July (his official discharge date was in October). I doubt they would continue advanced and secret training on someone who was leaving, and he may have been home on hardship due to the death of his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.124.239 ( talk)
This site: [ Jpost] has an article from an Israeli newspaper against the American former President. Agre22 ( talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)agre22
Carter is a Baptist - has often registered as such, so that needs changing
There is no mention of the fact that Jimmy Carter gave a green light explicitly to Saddam Hussein to invade Iran on September 22, 1980 and told him he'd supply him satellite information through Saudi Arabia and that he could swiftly demolish the Ayatollah's regime in Iran, that would give back the hostages - get Jimmy Carter re-elected - and allow Saddam Hussein to recapture the areas of Khuzestan & Baluchestan and al-Shattab waterway (the Arab speaking territories) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotic Union of Kurdistan ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that this source, used three times, meets the standards of WP:RS. Though it appears to be connected to a highly-regarded presidential historian, Henry Graff, there is no sourcing on the website and a fair number of ads. It is used to support subjective opinions of President Carter, which IMO should be attributed to, for example, Graff's books, rather than this website. What do others think? Academic38 ( talk) 23:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
A small mention of the criticism Carter received from the ADL seems in order, at least to be consistent.-- Jeffmaylortx ( talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I've now attempted to add that Carter personally and the Carter Center have received significant funds from the Arabic sources, and that this is a criticism leveled at Carter's involvement in the Middle East. It has been deleted with comments such as "Caterwauling that Carter hates the Jews" and "not sourced." Two sources were provided, and the sources provided actual documentation regarding the funding issue. This appears to be editing to prevent criticism from being included in the article.
Suggestions for how to resolve without getting into an edit war?-- Thalia42 ( talk) 01:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/dec/20/20061220-092736-3365r//print/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_1_59/ai_n17154284/
http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/Ex.htm
http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?id=24844
Does an argument really need to be made that this is "significant"? I mean, he's made the Middle East something of a pillar of his post-presidency, and his antagonism towards Israel has been noted for years. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT are not blankets to shield articles from any recent events and developments. I'm reinstating it, as it doesn't violate BLP, is certainly notable, and seems to at least have a "consensus" of 2 to 1 for it right now. U A 04:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I am skeptical, but not absolutely convinced of the negative, that this minor, passing statement by Carter will be of biographical significance. The statement might, conceivably, eventually rise to notability. However, we do not have a deadline on editing articles, and WP:NOTNEWS doesn't have an exception clause "unless Unitanode thinks it's really important". Today, this is just today's news. If people are still talking about the letter a few months from now, let's discuss it then. This is by no stretch of the imagination a self-evidently biographically significant event. If Carter died, or got divorced, or won another Nobel Prize, or ran again for office, those types of events would indeed by obviously relevant, and could/should be reflected on the article the same day they happen. This one might reflect a slight change in nuance to Carter's opinions about conflicts in the Middle East (or they might not even be that), and that's about as much as it can possibly be. LotLE× talk 07:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Why was the following item deleted, as it was well cited and explains the antipathy of Carter towards Clinton?
This sentence refers to Carter twice, although the second reference is apparently to Clinton:
Carter has maintained working relationships with former Presidents Carter and George H. W. Bush, and despite their political differences the three men all have become good friends over the years while working together in a number of humanitarian and other projects.[62]
21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)peterwarn@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.227.163 ( talk)
This was added to the article, but no discussion was started in a new section to say why it was added. "Looking at talk page" is not a specific issue, and moreover, it appears the tag is simply an exercise in WP:POINT by an editor who failed to find consensus on a WP:NOTNEWSy addition. It's possible that there are one or two "seems" or "might"s that we could clean from the article (as the edit comment suggests), but that is nothing close to needing an article POV tag. So please explain the specific POV issues that you believe to exist. LotLE× talk 20:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
These things need remedied before the tag is removed. Unit Anode 02:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be walking a line here, Unitanode. You have placed a large number of {fact} tags in a couple recent edits. Within reason, those are helpful and useful, and clearly facts need to be cited. However, the random scattering of them is starting to look a lot like WP:POINT, in which you simply try to WP:DISRUPT the article because you were unhappy with an unrelated editing discussion. Excessive use of tags for facts that are not genuinely in any dispute becomes disruption (a rather frequent and obvious style of such). I'll take a closer look at those tags, but some of them are almost surely specious. Of course, adding citation yourself rather than simply trying to make the article worse is always helpful. Or otherwise, add them slowly and where most germane, rather than randomly next to every undisputed sentence. LotLE× talk 21:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a scene in a Simpsons episode where his statue is torn down and a voice in the mob claims he's "History's greatest monster". Surely this should be included in Pop culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.135.238 ( talk) 02:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What kind of useless article is this? Carter is a recent US president yet there's only a single, very short section on the Presidency. This looks very unprofessional and leaves a bad impression on readers. I will be merging the subarticle Presidency of Jimmy Carter to this main article if there are no opposes in a week. While subarticles keep an article from getting too long, you have to use your brain and use WP:Summary style in the main article, which has clearly been ignored. The main article receives more than thirty times as many page views, so it only makes sense to actually have that vital information on the main article. Reywas92 Talk 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import and/or merge ten articles, which I have copied to project space; one of these is Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Jimmy Carter.
Our goal is to get the NGE articles in top shape and merge or move them into mainspace as quickly as possible. If this turns out well (as I am confident it will), the NGE will permit us to import their remaining body of over 2,000 well-researched and well-written articles, which could pioneer a trend for other private owners of encyclopedic content to release their materials into our corpus. I would deeply appreciate any help that we can muster in accomplishing this. Please note that the original NGE article (linked in the required attribution section of the above article in project space) has images, but NGE is unable to convey those to us at this time, as they are individually licensed by NGE. Also, please note that the NGE would like for us to parallel, to the extent possible, their selection of internal links (where they link to an internal NGE article, they would like for us to also link to our equivalent Wikipedia article). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Alma Matter Should include Georgia Institute of Technology Jimmy Carter attended the Georgia Institute of Technology for roughly the same amount of time as Georgia Southwester, though it is not included in the Alma Matter section. He is one of our proudest alumni and I think it is imperative that we include this. Wingding313 ( talk) 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This article intentionally leaves out the economic situation under Carter. Wikipedia is becoming more useless and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.148.145 ( talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
We need to merge some of the stuff from the Presidency Article, because one paragraph on an entire presidency when his governorship gets more than five is inadequate. Still, we shouldn't merge all of it, because having a person page and a "Presidency of ..." Page is standard (See Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama. I'll get to work on this now.
In.Lumine.Tuo.Videbimus.Lumen 16:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inluminetuovidebimuslumen ( talk • contribs)
..since it was obviously written by a right-wing tool trying to disparage him. Antimatter33 ( talk) 09:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I found a stray reference within Jimmy Carter#Further reading.
If it is useful please place it before {{ Reflist}}. – allen四 names 16:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is not neutral, because there is no mention of the Criminal Conviction of the three largest Television Broadcasting Companies in the United States of America, beginning in 1979, and continuing throughout the 1980 Presidential Election. The conviction was upheld by the United States Federal Circuit Court, and again upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Any discussion of the 1980 Presidential Election must - as a matter of simple truth telling - include some reference to - or mention of - this Factual Criminal Conspiracy, to "defame the image of President Jimmy Carter" It is not an opinion, it is Historical Fact. ````LariatQ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by LariatQ ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
President Jimmy Carter Has Two Great - Grandsons,Not One Please Go Back And Clear That Up!. 67.162.29.162 ( talk) 14:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Article needs a short section on the disasterous campaign for reelection in 1980. I have begun one. 207.237.243.185 ( talk) 01:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
In The Infobox On President Jimmy Carter's Residence Plains, Georgia Should Also Be Included And It Should Read Something Like This, Residence: Plains, Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia Because They Split Their Time Between Those Two Cities And As I Understand It Right Now, They Have Two Great - Grandsons. 67.162.29.162 ( talk) 15:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I wondered where all the content had gone in the JC article. I also wondered who had "sanitized" the article removing much good, well sourced, objective information from it. Now it seems disjointed and weak... VERY deserving of the lowered rating the page has received. There were several of us who put a lot of work into making the main article very good a couple of years ago, and much of that work has been undone. Very SAD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.21.222 ( talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
very inaccurate to say "(Jimmy Carter) became the first contender from the Deep South to be elected President since the 1848 election." Lyndon Johnson was from Texas and elected 10 years earlier.
please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.237.189 ( talk) 06:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe more details could be included on the economic situation during Carter's presidency. For example, in a quick search of the article, I found no references to unemployment and interest rates, three passing references to the energy crisis, two passing references to inflation and two passing references to stagflation. In other words, there are virtually no specifics on the economic situation that in combination with the Iranian hostage situation led to Carter's unsuccessful re-election bid. Allreet ( talk) 13:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Carter gave amnesty to draft-dodgers who had fled to Canada. This was one of his first acts in office. However, Carter did nothing to welcome home, or assist, Vietnam veterans. So it wasn't just that Carter felt amnesty for draft-dodgers was important, but that he thought it was far more important than actually doing anything to assist those who had actually fought in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 ( talk) 03:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is awful. The part about his presidency sounds like some "folksy" children's tale. No mention of appointing Paul Volcker? Hello? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.25.61 ( talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm a new editor, so I don't know if I can edit this article. But I'm thinking that in the section about "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" it could say that some commentators have even accused Carter of anti-Semitism.
[4]
Snoid Headly (
talk) 12:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC) banned editor
I believe I have noticed a grammatical error in the article, but do not have access to fix it. Whoever does have access to fix it, please do a search for the phrase "in at Guantanamo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedScourge ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Two more errors: 1. There's a photo of Carter with Bush. The caption reads, "18 years later, President of the United States of America, George W. Bush...." There shouldn't be a comma there after "America." 2. Under the "Author" section, a sentence reads, "The 2007 documentary film, Man from Plains, follows President Carter during his tour for the controversial book and other Humanitarian Efforts." There's no reason to capitalize "Humanitarian Efforts." 132.64.188.17 ( talk) 13:11, 27 January 2011 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
How about the well researched, and most probable conclusion that Reagan negotiated with Iran to keep the hostages until after the election. Therefore practically changing the outcome of the election by all accounts and causing Reagan to win. If Reagan hadn't done the negotiations Carter would have been hailed as a national hero, and would almost by all accounts win re-election.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.123.37 ( talk) 17:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
There are vastly too many ELs in this article. I will be removing them shortly, if no defense as to why so many are here, and how they conform with WP:EL is given. SD J 02:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Gandhi also expressed his dislike for partition during the late 1930s in response to the topic of the partition of Palestine to create Israel. He stated in Harijan on 26 October 1938:
Several letters have been received by me asking me to declare my views about the Arab-Jew question in Palestine and persecution of the Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to offer my views on this very difficult question. My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity [...] But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.[77][78] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 ( talk) 01:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I factored out the Presidency section into Presidency of Jimmy Carter in order to follow the structure of other contemporary POFUS articles. The previous article size was about 140kb and now it is down to about 80kb so perhaps we can get this to be a GA again.-- Spellage ( talk) 04:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
At inauguration in DC, when Jimmy Carter showed up on screen, I recall hearing people shout out things like, "An honest man!". Bush, Clinton, and Reagan all have "public image" sections and I thought Carter could use one too. How a President is remembered is easily the most fascinating aspect to me. It shouldn't be too hard to find articles, polls, etc... Anyone want to help out/get me started?-- Loodog ( talk) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A lot of key events happened during Carter's time in office. The section on his presidency needs to be expanded to discuss some of his policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.196.122 ( talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed a part about him being widely regarded as a better man than president. Loodog, you said that is verbatim in the article?? Thanks, -- Tom 22:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that throughout the article, it was not at all mentioned what he did to stop the nuclear melt down at "Three mile island" and he should be given credit for it. Joey3r ( talk) 00:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone interested in partnering up to improve this article to at least GA status (if not FA)? There's a plethora of good reference information available via the Jimmy Carter Library. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Carters image as a champion of democracy takes a knock when we look at Rhodesia. He persuaded Margarete Thatcher to join him in refusing to recognize the Salisbury agreement of 1980 because it was done without his involvement. He wanted to dismantle Rhodesia...and the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia that followed the Salisbury agreement to get more votes from Americas black population who would mostly only know the Rhodesia as it was put to them, a very dishonest picture. The result was that nearly thirty years of tyranny, corruption and economic chaos under Robert Mugabe have followed. It did not win him the election after all this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seawitch Artist ( talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is "Carter is widely considered a better man than he was a president." appropriate for this article? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess I need a little more specificity in understanding your objection. Do you take issue with (1) The Independent being a reliable source, or (2) that the Independent makes a statement about public opinion?-- Loodog ( talk) 06:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Trumam was from Missouri. Some people consider Missouri the South, but it is definately not the Deep South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.95.47 ( talk) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The thumbnail of the image "Jimmy and Lillian Carter.gif" isn't scaled properly despite having the "thumb" tag. If you check the image properties of the thumbnail, it's still at a resolution of 600px × 409px. This makes the image look distorted and unprofessional. But I'm not sure how to fix it. Deepblue9000 ( talk) 01:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God. I have been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. [...]" Jimmy Carter, Loosing my religion for equality
I think this is worth to be integrated into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.36.139 ( talk) 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The sentence in question reads: "Ultimately, the combination of the economic problems, Iran hostage crisis, and lack of Washington cooperation made it easy for Reagan to portray him as an ineffectual leader, causing Carter to become the first president since 1932 to lose a reelection bid."
I made a small change, adding the words to the end of the sentence: "after securing his party's nomination." Truman and LBJ both withdrew after poor performances in the primaries.
This was reverted by Unitanode because, "redundant; u can't lose the election UNLESS you win ur party's nom."
Fair enough. Except we were talking about "bids," not "elections." The purpose of this sentence is to show that Carter's 1980 loss was something that hadn't happened in 48 years. That would be interesting, if both Truman and LBJ didn't win renomination after making a reelection bid. But they did make those bids, and failed, if not lost. You can't keep both "lost" and "bid" in this part of the sentence. In light of Truman and LBJ, it's misleading. My correction removed the misleading angle, and now has been reverted.
I'd recommend removing the "1932 angle" altogether and simply say, "causing Carter to lose the national election." Or something like that. (Note from 7/31: I removed the angle altogether. Was Ford's 1976 loss a "reelection bid." In fact, Carter was the third of the previous four presidents to fail in a reelection bid.) Train60 ( talk) 20:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Carter won "the slave states" and kept the south solid after Nixon and before Reagan. Obviously he must have gone to some amazing lengths to stoke racism in the region. His "dog whistles" must have been positively audible. Any thoughts?
by the way, i am discussing the article. i think the article is incomplete without some attention to how he won the south. in all other wikipedia articles addressing electoral politics in the south, it is taken as axiomatic that the leading issue for voters there is race and racism and that candidates who win that electorate do so primarily by pandering to racist attitudes. clearly, since carter won every "slave state", this must also be true for his victory in the region. the article remains incomplete until something about carter's race-baiting strategy is at least touched on. - 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)]
here is a source to start with
Carter had run for governor at the time, in 1970, as a "redneck conservative," welcoming the support of segregationists and praising Maddox as "the essence of the Democratic Party."
He once attacked his opponent, Carl Sanders, for preventing George Wallace from speaking on state property. (Carter would later write to one constituent, "George Wallace and I are in agreement on most issues.") ... His campaign sent out a mailing featuring a picture of Sanders with two black basketball players—Carter's aides were later found passing out copies of this mailing at a Ku Klux Klan rally. Another campaign leaflet explained "that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr."
claremont —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.67.247 ( talk) 17:34, 19 September 2009
His term as Governor and after the Presidency are covered in fair detail. His presidency is less than an inch on my computer screen. This is terrible and unbalanced. This needs fixing. User F203 ( talk) 21:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I lived through the Carter Administration and think the "one-inch" segment about covers it. Face it, he did not accomplish much except place the U.S. in dire straits with the USSR, exhibited weakness in the Middle East and did nothing to strengthen the American economy. The failures of the Carter Administration are some explanation for Reagan's landslide victories. bf2002 talk) 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree that the information during his presidency, specifically the economic issues need to be addressed, from inflation rates, interest rates, gasoline shortages, windfall profits tax (which decimated the oil exploration and production of the US) etc. Do you not remember the "its the economy" mantra that killed his re-election. 70.167.47.106 ( talk) 22:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Honors and awards section says he intends to be buried in Plains. That is what he wants, but is the decision his to make? WP improver ( talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Earlier this month he claimed that much of the opposition to Obama is motivated by anti-Obama people believing that a black should not be President. His statement gained a lot of mainstream media coverage (abroad as well as in the US). Should it be included in the article? WP improver ( talk) 05:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
As Carter's book on Israel has been derided by his own former employees of the Carter Center and experts like Alan Dershowtiz the section should reflect that in that section. Tannim1 ( talk) 11:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Carter was a mediocre President what makes him an expert? Dershowits has written several books and unlike Carter gives a more balanced view. At first I thought you were trying to be helpful to a new user but it seems you have a PC agenda. Tannim1 ( talk) 09:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Dershowitz has written several books on the Israeli conflict, his latest The Case against Israel's enemies is sufficent as a source against Carter. Tannim1 ( talk) 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Ive removed Democratic Presidential Nominee 1976 & 1980 from the Infobox again, as Presidential Nominee 'is not' an office. GoodDay ( talk) 22:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, can you imagine how long the Infoboxes at Franklin D. Roosevelt & Richard Nixon would be, if we added the 5 times they've been on the Democratic & Republican tickets respectively? GoodDay ( talk) 22:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Rod Adams, Editor of Atomic Insights, asserts that Carter never completed that course. Perhaps the Wikipedia page should be revised to say he enrolled in the course, something everyone agrees on?
Source:
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2006/01/picking-on-jimmy-carter-myth.html
Quoted text: "According to an old friend of mine who served as Rickover's personnel officer at Naval Reactors, LT Carter did not complete nuclear power school because of the need to take care of business at home."
It makes sense, if the course was six months, started in March, and he resigned in July (his official discharge date was in October). I doubt they would continue advanced and secret training on someone who was leaving, and he may have been home on hardship due to the death of his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.124.239 ( talk)
This site: [ Jpost] has an article from an Israeli newspaper against the American former President. Agre22 ( talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)agre22
Carter is a Baptist - has often registered as such, so that needs changing
There is no mention of the fact that Jimmy Carter gave a green light explicitly to Saddam Hussein to invade Iran on September 22, 1980 and told him he'd supply him satellite information through Saudi Arabia and that he could swiftly demolish the Ayatollah's regime in Iran, that would give back the hostages - get Jimmy Carter re-elected - and allow Saddam Hussein to recapture the areas of Khuzestan & Baluchestan and al-Shattab waterway (the Arab speaking territories) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotic Union of Kurdistan ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that this source, used three times, meets the standards of WP:RS. Though it appears to be connected to a highly-regarded presidential historian, Henry Graff, there is no sourcing on the website and a fair number of ads. It is used to support subjective opinions of President Carter, which IMO should be attributed to, for example, Graff's books, rather than this website. What do others think? Academic38 ( talk) 23:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
A small mention of the criticism Carter received from the ADL seems in order, at least to be consistent.-- Jeffmaylortx ( talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I've now attempted to add that Carter personally and the Carter Center have received significant funds from the Arabic sources, and that this is a criticism leveled at Carter's involvement in the Middle East. It has been deleted with comments such as "Caterwauling that Carter hates the Jews" and "not sourced." Two sources were provided, and the sources provided actual documentation regarding the funding issue. This appears to be editing to prevent criticism from being included in the article.
Suggestions for how to resolve without getting into an edit war?-- Thalia42 ( talk) 01:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/dec/20/20061220-092736-3365r//print/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_1_59/ai_n17154284/
http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/Ex.htm
http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?id=24844
Does an argument really need to be made that this is "significant"? I mean, he's made the Middle East something of a pillar of his post-presidency, and his antagonism towards Israel has been noted for years. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT are not blankets to shield articles from any recent events and developments. I'm reinstating it, as it doesn't violate BLP, is certainly notable, and seems to at least have a "consensus" of 2 to 1 for it right now. U A 04:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I am skeptical, but not absolutely convinced of the negative, that this minor, passing statement by Carter will be of biographical significance. The statement might, conceivably, eventually rise to notability. However, we do not have a deadline on editing articles, and WP:NOTNEWS doesn't have an exception clause "unless Unitanode thinks it's really important". Today, this is just today's news. If people are still talking about the letter a few months from now, let's discuss it then. This is by no stretch of the imagination a self-evidently biographically significant event. If Carter died, or got divorced, or won another Nobel Prize, or ran again for office, those types of events would indeed by obviously relevant, and could/should be reflected on the article the same day they happen. This one might reflect a slight change in nuance to Carter's opinions about conflicts in the Middle East (or they might not even be that), and that's about as much as it can possibly be. LotLE× talk 07:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Why was the following item deleted, as it was well cited and explains the antipathy of Carter towards Clinton?
This sentence refers to Carter twice, although the second reference is apparently to Clinton:
Carter has maintained working relationships with former Presidents Carter and George H. W. Bush, and despite their political differences the three men all have become good friends over the years while working together in a number of humanitarian and other projects.[62]
21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)peterwarn@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.227.163 ( talk)
This was added to the article, but no discussion was started in a new section to say why it was added. "Looking at talk page" is not a specific issue, and moreover, it appears the tag is simply an exercise in WP:POINT by an editor who failed to find consensus on a WP:NOTNEWSy addition. It's possible that there are one or two "seems" or "might"s that we could clean from the article (as the edit comment suggests), but that is nothing close to needing an article POV tag. So please explain the specific POV issues that you believe to exist. LotLE× talk 20:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
These things need remedied before the tag is removed. Unit Anode 02:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be walking a line here, Unitanode. You have placed a large number of {fact} tags in a couple recent edits. Within reason, those are helpful and useful, and clearly facts need to be cited. However, the random scattering of them is starting to look a lot like WP:POINT, in which you simply try to WP:DISRUPT the article because you were unhappy with an unrelated editing discussion. Excessive use of tags for facts that are not genuinely in any dispute becomes disruption (a rather frequent and obvious style of such). I'll take a closer look at those tags, but some of them are almost surely specious. Of course, adding citation yourself rather than simply trying to make the article worse is always helpful. Or otherwise, add them slowly and where most germane, rather than randomly next to every undisputed sentence. LotLE× talk 21:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a scene in a Simpsons episode where his statue is torn down and a voice in the mob claims he's "History's greatest monster". Surely this should be included in Pop culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.135.238 ( talk) 02:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What kind of useless article is this? Carter is a recent US president yet there's only a single, very short section on the Presidency. This looks very unprofessional and leaves a bad impression on readers. I will be merging the subarticle Presidency of Jimmy Carter to this main article if there are no opposes in a week. While subarticles keep an article from getting too long, you have to use your brain and use WP:Summary style in the main article, which has clearly been ignored. The main article receives more than thirty times as many page views, so it only makes sense to actually have that vital information on the main article. Reywas92 Talk 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import and/or merge ten articles, which I have copied to project space; one of these is Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Jimmy Carter.
Our goal is to get the NGE articles in top shape and merge or move them into mainspace as quickly as possible. If this turns out well (as I am confident it will), the NGE will permit us to import their remaining body of over 2,000 well-researched and well-written articles, which could pioneer a trend for other private owners of encyclopedic content to release their materials into our corpus. I would deeply appreciate any help that we can muster in accomplishing this. Please note that the original NGE article (linked in the required attribution section of the above article in project space) has images, but NGE is unable to convey those to us at this time, as they are individually licensed by NGE. Also, please note that the NGE would like for us to parallel, to the extent possible, their selection of internal links (where they link to an internal NGE article, they would like for us to also link to our equivalent Wikipedia article). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Alma Matter Should include Georgia Institute of Technology Jimmy Carter attended the Georgia Institute of Technology for roughly the same amount of time as Georgia Southwester, though it is not included in the Alma Matter section. He is one of our proudest alumni and I think it is imperative that we include this. Wingding313 ( talk) 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This article intentionally leaves out the economic situation under Carter. Wikipedia is becoming more useless and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.148.145 ( talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
We need to merge some of the stuff from the Presidency Article, because one paragraph on an entire presidency when his governorship gets more than five is inadequate. Still, we shouldn't merge all of it, because having a person page and a "Presidency of ..." Page is standard (See Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama. I'll get to work on this now.
In.Lumine.Tuo.Videbimus.Lumen 16:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inluminetuovidebimuslumen ( talk • contribs)
..since it was obviously written by a right-wing tool trying to disparage him. Antimatter33 ( talk) 09:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I found a stray reference within Jimmy Carter#Further reading.
If it is useful please place it before {{ Reflist}}. – allen四 names 16:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is not neutral, because there is no mention of the Criminal Conviction of the three largest Television Broadcasting Companies in the United States of America, beginning in 1979, and continuing throughout the 1980 Presidential Election. The conviction was upheld by the United States Federal Circuit Court, and again upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Any discussion of the 1980 Presidential Election must - as a matter of simple truth telling - include some reference to - or mention of - this Factual Criminal Conspiracy, to "defame the image of President Jimmy Carter" It is not an opinion, it is Historical Fact. ````LariatQ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by LariatQ ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
President Jimmy Carter Has Two Great - Grandsons,Not One Please Go Back And Clear That Up!. 67.162.29.162 ( talk) 14:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Article needs a short section on the disasterous campaign for reelection in 1980. I have begun one. 207.237.243.185 ( talk) 01:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
In The Infobox On President Jimmy Carter's Residence Plains, Georgia Should Also Be Included And It Should Read Something Like This, Residence: Plains, Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia Because They Split Their Time Between Those Two Cities And As I Understand It Right Now, They Have Two Great - Grandsons. 67.162.29.162 ( talk) 15:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I wondered where all the content had gone in the JC article. I also wondered who had "sanitized" the article removing much good, well sourced, objective information from it. Now it seems disjointed and weak... VERY deserving of the lowered rating the page has received. There were several of us who put a lot of work into making the main article very good a couple of years ago, and much of that work has been undone. Very SAD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.21.222 ( talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
very inaccurate to say "(Jimmy Carter) became the first contender from the Deep South to be elected President since the 1848 election." Lyndon Johnson was from Texas and elected 10 years earlier.
please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.237.189 ( talk) 06:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe more details could be included on the economic situation during Carter's presidency. For example, in a quick search of the article, I found no references to unemployment and interest rates, three passing references to the energy crisis, two passing references to inflation and two passing references to stagflation. In other words, there are virtually no specifics on the economic situation that in combination with the Iranian hostage situation led to Carter's unsuccessful re-election bid. Allreet ( talk) 13:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Carter gave amnesty to draft-dodgers who had fled to Canada. This was one of his first acts in office. However, Carter did nothing to welcome home, or assist, Vietnam veterans. So it wasn't just that Carter felt amnesty for draft-dodgers was important, but that he thought it was far more important than actually doing anything to assist those who had actually fought in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 ( talk) 03:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is awful. The part about his presidency sounds like some "folksy" children's tale. No mention of appointing Paul Volcker? Hello? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.25.61 ( talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm a new editor, so I don't know if I can edit this article. But I'm thinking that in the section about "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" it could say that some commentators have even accused Carter of anti-Semitism.
[4]
Snoid Headly (
talk) 12:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC) banned editor
I believe I have noticed a grammatical error in the article, but do not have access to fix it. Whoever does have access to fix it, please do a search for the phrase "in at Guantanamo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedScourge ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Two more errors: 1. There's a photo of Carter with Bush. The caption reads, "18 years later, President of the United States of America, George W. Bush...." There shouldn't be a comma there after "America." 2. Under the "Author" section, a sentence reads, "The 2007 documentary film, Man from Plains, follows President Carter during his tour for the controversial book and other Humanitarian Efforts." There's no reason to capitalize "Humanitarian Efforts." 132.64.188.17 ( talk) 13:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)