Talk:Jimmy Carter

QUOTES REMOVED

Removing the quotes because there are quotes listed elsewhere (Wikiquote) is a good idea, but to say that the quotes have been removed because they aren't "balanced" is ridiculous. If Carter said it and it is notable or relevant, then it can or should be listed. If what he said wasn't "balanced" (or was unbalanced?) it would seem like that would be his problem...

First work of fiction by a U.S. president

• The Little Baby Snoogle-Fleejer (1995), a children's book, illustrated by his daughter
• The Hornet's Nest (2003), a historical novel and the first work of fiction written by a U.S. President

Wouldn't the Snoogle-Fleejer book, published in 1995, be the first work of fiction? (I'm assuming that it's not a true story!) Also, I would change written to published here.

Clean up needed

Again a small sentence providing an alternate to the ludicrously one sided intro to Carter's page has been removed, under the auspices that it is 'POV'. Frankly if "In the decades since he left office, Carter has been seen by some people as an elder statesman and international mediator, and has used his prestige as a former president to further many charitable causes." isn't POV then nothing is.

The sections on his early life and his early political career are quite thorough and appropriate. However, the sections on President Carter's presidency and post presidency need to be cleaned up. There is hardly anything written for his domestic policies and not enough written for his foreign policies. Also, in the section about the Presidency before the subtopics, why should there be such a large focus on the killer rabbit issue? Also, everything in the Presidency and Post Presidency sections are in an illogical order. I propose that over the next couple of weeks, people begin to rework these sections. Let's see where that gets us.

AS A FORMER STATE SENATOR, GOVERNOR, NAVAL OFFICER, AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY AS A HUMANITARIAN, PEACEMAKER, AND GOOD MAN, CARTER DESERVES THE SAME TYPE OF ARTICLE THAT RONALD REAGAN HAS.

• The "good human" who propped up the mullahs in Iran.Patchouli 12:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Better than the man who under his watch allowed millions of dollars to be sent to a foreign war that people WERE openly opposed to, and who favoured nuclear buildup in a time when the 'enemies' were looking for peace. --Kbbbb 09:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If a 'Ronald Regan' page is what a 'Ronald Regan' President gets, then the page Jimmy gets must be astonishing.--Kbbbb 09:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have taken it upon myself to change this, "Carter's administration marked the decline of U.S. power overseas and an economic recession. Polls showed Americans doubted his abilities as a leader, but supported him as a person." to this, "Political opponents see Carter's administration as a point of decline for U.S. power overseas and as an economic recession. Carter's defenders point to his efforts after the presidency as his real role in society as a humanitarian. They also note that Carter was coming off of a legacy of bad White House policy and only had four years to try to put that in the past

Please don't take any research from this page. The whole entire article is skewed.

I don't believe that this is neutral."Carter's administration marked the decline of U.S. power overseas and an economic recession." I think it needs to be changed to represent a less biased point of view. This is especially so when it is the first line.

Agreed. I move to place a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" stamp on the top of this article.--Kbbbb 01:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The table here causes the text of the page to extend into the right hand column where the Special features are located. -- Zoe

Nobel Prize

• Moved the prize up into the lead paragraph, where it belongs. Asav
• Mr. Carter did not receive this honor primarily because of his own achievements, but because the Nobel Committee wanted to administer a slap in the face of President George Bush. And it was very up front about it.

• listen to Gunnar Berge, the Norwegian head of the committee, who did not mince words as he announced this year's winner. "With the position Carter has taken. . . the award must be seen as a criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq." Asked by a reporter if this was a "kick in the leg" at Washington, Mr. Berge said, "The answer must be an unconditional 'yes.' " [1] -- Ed Poor

• This is a poor translation. The idea was that it could be concieved as it. (Anon user)

• This needs some clarification. Ed's version builds on a misunderstanding. Berge himself cleared it up several times, I'll just quote from an http://www.statsbygg.no/aapentrom/arkiv/nr4_2002/freden.html with him:

– Tradisjonen tro er det NRK som stiller det første spørsmålet etter kunngjøring av navnet. Jeg var forberedt på Geir Helljesens spørsmål om at prisen til Carter er et spark på leggen til Bush, forteller han. – Men uroen i det internasjonale pressekorpset som hørte navnet Bush men ikke helt forsto spørsmålet, gjorde at jeg gjentok det på engelsk. Dermed ble det utilsiktet «mitt» utsagn, og spredde seg som ild i tørt gress, forteller Berge.

Translation: Traditionally, NRK (the state run Norwegian broadcasting corporation) asks the first question after the name has been made official. I was prepared for [NRK reporter] Geir Heljesen's question whether awarding the prize to Carter was a 'kick in the leg' against Bush, he [Berge] says. - But the there was a commotion in the international press corps, which heard the Bush's name mentioned, but didn't quite understand the question [as it was posed in Norwegian], so I repeated it in English. Thus it inadvertently became 'my' statement and spread like wildfire, says Berge.

I hope this resolves the matter. Asav

• Well, if Bush's belief that peace were war were correct, then he would deserve it instead. [ducks and runs] --KQ

I never fight with you, KQ. You don't have to duck. And I'm not saying Berge was wrong, only that he frankly admitted his ulterior motive. The timing is exquisite, you know: (1) Bush gets congressional go-ahead for Iraqi strong-arm tactics; (2) Carter gets belated peace prize; (3) N. Korea admits it deceived Carter on nukes. The point is to record all this stuff, and let the reader make of it what he will. --Ed Poor

Yes, of course, the point is simply to record it.  :-) Sometimes my penchant towards commentary gets loose. You're turning into a bit of a diplomat, you know. --KQ

Sorry, I'm a newb, but I think there's an error in the article: It says "The USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) was named on April 27, 1998, making it ... perhaps the only US Navy vessel to be named for person who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." And yet, Theodore Roosevelt (as mentioned) also received the Nobel Peace Prize, and had a (US naval) ship named after him as well. Is this a mistake in the article? 24.234.119.134 20:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Yes, someone just added that line recently, probably without checking (since they used the word "perhaps". I will change it. There is no reason that this type of factual historical stuff should be wrong. except that someone else already did. (BTW, Woodrow Wilson shares the distinction of having being a former US president who has a nobel peace prize, AND a nuclear sub named after him.) Morris 22:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, somehow it got added back in. And I removed it again. 24.234.119.134 18:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk on disambiguation block format moved to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.

---

What is his religion? I thought that his religion influenced heavily his politics. Isn't it so? -- Error

He is a Baptist. Considering that it is one of the most conservative religions, I don't think he follows the teachings too much. I believe he used to be a Southern Baptist, but left due to political reasons quite recently.

-- He is still a practicing Baptist. You don't have to be a hippie-hating conservative to be part of the Christian religion. Even if you're a fundamentalist.

---

Once again, I do not see any reason to delete the U.S. Presidents table, since it is helpful and include's Jimmy Carter's name. --65.73.0.137

---

From the page: Some "have alleged that a secret agreement between the Reagan campaign (orchestrated by George H. W. Bush) was responsible" for the end of the Iran hostage crisis. Between the Reagan campaign and whom? (Don't ask me, I was born in '81.)

... and the Iranian revolutionary government. that's the allegaation as i recall it.

see the October Surprise for more info. Gamaliel 03:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Failure

User:Old Right wants to have a statement that Carter's presidency is considered as a failure by historians. The link that he supplied lists Carter as "Below Average" instead of "Failure", which is why I reverted it. I think a more nuanced and balanced paragraph could be written about how history ranks Carter's presidency against others. I am not the one to write it. Perhaps User:Old Right could start a new section and others could supply balancing sources. Edwinstearns 17:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Killer rabbit

Who cares? This hardly seems worth reporting, specifically in such detail, and the beginning of the article on his presidency. At the very least, it makes the article much harder to read. 137.53.21.173 19:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've never posted anything on Wikipedia. But I noticed that the article states the rabbit attacked both a "small boat" and "the presidential yacht." The image shows him in a small boat with no motor. The language seems sarcastic. I had never heard of this story, but it seems more of a public overreaction to a high-school-grade embarrassing moment than a worthwhile bit of history. I was interested enough to read it, but it is at least out of place. 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)168.166.54.11

I agree. I move this part of the article be scrapped.--Kbbbb 01:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"attacked" the rabbit seems better than "flailed", it balances Carter's pacificist image. nobs 01:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Just an info, it did happen, Carter was seriously satirized for it though, hardly seems worth mentioning, I agree. That sort of thing belongs in the same place as Taft getting stuck in the bathtub and G. W. Bush choking on a pretzel. Emmett5 02:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

UFO

Why is this being removed? --Golbez 23:55, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

It is sort of odd that this gets it's own section juxtaposed to the unrelated Voyager mission. Furthermore the fact that the sighting was most likely Venus is not mentioned. I'm going to move this to pre-presidency (since it happened in '69, and mention Venus. BillCosby 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV check

The lead-in of this article, the 2nd paragraph specifically, strikes me as of verious dubious neutrality. While most sentences probably could be defended as factual in isolation, this paragraph still mostly reads like it came off a conservative blog. For the moment, I'm adding the npov check tag to invite attention from other editors. I'm not disputing neutrality per se, but I do think it could use some attention. Wolfman 00:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The prevailing notion is that Carter is a good guy but was a horrible president. In his defense, we can note that:

• he was a peanut farmer who was billed as a man of honesty became president in a post-watergate era and shunned the ceremonial trappings of the office
• many of the problems that plagued his administration transpired abroad (i.e. OPEC oil crisis, Iran revolution, Afghanistan invasion, developing economies of Germany and Japan) and he had little control over these events
• though he was an unpopular president, he became very popular around the world after he left office for all the charitable work he did (and is doing)

Other than this, I don't think a not-so favorable era of history deserves to be billed as an era prosperity when it was otherwise not. Camp David, Salt II, etc. are already mentioned as accomplishments. Let's not whitewash in the name of NPOV. --Jiang 21:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think Carter was one of the worst presidents of all time, but one should examine the second paragraph for NPOV. Opening a biography with "marked a decline in U.S. power..." might be, at the very least, inappropriately placed. Zenosparadox 00:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I think he's a very intelligent guy, who could have done a lot for America if they'd listened to him more. If his energy act had been passed by Congress, perhaps America would not have been in the place it is now with oil prices and heavy reliance on non-renewable fuels.

• Carter had a vision, just not the connections to pull it off, and the world was going through a tough time, through no fault of Carters' own.
• By the very token that Carter chose Paul Volcker, he chose the man that would lead America out of stagflation, who was still fixing stagflation while Reagan graced himself with the honour of being America's 'economic saviour'. Stagflation was not Carter's fault. There is no acknowledgement that presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Ford, had not done a thing about it, and it was caused by the committment to the Vietnam War. Carter indeed succeeded in combatting Stagflation, just not when he was in office. Thus my point is, Carter saved the US economy from Stagflation through the wise appointment of an economist who could do the job, and who would have not been there to give Reagan the glory if Carter hadn't put him there in the first place. I would like this changed.

• I disagree that Carters' administration lead to a "marked decline in US power". The US were already pulling out of protecting allied nations starting with Nixon's Guam Doctrine. Carter was elected on a platform of dealing with domestic issues, and this statement sounds as if Americans desired to maintain that 'power' at that point in time. And also this begs the question of 'what is power?'. Having a multi-billion dollar army is nice but is the ability to negotiate your way out of losing young lives a more powerful skill? Is aggrevating your foes with 'Star Wars' missile defence systems power? --Kbbbb 18:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Coulda woulda shoulda; road to hell is paved with good intentions. Fortunately coulda woulda shoulda reasoning are not historical facts. nobs 18:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. This page mentions nothing about the fact that most of these problems were inherited. This page mentions nothing of Paul Vokler, of whom Carter appointed to the Reserve Board to curb inflation. The extraneous facts on this page amount to mentioning on Reagan's page that when Carter gave Reagan his briefing in the Oval Office, Reagan neither took notes nor asked questions, or dozens of other stupid mistakes or problems Reagan fell into as well as any other president under the sun. This points to articles bias.--Kbbbb 01:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged some things in the lead and would like some comments. --Jiang 23:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Involvement in Three Mile Island incident

The article currently only mentioned Three Mile Island in the harsh sentence:

Carter has been accused of ordering a cover-up of the events at Three Mile Island following the near meltdown of that nuclear plant.

What's the source on this? The Three Mile Island article makes no such accusation, instead saying:

U.S. President Jimmy Carter ordered a full investigation of the TMI incident. According to Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the key figure in the development of nuclear power plants and a close confidant of the president, the original report was so critical of the nuclear power industry's safety lapses that if it had been released, all nuclear plants in the U.S. would probably have been forced to close. Rickover said the final version was more muted, at the command of Jimmy Carter.

As I recall, Carter was pretty heavily involved in Three Mile, during as well as after the incident; it'd be nice if someone would write a paragraph on it. --LostLeviathan 23:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

The whole contoveseries section needs to be removed. The 3 mile island comment is unsubstantiated. And the "October Surprise" part is both unsubstantiated and about Ronald Reagon NOT Carter!

Billy Carter

While I think Billy Carter should definitely be included in this article, I think it might be better if he had his own sub-heading, or was discussed as part of Controversies (as it was his notoriety and alleged involvement with Libya that is of note to Jimmy Carter's presidency). Billy Beer, I'm glad you've added a reference to Billy, but I question whether it should be in the first paragraph, up with the presidency and governorship. Jimmy is the most well-known of the two, and I'm not sure Billy is sufficiently important to warrant a first paragraph reference. Any thoughts anyone? I'll be glad to help construct a Billy section for this article (I'm just reading a book which discusses his impact on the Carter presidency). Amelia Hunt 02:18, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely right. A paragraph or two in the controversies section sounds great. For the moment, I've put a mention in a parenthetical after the description of his family, as it definitely didn't belong in the lead, especially with that phrasing. RadicalSubversiv E 02:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well done. I'll add it to my mental "to do" list. Amelia Hunt 02:40, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

52 American Hostages...

I see that this phrase has come and gone from the opening part of the article several times in the last few days. Personally, I think that it is appropriate (The 52 hostages were clearly one of the defining events in the Carter administration). If anyone either agrees or disagrees, it would be most useful to express the agreement or disagreement without reference to the reputation or history of the other editors. Yes, I know that there are some difficult people on wikipedia. My suggestion is to treat each case de novo. Morris 14:59, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Second paragraph

This article is about Jimmy Carter, not about "things which happened from 1976 to 1980". By putting a lengthy paragraph in the lead describing a variety of events which Carter bore little to no responsibility before (including interest rates, which are set by the Fed) we come very close to suggesting that Carter's presidency was a disaster, which is inappropriate. Moreover, everything being described is covered further down in the article in detail; the purpose of the lead is to summarize. RadicalSubversiv E 19:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can remove the part about interest rates from the lead part of the article, and augment the discussion in the lower part of the article. Do you think that that would be a good idea? I don't see anything in the article about domestic policies and the economy. I see your point, but it is hard to separate the topics of the Carter administration from US History from 1976 to 1980. Don't forget that Carter appointed both Frederick Schultz and Paul Volker (vice chair and chair of the Fed). I was thinking I might also put in some information about the boycott of the Moscow olympic games and the Panama canal treaties. Let me know if you have any thoughts about these. Morris 20:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

The "Presidency" section has some stuff about the recession, but it should definitely be expanded and split into its own subsection. You're right that we can't (and shouldn't) completely split Carter from the events that occurred during his administration, but we can limit our coverage of such events to Carter's role in them, or at least the ways in which they affected his presidency. We should have detailed coverage of the 70s recession, the Olympics boycott, and the Panama Canal treaties in separate articles if we don't already. Incidentally, it's Paul Volcker, just so you don't think we're without an article on him. And his interest rate hikes are generally credited with ending the 70s inflation crisis, even if they led to a temporary increase in unemployment. RadicalSubversiv E 21:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added a bit more information. I'm not sure that my writing is the clearest, but I do think that the article benefits from the additions. Feel free to change if you like -- and I do have to work on my spelling (:-). Thanks, Morris 01:32, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

reversion of the last half dozen edits?

I noticed that someone (with just an IP address) seems to have undone the last several edits (discussed above on this talk page) with an edit summary of just something like "Here we go". Unless someone articulates some objection shortly, I think that I will revert to the last edit by User:Old Right. Morris 19:30, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I agree with the recent changes to the second paragraph and the edits to the Clinton photo caption (perhaps the photo should be enlarged to accomodate the earlier -- better -- caption), all the piping of the links in the Cabinet (adding Sectretary of...) seems quite reasonable... — Davenbelle 20:00, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the links have "Secretary of" in them, someone had changed them all to put in piping to remove the "secretary of" words. I don't really care about that either way, so I'll leave them as they are now.

I changed the second paragraph, and the photo caption. I took out the sentence in the 2nd paragraph that was both duplicated below and had a typo in a link. Morris 22:05, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

The changes whomever made added "Secretary of" to the right of the pipe so that Vance, for example, reads as "Secretary of State", not just "State"; full link includes "United States" as a prefix which is way too verbose for display in the table. The older narrow table simply listed Vance as "State" and use acronyms such as HHS. If anyone wants to make'em terse again, I have no real issue with it. — Davenbelle 23:09, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I looked over some of the other President's articles and decided to change the table to match the standard form. — Davenbelle 23:26, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I do think it looks fine the way that you (Davenbelle) changed it. I was confused about the format. Morris 00:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Does someone think that the title Jimmy Carter is not neutral??

Someone put a tag on the article: title/subject matter dispute, but I don't see anything new on the talk page. If someone wants to move the article to James E. Carter I think that that would be a bad idea, although with a redirect, I guess it wouldn't matter that much. I've never seen him called "James" anywhere. Morris 18:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the article should stay "Jimmy Carter". No one calls him "James". Britannica titles their entry: Carter, Jimmy" for example. Paul August ☎ 19:25, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Although he never changed his name legally, he has enforced "Jimmy" as official name - even disputing the use of "James" in a book about the presidents by the National Park Service! He signed presidential documents with "Jimmy" - DavidWBrooks 19:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Carter's funny photo

(Reading from the history page I see that DavidWBrooks has reverted my edit. If Mr. DavidWBrooks would be kind enough to brief me a bit on the nature of this Carter photo I would appreciate this very much)

I see that someone has reverted my post on the funny photo of Carter posted in this article awhile ago. I'm not a troll/vandal, so I'm not going to repeatedly post this request.

But there's something I miss here, didn't Wikipedia call for NPOV? So what's wrong with Jimmy Carter sticking finger in his nose if it reveals an aspect of Carter's life that's not well-known to outsiders? I mean, even photos of Abu-Ghraib are shown in this encyclopedia for crying out loud!

Unless the photo has been doctored in Photoshop, in which case I apologize for my ignorance. Otherwise I demand to know the reason why I can't see that funny photo!

(Please sign your comments with ~~~~. And you are incorrect - I revert the comment.) The photo was not of Carter, but of some other man picking his nose. It was an act of vandalism and the next paragraph of the Wired article you mentioned (perhaps poorly) points that out. The vandalism has long since been fixed and you can not find that image on Wikipedia. Even if it were of Carter, it's not NPOV to show a single insignificantly minor social faux pas, especially as the main photo. To do so would be to suggest that that is his primary image to the world, which is not the case. - UtherSRG 23:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, UtherSRG, now I understand -- it was actual worse than I thought, and Wikipedians are right to take it off ;-) As for the signature, my apologies for not understanding etiquettes in Wiki talk pages. I thought only registered Wikipedians could sign their passages. I shall sign this reply of mine, right now! - gunner1983 142.106.62.76 15:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Graduation Date

According to the USNA offical website, Jimmy Carter graduated in 1947, not 1946.

I think what it says is that he was in the class of '47, but at that time people were graduating in only three years (due to world war two, which was in progress part of the time that Carter was there) so he actually graduated in 1946, even though he was officially part of the class of 1947. Morris 02:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

redirection

just wanted to add,that there is an important saxophone player James Carter. So redirection is not so good.

Venezuela

I don't understand why the section on the Venezuela elections was omitted from the post-presidential section.

Because it was unsourced, POV, and drew irrelevant connections with Florida. RadicalSubversiv E 21:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

List of "Communist" regimes

Nobs has now twice added a sentence offering a list of supposed "Communist regimes" established during Carter's presidency. In addition to the list itself being inaccurate and POV (labelling the Sandinistas as Communist is controversial at best), I question its purpose here -- the obvious intent seems to be to imply that Carter was somehow responsible for these developments. This article is about Carter and his administration, not about concurrent historical events. RadicalSubversiv E 02:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change "regime" to "government" if you so choose. While the article aptly points out Human rights was the priority of the Carter Administration (in its early years), all those nations cited became Communist governments and allied to the Soviet Union and Cuba. This can be easily verified by clicking on each nation cited. Nobs 02:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

can be easi

How is labeling the Sandinistas communist controversial? They themselves claim to be Marxists.

there are actually several... branches of the left-wing, and although it comes at a surprise to some, socialists and communists dont usually get along, not to mention trotskists and marxists, and marxists lenninists, and other sorts, etc, etc. In my country for example (thats chile), theres at least 10 socialist parties, and none of them get along. Although all of they may have a common enemy (the united states for the most extreme sides of the left wing, although some socialist parties throughout the world have embraced neo-liberalism)

Removed trivia

Removed "Carter is 5 feet, 10 inches (178 cm) tall." from the lead section. Please keep trivia out of this article. If you insist that it stay, please keep it out of the lead section, which is already too long. --Jiang 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

rv jiang edits

I have reverted Jiang's edits by replacing refs to the Misery index and Martin Luther King Day

I have also created a miscellaneous section to include the information about Carter's height. Jiang pls discuss if you wish to revert. Your edit summary said you had shortened the lead. You did much more than this. Mccready 01:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

MLK day was a failure and therefore not notable enough for the lead. It's only one stinking holiday. The Misery index is not well known. How else do you think the lead can be shortened if we don't omit those statements? I'm open to you help. --Jiang 01:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Jiang 1.The Misery Index is well known with 95,400 google hits. 2. MLKD gets 314,000 google hits and none describe it as a "stinking holiday". 3. You have removed my attempt to meet your concerns that his height is trivia. Given this, will you please revert you edits? Mccready 02:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Misery Index and MLKD are perhaps important enough for inclusion in the article, but not important enough for the lead section. MLKD is a failure that is no longer relevant and proving MLKD's significance is not a case for inclusion here.

I have restored the trivia as a compromise. --Jiang 17:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Jiang Since you ack MI and MLKD are "perhaps" important enough to belong but not the the "lead section", I would be grateful if you would include them where you suggest they belong. Mccready 17:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous section

I've added an item to the Miscellaneous section about Carter legalizing homebrewing. I think it's relevant to a lot of people who engage in this hobby, but is minor enough to be in this Miscellaneous section. I think this is at least as relevant as the mans height. Vellmont 01:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, homebrewing was part of the deregulation movement that brought us such things as the Savings and Loan crisis for which Reagan gets blamed. Very important we emphasis deregulation began with Carter. nobs 01:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Presidential IQ

I reverted an edit that claimed thatCarter was the only one who'd released his IQ score, and that it was 176. It is a matter of public record that JFK's was 119, Nixon's was 143, and (VP) Al Gore's was 134, so the first part of the claim appears false. As to the second, it sounds suspiciously like it was gleaned from this famous urban legend. Please re-insert if there's an excellent source. encephalon 11:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Carter on Abortion:

"I've never been able to believe that Jesus Christ would approve abortions unless the mother's life or health were directly threatened, or was the result perhaps of rape or incest. I was very concerned about espousing or promoting the concept of abortion and tried to do everything I could within the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade to discourage abortions." He does not believe all abortions should be illegal but adds that "late-term abortion is something that causes me deep concern; it wouldn't grieve me if the Supreme Court (ruled to prohibit it)."

http://www.azcentral.com/ent/arts/articles/1109carter09.html

The key point is that he states that he doesn't think all abortions should be illegal, which is not stated in the article. The article leaves the impression that Carter opposes abortion rights, which appears not to be the case.

Abortion

"On November 4, 2005, Carter condemned all abortions and chastised his Democratic Party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who oppose abortion saying "I never have felt that any abortions should be committed -- I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors."

This is worded in such a way as to imply that Carter is resolutely antiabortion, when, in fact, if you read his book, Our Endangered Values : America's Moral Crisis, he addresses the fact that, specifically, Belgium and the Netherlands, have less abortions per 1000 people because of comprehensive sexual health education and abortion on demand. He notes that countries, mostly Catholic, where abortion is illegal, have inordinately higher numbers of abortions performed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.216.191.58 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It is also unsourced. The quote may well be taken out of context. I'm removing it; if someone wishes to re-insert it, with references, they're welcome to.--RattBoy 11:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed Jimmy Carter from the list of Pro-Life politicians because The view of most people who are "pro-life" is that one must support change in the legality of the procedure. Jimmy Carter has never stated that Roe v Wade should be overturned. Many people say they are "personally opposed to abortion" but the political position "Pro-Life" implies that legal change.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcam (talk • contribs) 01:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I trust you'll also remove Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, and George W. Bush, and all the other pols who support an ever-increasing use of capital punishment and unilateral wars, while calling themselves "pro-life." Thanks so much for fixing this up!--RattBoy 11:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually against the death penalty myself, but it's not about what you and I believe, Rattboy. When the general public hears "pro-life", they think abortion, not capital punishment or war. Jcam 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-life" is a Doublespeak term. At best, it's POV. Wikipedia should not be passing judgment on which politicians are "pro-life." See Term Controversy in the Pro-life article. We should follow AP's lead in refusing to endorse that bit of political framing.--RattBoy 10:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If we had to remove or rename every term which used "political framing", there'd be no end to it. I'm not 100% satisified with the term "Pro-life" as in common usage, but it is the accepted term used both by those who are "Pro-life" and by many in the "Pro-choice" camps. It's unavoidable using terms which can be seen as POV. See Palestine, Ulster, etc. Jcam 19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Jimmy Carter's name should be stricken from the list of Pro-Life politicians as he is merely personally opposed to abortion and, rather than an outright ban on abortions, would prefer to reduce the number by implementing strong social programs such as sex and health education in schools, prenatal health care for the poor, and childcare for working mothers. Only the celibate Catholic hierarchy, religious fundamentalists, and other assorted right wing nut-cases really deserve to be on the “pro-life” list. Jay Gregg 01:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

question

last night on a rerun of the dailyshow I saw Carter interviewed and he wondered out loud how he had in some peoples views become such a threat to social conservative values?

My memory is as a President he was a supporter of capital punishment, Christianity, capitalism, labor unions, Democracy, and clean living. He was against communism, gun control.

IMHO socialy he sounds rather conservative.

So how did he become in some peoples views such a threat to social conservative values?

Carter was pretty liberal. He was in favor of gay rights and marijuana legalization. Also, he was very strongly for consumer protection and oil conservation and other things that Republicans who take money from car and oil companies would never dream of. Actually though, the real icon of liberalism, the Ronald Reagan of the Democrats if you will, was John F. Kennedy. If he hadn't have been killed, I bet Republicans would hate him a lot more. Oh yeah and there's me. I introduced wide-spread social net programs during the Great Depression (if you're a Republican, read as Communism). -FDR

Actually, while Robert & Ted Kennedy was/is arguably liberal, JFK was sort of conservative on many issues. He wasn't a huge supporter of civil rights, he helped "get the ball rolling" in Vietnam, and he appointed the pro-life Byron White to the Supreme Court. Jcam 18:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree that Carter is (he is not dead yet like you FDR) pretty liberal. He is actually quite conservative in his own religious beliefs and lifestyle. He just does not believe in imposing these values on others by force of law and he believes strongly in human rights. If you think about it these are rather conservative ideas themselves and likely what many of the founding fathers of this country had in mind. Gee, maybe people like Jimmy Carter & I are the real conservatives and the “neocons” are …..? Could this be the reason that he is seen a a threat to so called "social conservative values." Jay Gregg 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

James E. versus Jimmy

It is somewhat degrading to presidents Clinton and Carter to place them under articles using their "familiar" names. To put this article under "Jimmy" Carter is entirely inappropriate, notably since other wikipedias use James E. Carter or James Earl Carter. It seems that foreigners have more respect for democratic presidents than we do.

It is also entirely unencyclopedic. We don't place Ernest Hemingway under "Papa" Hemingway, nor Elizabeth II under "Queen Elizabeth". What about "Dick" Nixon, or "Gerry" Ford? "Ron" Reagan?

Definitely not. We have guidelines on this, and Carter is even given as a specific example - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I'm moving this back. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not about respect. It's about usage, and it's already been decided. Leave it be. android79 14:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree that the formal name would be more appropriate. However, in this case, Jimmy should be kept because that was the name the former president prefered. He was even inaugurated officially by the name Jimmy. I looked it up in the World Book Encyclopedia, and it is also under jimmy. 23 December —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.230.224.74 (talk • contribs) .

I think it's pathetic to use a nickname such as Jimmy or Bill when you're supposed to hold serious office, it shows a lack of class.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.243.218.135 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

James or Jimmy. It's a name. If Mr. Carter prefers Jimmy over James, then so be it. It's his name, not yours. If you take a "serious office" then by all means use whatever name you please and if people use the nickname then correct them. Sheesh. Cburnett 23:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this anonymous "editor" making the same criticism at Talk:Dick Cheney. His/her trivial POV can, thus, safely be ignored.--RattBoy 13:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Admiral Rickover

Took out the sentence "He even mentioned Admiral Rickover in his inaugural address" since it wasn't mentioned in the following texts of the aforementioned address: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/carter.htm http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres60.html http://www.re-quest.net/history/inaugurals/carter/index.htm

Not Allowing Shah's Plane to Land in 1979

"In 1979, Carter out of humanitarian concerns allowed the deposed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi into the United States for political asylum and medical treatment."

Please provide sources or exact events to support this such as the date and the location of his landing in the United States. I have heard from Iranians that President Carter did not allow Shah's plane to land in the United States. So Shah went to Mexico and then Egypt. Patchouli 07:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I found that the Shah came to New York, US, on 22 October 1979 and left on 15 December 1979. See THE SHAH'S HEALTH: A POLITICAL GAMBLE Published: May 17, 1981.Patchouli 15:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

October Surprise Conspiracy -- Keep off page!

I have removed the material under 1980 Election by 68.66.86.19 as it belongs on the October Surprise Conspiracy page, not here. Extremely controversial, speculative, questionable, etc. material is not appropriate for a serious article on a President -- especially in a block of text as lengthy as 68.66.86.19 posted. --Varenius 23:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I noticed some vandalism by a user (151.188.16.58) , something about redneck peanut farmers and dog feces(sic), and have removed it, replacing with what I believe was there before. Apologies if I made any mistakes I'm not a very experienced wiki user 212.219.116.4 12:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone go back and restore the page. it was vandalized once again. I have done the best i can, but i don't have the time to go thru every little pargraph mistake. so someone plz go back and edit my revisions. Wallah96 19:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs headers

I can't tell where or what all the headers are but they are missing or typed incorrectly;

70s Gas Crisis

Are there any Wiki entries on the Gas/Energy Crisis of the late 70s?

See Energy crisis#Historical crises and 1979 energy crisis.

Unbalanced in first paragraph?

The first paragraph includes the clause "He is remembered by many as a president who was, in essence, not up to his office, and that he made America itself seem weak."

I would dispute not only the neautrality of this, but also the factual correctness. The internet provides many oppertunities to bash whoever is disliked, Wikipedia is not one of these.

good point. I put in his ranking among presidents in Historical rankings of United States Presidents which is a non-POV description. Rjensen 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter. It's not important enough to put that in the first paragragh. And not all scholars agree Jimmy Carter being below average. C-Span ranks him 22nd out of 41 presidents. The Wall Street Journal ranks him 34th out of 40. I think ranking him as a average is much more NPOV. But I still think it's not important enough to put it in the first paragraph.

It matters because American love to compare presidents and expect Wiki to help them out. Rjensen 19:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They can take a look here: Historical rankings of United States Presidents.

In the Presidential Ranking section, I linked to the Historical Rankings page, while emphasizing the subjective nature of the polls. I don't think it's very meaningful to compute an average of numerous polls which were conducted over a long period of years, by different polling firms, with varied poll subjects, etc.

Do other presidential pages list their "ranking?" I don't see it in the Gerald Ford or Chester A. Arthur pages.--RattBoy 10:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

the average ranking is based on the expert opinion of hundreds of historians, political scientists etc from all points of view. (liberals and conservatives agree poretty closely). Perhaps Rattboy will give us his ranking of Carter?? Rjensen 10:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My personal rating of Carter would of course be POV and OR, but your sarcasm is duly noted. Please recognize that I didn't criticize the "ranking" on POV terms; I just don't believe that such polls are necessarily an accurate measure of the quality of a president's term. (One of the opening paragraps of the linked page outlines some of the problems inherent in such polls.) Considering that one poll ranked Jimmy as #19, and another ranked him #34, there is indeed a broad variation—so historians, whether liberal, conservative, drunk, or sober, apparently do not "agree poretty closely."--RattBoy 22:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki's job is to report scholarship-- in this case over 1000 specialists in different disciplines in many different polls. There is no POV involved in the polls, but can be POV by editors who impose their own views on the article. Rjensen 23:43, 21 July 2006

I'm not sure why you keep talking about POV. I haven't imposed POV on the article. (I invite you to read my edits.) Reporting scholarship is fine and laudable. However, I know of no "scholar" who endorsed simply taking an average of various polls and reporting that as a presidential "ranking." The statistical problems inherent in such a methodology are numerous. I don't mind linking to the poll summaries and briefly noting them in this article (though there's a lot of scholarship out there, and I'm not certain that this is the scholarship that's notable enough to include)—but simply listing the "average ranking" was silly. You can call that POV if you wish (though if anything, it's a POV on statistical/methodological grounds, not one based on ideology), but you'll have to back up your view that listing the "average ranking" is meaningful by finding a reputable source which supports your POV.--RattBoy 10:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article Historical rankings of United States Presidents has a full bibliography of the scholarly studies, which reflect the work of over a thousand specialists. Wiki editors are not supposed to express their own POV on these matters--we report the consensus of the experts, which is rather easier when the results are neatly tabulated. Rjensen 10:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Jensen, please note that I moved your comments, because I believe they were in response to mine above. If I erred, please move your comments back.

Though I believe you intended to respond to my comments, I don't see where yours address mine in any way. You once again talk about "POV," implying that I've been trying to insert my POV into the page—but you never say what POV that could possibly be.

The results are neatly tabulated in the linked page (which you'll note that my edit linked to). So I don't see where you'd have a disagreement with me on that score.

If the Historical Rankings page wants to compile an average of the various studies, that's silly, but I have no beef with that. And any reader of the Jimmy C page can goto the page and view the average. However, a one-liner which only reports the average (which was what the page had before my edits) misleadingly implies that some scholarly work had given its imprimatur to the silly averaging.

Anyone can plug a bunch of numbers into Excel and compute an average. To be meaningful, however, the numbers must first pass through the user's brain. In this case, I'm not sure that that happened. What problems do I have with the averaging? Numerous:

• Some polls are left out, which may skew the average.
• Different polls would have different numbers of participants; averaging would give participants in the "small polls" greater weight than those in the "large polls."
• Very likely, some historians were polled more than once, thus giving them two or more votes in the ultimate outcome. A Chicago-style "Vote early and often" model is hardly scholarly.
• Since the studies were conducted over a broad time-span (one as far back as 1948), the numbers employed in the studies don't have the same meaning. In particular, ranking 20th in a group of 29 (Schlesinger 1948) has radically different meaning from ranking 20th in a group of 42 (Siena 2002). The form of averaging employed in the linked page tends to downgrade the latter presidents—including not only Carter, but also LBJ, Ford, Reagan, Clinton, Nixon, and the Bushes.
• Physicist and engineer Leo Mandelkern once wrote, "Mathematics is a tool which, once mastered, can be misused with great facility." My "POV," if any, is that I agree with Prof. Mandelkern. The average was arrived at by what amounts to OR by Wiki editors. It has little meaning. Thus, I'm removing the bogus average. (Apologies for this longwinded post.)--RattBoy 12:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what 'OR' means... but saying that "some polls were left out, which may skew the average" without mentioning that Carter's presidency hadn't taken place yet at the time of those particular polls seems a bit misleading. Also, playing down the fact the the 'polls' were surveys taken of scholars (historians and political scientists) leaving the impression that they were opinion polls is also more than a bit misleading. Not mentioning the scope of the polls (stating 10 polls rather than polls of 1000 scholars) underplays their importance.

Is the first paragraph "balanced" if it doesn't mention at all that Carter's presidency was considered at the time and for years afterward to have been pretty much of a failure? Only after a couple of decades of his post-presidential public service and humanitarian work has public opinion of his performance improved... how can any article be "balanced" and lack POV if it doesn't mention this?(UTC)

Spoofs/in pop culture

He was mentioned as "history's greatest monster" in several simpson's episodes.(as far as im aware) hes the second president they most make fun of.

Right... just for the simpsons we should make that section... plus, it was just one episode.