Talk:Asa Earl Carter

message: Removed  "(Wallace later claimed that he had not read this part of the speech prior to delivering it at his first inauguration, a bitterly cold day by Montgomery standards, and that he had regretted it almost immediately, but the words will forever be associated with Wallace even more than their reputed auuthor.)"
This line is irrelevant to the subject of the article, and better suited to Wallace's article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.161.170  (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallace 

message: To the person who added a comment to the effect that the criticism of Carter is not endorsed by Cherokees or the majority of scholars: It is.  If Geary Hobson and Daniel heath Justice agree on any point, it is that Carter's simplifications amount to racism.  I have provided links to endorse this view towards the bottom of the page.  If there is any contrary evidence, please provide it here for discussion.  Vizjim 12:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh... when you say "It is." are you claiming to speak for all Cherokees?  Because nobody ever asked me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not.  I'm providing evidence that Carter's deception has been condemned by Cherokee writers (so not all Cherokees), and other scholars (in response to someone who claimed that this was not the case). Vizjim (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherokee & academic critics of Carter 

message: After reading and researching "The Education of Little Tree" I found the Wikipedia article to be incorrect and misleading in numerous details, and not expressing a neutral POV in other places. I hope the many changes I have just made solve significant problems along those lines and add clarity to the facts. Unclepea 18:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second the motion.  There are tons of statements that amount to a declaration of what Carter's motives were, or what he was thinking, and no citation or supporting information is provided whatsoever.  It would simplicity itself to simply post an opinion that someone was racist or was motivated by hatred or was thinking bad thoughts, and not provide any proof.  Why should anyone believe what is written here if no evidence is provided?  Oh, and by the way, people keep erasing comments like these in this discussion forum.  Very nice way to control the dialog.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click the "history" tag at the top of this page, you'll see that no such deletions have taken place.Vizjim (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untangling the facts a little more 

message: Was just listening to an NPR bio piece on him, which attributes Wallace's "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" speech (check the precise wording) to Carter. It surely deserves specific mention, and tho ... Little Tree is probably more often mentioned today, that speech is a pretty pivotal event in the integration struggle and IMO a substantial cause of notablity for both 
Wallace and Carter. His authorship of it surely deserves mention, and IMO joint (and perhaps even top) billing next to "... Little Tree" (and the Josey Wales works). --Jerzy•t 18:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Further reviewing the article, i see that the applause line is mentioned later.    Also that "He was most notable for ..." has no citation. It is a judgment, a fairly value-sensitive judgment, and even with a  tag it would invite readers toward seeing WP as wanting to provide our value judgments. I'm removing "most", and i may also find the time to add, to the "notable for" sentence, that there's reason to believe he wrote the line.--Jerzy•t 20:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual notability