Talk:Jimmy Carter/Archive 1

message: There needs to be a section about his legacy, what people think of him now.  Can someone with good knowledge of this write it? TheDavesr 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blue was stolen from Republicans by the media because having the Democrats represented as red was just a little too ironic. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 07:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy

message: This section needs to be edited.  It is somewhat boosterous in favor of Carter.  Had John Anderson not run Carter still would have lost states like New York and Massachusettes.  In fact Reagan won both in 1984 when he had only one major opponent, Water F. Mondale.  Carter's popularity before the election was rather low and several text books note that the election was a combination of Democratic weakness and Republican strength.  The Senate was regained by the republicans for the first time in over two decades and seats in the House were also won.  The Democratic debate left Carter tongue tied against the impressive acting abilities of Reagan.  Lastly, the misery index soared during carters tenure in office. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.92.166.215 (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: election 1980

message: 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)
thread_title:  Failure 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  UFO 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Involvement in Three Mile Island incident 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does someone think that the title [[Jimmy Carter]] is not neutral?? 

message: (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)
thread_title:  Carter's funny photo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Venezuela 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed trivia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Presidential IQ 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  question 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Not Allowing Shah's Plane to Land in 1979 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wow. Really?--RattBoy 02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  October Surprise Conspiracy -- Keep off page! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Would someone like to replace the intro paragraph to this section with something that is actually meaningful? The number of books he's written should be a sub-paragraph, and the date of death of Adams and Jefferson belongs elsewhere. Have Carter and Mondale even done anything jointly in the last couple of decades? HOW ABOUT SOME SORT OF SUMMARY OF CARTER'S ACTIONS as an intro to this section instead? Major wikifan 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post Presidency

message: Well, I'm pretty sure he is, so I added a line to the trivia section indicating such about Carter's postings to Daily Kos.  Never heard of Clinton blogging, nor Ford, Bush Sr and I really can't imagine Bush Jr getting on the internets.  It seemed to fit right under the bit about him being the first Presidential podcaster, though I'll confess we may be doing original research here unless we can cite something claiming he's the first to do such things (even though it's pretty obvious and should be non-controversial).--FNV 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Presidential Blogger 

message: James Earl
James Earl Jones
James Earl Carter
James Earl Ray
Hopiakuta 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please, we need a [[disambiguation]]:

message: If I recall correctly from my studies, this was a major event in his election campaign. This should definitely be in the '76 election section, and not as a mere note in the trivia. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I have lust in my heart for you.