Talk:Jimmy Carter

Please correct biased wording on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

"Israeli defense against Palestinian insurgence" is factually wrong and politically biased. Carter is a critic of Israel's *occupation* of Palestine. You can argue about whether the occupied region should be referred to as "Palestine", or "West Bank and Gaza", or in some other way. You can't really argue against the fact that this is a military occupation, and should be referred to using the explicit term "occupation". Israel's own Supreme Court recognizes it as such, the region is officially under military rule, and Israel never fully annexed, not even unilaterally, the territories in question. "Insurgence" is just factually incorrect, as the actions are based in an occupied territory, only rarely "leaking" into lands that are part of Israel's sovereign territory, even on Israel's own official account. "Defense" is also factually incorrect, and mostly reflects a clear pro-Israeli political stance. Nobody who's not a pro-Israeli propagandist would seriously consider Israel's actions in the conflict to be purely defensive.

In short, since the entry is not directly editable, so far as I could observe, please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.187.246 (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I came to this article to add material regarding Carter's recent cancer diagnosis. The objection you have to the wording in the fourth paragraph in the lede seems valid to me as a violation of WP:NPOV. Because of the diagnosis, this article will be undergoing a higher level of readership and while I am tempted to make changes at once, I will await other views on what is a contentious and emotionally charged topic. Jusdafax 22:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The language "Israeli defense against Palestinian insurgence" seems remarkably biased to me as well. "Israel's treatment of Palestinians" would be more neutral, and a more accurate description of Carter's position. 65.82.136.2 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Refimprove template

There are dozens of the sentences without references or have citation needed tags. Should a refimprove template be added? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia must never be a mouthpiece of the Department of Propaganda for any person, company, country, etc.

Wikipedia should never spin stuff. It is very common to see this in Wikipedia.

They said Carter has a excellent chance of recovery from the surgery. Yeah, the biopsy site will heal. But that is spin. It is possible that President Carter has a very dismal chance of survival and that he will not see the end of 2016 except from the cemetery plot.

After undergoing treatment and elective surgery earlier in August 2015 to remove "a small mass" on his liver, it was discovered by Carter's doctors that the cancer has spread elsewhere in his body. A Carter spokesperson previously stated that the prognosis for a full recovery from the surgery was "excellent".[179] It was not made clear at the time of Carter's announcement where the cancer had originated.[180] Carter's family, including his father, mother, brother and two sisters, has a history of pancreatic cancer.[181]

I am fixing this. No names left!! abcd (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

On August 12, 2015, Carter announced he had been diagnosed with cancer. He has metastatic cancer but it is uncertain whether cancer originated in his liver or had spread to his liver. [179] The former president's healthcare is being managed by Emory Healthcare of Atlanta, Georgia.[180]

Carter's family, including his father, mother, brother and two sisters, has a history of pancreatic cancer,[181] which increases his risk of the same disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No names left!! abcd (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the above is better than below, which is better than the one at the very beginning of this thread.

After undergoing treatment and elective surgery earlier in August 2015 to remove "a small mass" on his liver, it was discovered by Carter's doctors that the cancer has spread elsewhere in his body and that the initial statements were just political spin. A Carter spokesperson previously stated that the prognosis for a full recovery from the surgery was "excellent",[179] but this is spin because metastatic liver cancer is certainly not excellent. If it is excellent, I want it. It was not made clear at the time of Carter's announcement where the cancer had originated.[180] Carter's family, including his father, mother, brother and two sisters, has a history of pancreatic cancer[181] but this could be irrelevant because if your family has pancreatic cancer, you can still have other cancer and not get pancreatic cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No names left!! abcd (talk • contribs) 17:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

What you removed and changed has been restored. Please discuss why you believe your changes are improvements, rather than accusing and removing sourced, NPOV content. Also, you did not include a source for "metastatic". And, yes, his spokesperson prior to the surgery did say his recovery chances were excellent - as the attached reference shows. Per WP:BRD, it's now your turn. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me it's my turn. In seconds, I will add a reference to show it is metastatic cancer...it's in the title of the page. I will also add a reference about the pancreatic cancer part because the way it is now, it is not clear what the relevance is.

Wikipedia is against falsehoods and spin or should be. This is a reference that shows that metastatic cancer is bad, not excellent. It is CBS News.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-factors-may-affect-jimmy-carters-cancer-treatment/ The first task is to determine whether the cancer is curable, "which is unlikely with metastatic cancer," or if it is possible to meaningfully prolong the life through surgery or other treatments, The fact that the cancer has already spread is worrisome. "In general, metastatic cancer - that is, cancer that has spread - is not curable," CBS News medical contributor Dr. David Agus, head of the Westside Cancer Center at the University of Southern California, said Thursday on "CBS This Morning."No names left!! abcd (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We just go by what's verifiable information. He says he has cancer, and will undergo treatment. We're not his doctors, we don't know his prognosis. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Muboshgu, it has come to my attention that this is a WP:DFTT and WP:NOTHERE situation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

But we know it is metastatic so refusing to say so is bowing down to the Department of Propaganda. Also it is bowing down to the Department of Propaganda to say the prognosis is excellent. Note that North Korea claims it is a democracy so it is......really????? Use some sense to not report propaganda but use reliable sources, not fake claims by the subject himself or their helpers. No names left!! abcd (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It says the cancer has spread, that's the same thing. The article just says what we know, which is that a spokesperson says his recovery from surgery should be fine. That doesn't say it'll remove all of the cancer. Of all the things to be claiming are propaganda, this? Just leave it be until we learn more next week. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Carter's Rank in US Navy

The article says that Carter was a first lieutenant in the US Navy. The Navy has no such rank, but does have the ranks of lieutenant junior grade and lieutenant. 98.30.91.17 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter and Israel-Palestine

There is an occupation in the Palestinian territories. Carter opposes the Israeli occupation not the "Israeli defence against the Palestinian insurgency".--Opdire657 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• A Brutally Frank Jimmy Carter Calls Out Israel on Permanent Apartheid
• Israeli leaders don’t meet with Jimmy Carter during Middle East visit

Paragraphs should have related information.

On August 3, 2015, Carter underwent elective surgery to remove "a small mass" on his liver, and his prognosis for a full recovery was initially said to be "excellent". On August 12, however, Carter announced he had been diagnosed with cancer that had spread elsewhere in his body, without specifying where the cancer had originated.[179][180] The former president has an extensive family history of pancreatic cancer, including both of his parents and all three of his siblings.[181] His healthcare is being managed by Emory Healthcare of Atlanta, Georgia.[179]

I moved the bolded sentence to a separate paragraph because there are no references to say they are related.

It would be like writing "Carter negotiated to free the hostages in Iran. He also sent a rescue mission. Iran manufacturers paper plates. A second rescue mission was planned but not performed."

Iran manufacturing paper plates has nothing to do with the paragraph except the word "Iran" much as the top paragraph has only the common word "cancer". Of course, we could change this if it is found that Carter has pancreatic cancer that spread to the liver or if Iranian paper plate manufacturers kept the hostages in their warehouses and were the target for the 2nd rescue mission.

No names left!! abcd (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your reasoning, from what I can tell, is a made-up, personal feeling and not based on policy. At this point, you are just edit warring and being disruptive. Please stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have consulted the Wikipedia article for Paragraph and it states "A paragraph (from the Ancient Greek παράγραφος paragraphos, "to write beside" or "written beside") is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea."

Carter's family history of pancreatic cancer has nothing to do with his liver cancer. If it does, I have not found a reliable source for it. Therefore, your are not basing your statements on policy and, to quote you, "At this point, you are just edit warring and being disruptive. Please stop" WV. My personal feeling is that if Wikipedia wants to be an amateurish bag of clowns thinking they are scholarly encyclopedic writers, they can, but it is better is we actually write scholarly stuff and not make amateur-like errors. That is why I fixed it. No names left!! abcd (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't policy. There is no policy regarding paragraphs having to meet certain criteria and then they must be split. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

When your reasoning is shown to be faulty, you change your reasoning to say that "Wikipedia articles aren't policy". Your accusations of me aren't policy either, just you picking on me even though my edits have very good thought behind it. Please stop harassing me. Thank you. No names left!! abcd (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification for your benefit: Wikipedia articles giving the definition of a word is not Wikipedia policy, it is not a Wikipedia guideline. Pulling an article out to make a point means nothing. The only thing shown to be faulty here is your understanding of what Wikipedia editing truly is to be about and how one goes about it. No one is harassing you. If you truly think you are being stalked and harassed, feel free to take your complaints to an administrator's noticeboard. Making such accusations and complaints at an article's talk page is not appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. However, I can go along with your new decision to remove the pancreatic cancer sentence because it has, as of now, nothing to do with his liver cancer. Thank you. No names left!! abcd (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)