Talk:Jimmy Carter/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

In the simpson episode

Marge in Chains, it's was stated that Jimmy Carter was "Histories greates monster". was that made up or somewhat real?

Pece Kocovski 05:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone really thinks that Jimmy Carter is history's greatest monster. Except Ann Coulter possibly, if only she'd never heard of Clinton. The writers behind the Simpson's state they don't like Carter although they say they would vote for him today if the only alternative was George W. Bush. I think they put the 'history's greatest monster' thing in partially because they don't like him but mainly because it's a funny idea that a town would be 15 dollars short of being able to afford a statue of Abraham Lincoln and so they put up a statue of Jimmy Carter instead. It would have been funnier though if they'd have put up a statue of Michael Dukakis. Also it could be kind of poking fun at some really crazy right-wing Republicans who might actually think that Carter really is history's greatest monster. 195.93.21.133 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

• When Carter took the Oath of Office to begin his Presidential term, he referred to himself as "Jimmy Carter," not by his official name as is custom.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• On July 19 2006, President Carter appeared on former U.S. Sen. John Edwards's podcast becoming the first former US President to be a guest on a true podcast
• In India, a village near Delhi is named after President Carter called "Caterpuri",during his visit in 1978.This was at the height of Cold War when Indo-US relations were not well. [1][2][3]
• On March 23, 2006, President Carter became the first Presidential blogger, with a post[4] to the political blog, Daily Kos. He has posted there several more times[5].
• On October 14 1978, President Carter signed into law a bill that legalized the homebrewing of beer and wine.
• On one occasion, when Jimmy Carter was asked if there was anything in life he regretted, he replied: "Yes, the time that I stole from the collection plate as a young boy!"
• In 1976, Playboy published a controversial interview in which Carter admitted to having “lusted in his heart” for women other than his wife. This was widely satirized and affected his support among women and evangelicals.
• He was the first President to make public statements in support of gay rights. In California in the late 1970s, voters were facing a law which would have banned gays and lesbians (and heterosexuals that endorsed gay rights) from working in the school system. At a speech in California, Carter urged voters to reject the bill. In the early days of the Carter campaign, Carter had promised to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but backed off on the pledge when he won the Democratic Party nomination. The Carter White House had the first official visit by a gay rights organization, and allowed a group of gay veterans to participate in an official ceremony for the Vietnam War Memorial. During his unsuccessful reelection campaign, the Carter campaign competed with the Ted Kennedy campaign for the support of the gay rights organizations. However, the Carter administration's tepid support of gay rights did not please liberal Democrats (who felt Carter was too moderate on the issue) or the socially conservative Christians that Carter had previously courted.
• In Leary, Georgia, in October, 1969, Carter claimed to see an unidentified flying object (UFO). Robert Sheaffer concluded that Carter had seen the planet Venus. Later, during his presidential campaign, Carter promised to release the truth about any alleged UFO cover-up.
• A fan of professional wrestling, Carter stated his favorite grappler was Mr. Wrestling II.
• Also a fan of Major League Baseball, President Carter is sometimes seen behind home plate at Turner Field, the stadium of the Atlanta Braves, his favorite team.
• Jimmy Carter is the only U.S. President to not throw a ceremonial first pitch in a baseball season-opening game since William Howard Taft started the tradition in 1910.
• Carter was born on the same day as U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
• Carter is a very close friend of his predecessor Gerald Ford, despite the fact that he defeated Ford in the 1976 presidential election. He and his wife visit Mr. and Mrs. Ford's home frequently.
• A message from President Carter appeared on the Voyager Golden Records, now in deep space.
• Carter appeared as himself in a video tape on the comedy Home Improvement.
• Carter is the only President to have served in the Military during both World War II {not on active service since he was in the the US Naval Academy} and the Korean War.

We could source some of the things and put them in under different sections. An article about a former president should not have a trivia section. Jasper23 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more that sprouted up.

• Jimmy Carter was the first former Governor of Georgia to serve as president.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• Jimmy Carter was born on the same day as the late Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist, on October 1, 1924.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• Jimmy Carter was the first president born in a hospital.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• In sequence, Jimmy Carter was the 39th president to serve, but the 41st to be born. George H.W. Bush was the 40th born and George W. Bush was the 42nd born.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• Jimmy Carter is 5 feet 8 inches tall.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

I moved earlier (contrary info) mention on this page to immediately above this section. Dunno if it had a cite when it was in the article. Andyvphil 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Jimmy Carter's original legal name was James Earl Carter, but he eventually changed his legal name to Jimmy Carter.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• During his administration Carter, his family and all of his white house staff took the first English language speed reading course ever developed.

Not true, unless it was the same EWSD Kennedy used. I remember the radio ads in the 60's.(nb:refs already in place confirm this)Andyvphil 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

These should be sourced and placed in relevant parts of the article and not in a trivia section. Ex-presidents should not have trivia sections. Jasper23 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Says who? There's a wikiPolicy demanding ex-Presidents be treated as minor gods? And, while I'm at it, where's the Crit section? This article reads like a Carter Library press release. Speaks ill of Wikipedia's POV that it's considered a "good article". (Not talking r/l this time; took a quick glance at Jerry Ford and he doesn't get much mention of crit either.) Andyvphil 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Hostage Crisis

The subject needs specifics. "Carter struggled for 444 days to effect the release of the hostages." How did he "struggle?" What did he do? Specific examples should be given, or the word "struggled" should be removed and the sentence should be rewritten as "The hostages were not released for 444 days." 146.145.125.187 15:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Gabriel

Carter is the biggest con artist on the planet. He engineered the downfall of the Shah, then had the audacity to then realize what a huge strategic blunder that was. Then he turned on the Mullah's he placed in power... except the Mullahs outsmarted him and began a long drawnout process of humiliating him with the embassy hostages and carefully negotiated with the republicans to destroy Carter in the election. With his back against the wall, and the presidency slipping out of his hands Carter got Saddam to invade Iran... an immense tragedy! Carter is in effect literally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians and Iraqis... and now American and coalition forces in Iraq trying to clean up the mess. And the mess goes on.. the Mullahs in Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and are untouchable state sponsors of terrorism. Carter's decisions have had profound impact - even today almost 30 years after the fact. To make matters worse he will not talk to anyone about these decisions or answer direct questions about them. How does he sleep at night? If you want specifics look at Haig's memo after meeting Faisal after Reagan took over, talk to the pilots who took Bush to Paris to meet the Mullahs on October 19th 1980, corner Zbig, read Gary Sick's book, read Barbara Hoeneger's book, read Parry's book, talk to the Iranian Mullahs (Karrubi - who met Bush), or talk to the arms suppliers (senior executives at SCI who copied electronic boxes of fighter plane parts and supplied to Iran via intermediaries), talk to Olive North... Lets be adults about this, lets have some decency and let this stuff emerge in at least a neutral forum like Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.12.115 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 December 2006

You right, dude. He's also responsible for the Heartbreak of Psoriasis and Post-Nasal Drip. I hear he hid Jimmy Hoffa in his solar-powered Hummer.

Get back to us, please, when you and "Olive North" have more conspiracy theories to contribute.--RattBoy 02:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All the sarchasm in the world, or accusations of 'conspiracy theory mongering' do not change basic facts. If you are patriotic and a seeker of truth, and would like Wiki to truly reflect the facts then simply research the matter as I have done for the past 5 years. This is a very serious matter. It should be telling to you that even today, Carter does not and has never denied these facts. There is also a written document (which is held in secrecy like the US/Russia memo on Cuba) called the "1980 Algiers Accord" that was signed by the US government, ratified by congress that provided the Mullahs in Iran with security assurances and arms etc. just before the hostages were released - the very essence of the agreement between the republicans and the Mullahs. Yet another factual document proving the facts. Finally this is not a partisan issue .. I think its a fundamental issue that reflects on the state of democracy in the United States and what both parties will do to win! The American people lost out. The people of Iran and Iraq lost out. It was all a major strategic blunder! As for Oli North - he was nothing but a foot soldier for the big boys. His trial did end up derailing the investigation - they labeled the whole thing Iran/Contra (pretending it was a deal to stop communism in central america) instead of "Reagan's Deal" or something like that (which more accurately reflects the theft of the presidential elections in the U.S.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.12.115 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 December 2006

The words patriotic and "seeker of truth" should never be used in the same sentence - or page or boook or mind - except in humor.

Anyone have another source for this

• Jimmy Carter once greeted former Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother of the United Kingdom with a kiss on the lips. Angered, she reprimanded him by saying: "No man has done that since my husband died."

Its from the trivia section. Maybe I am too young but I have heard nothing about this and googe turned up nada. Jasper23 16:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

The first former president to visit since the revolution - but how many presidents or ex-presidents visited prior to that. (Several before they were president - JFK, Teddy R.) -- Beardo 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Jimmy Carter

Perhaps there should be a small portion of the article mentioning people's criticisms of him.72.195.159.155 02:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Mike Reason

Agreed, but with a caveat - they should be discussed here first unless properly sourced and cited (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). All articles, especially bios, must meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view standards. Unsourced edits will be reversed. Ronbo76 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Carter Accuses Jewish Group of ‘Slander’ After Questioning Controversial Book

WASHINGTON — Jimmy Carter has accused an international Jewish human rights group of "falsehood and slander" for launching a petition that resulted in thousands of signatures being sent to the former president in protest of his controversial book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250673,00.html Crocoite 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus

• (...)the scholarly consensus regarding his presidency is that he was weak, ineffective and unable to manage crises.

This is a POV, pushed with weasel words. "Scholarly consensus" regarding political matters is virtually impossible.--cloviz 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the Shah

Not that it was Carter's direct responsibility but it is worthwhile -- I believe -- to at least mention in passing the fact that the Allies had installed the Shah and that he was seen by many as a U.S./British puppet. That would help clarify some of the motivation behind the hostage crisis and the awkward position Carter was in. Granted people can follow the links and find this info but I think it is relevant enough to be at least briefly interjected in this text. --Mcorazao 19:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Killer rabbit photo courtesy of

The photo page for the killer rabbit photo - and the website from which it was taken - ask that, although the image is public domain, it be captioned as "courtesy of the Jimmy Carter Library" out of courtesy. Is there a precedent for this? A format? It seems natural to be polite to those providing us with free public domain images, eh? Discuss.Kai 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

GET THE QUALITY BETTER

come on guys, he is the last living president yet to be featured!!!! lets feature him asap before he passes away!!!!! come on1!!! Somemoron 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of antisemitism: notable?

(Note that this is not related to the content of his recent book.) Apparently, the head of the ADL (a very famous organization that combats antisemitism), Abraham Foxman, perceived that Carter accused a Jewish cabal of controlling the media to stifle debate about Israel. Thus, he called Carter an antisemite. While I do not know if this criticism has merit, that is not the point. It is from the head of an extremely notable organization and I think it may warrant a mention in the article. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Where (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

There is no allegation of anti-semitism actually cited in this section. your statement "thus, he called carter an anti-semite" is speculative at best. Reverting. Derex 01:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! The quote did say "you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control," however. Such conspiracy theories are antisemitic, no? Anyhow, if you wish, I could use another quote from here instead, where Foxman says "I believe he is engaging in anti-Semitism". Cheers! -- Where 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First, "I believe he is engaging in anti-Semitism" certainly proves the point (that wasn't in the article). As an aside, it's certainly not obvious to me why such an opinion (that the media supresses criticism of Israel) would necessarily be regarded as anti-Semitic, though many anti-Semites do of course hold that view. But, at any rate, the accusation is established. The next question is whether it's notable enough to cover in a brief bio of Carter. Keeping in mind that surely thousands of various criticisms have been leveled at Carter, it's far from obvious that this one stands out to that extent. I'd like to see (a) at least three prominent people making the accusation explicitly (b)coverage in mainstream national press. If this accusation is related to his new book, the bar would be somewhat lower for inclusion on the article devoted to it. Derex 02:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. When I can find the time (as this can take a while), I will try to find the information that you request. Thanks once again, -- Where 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, see the article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which is already cross-referenced in this article; see discussion of these controversial matters pertaining to quotations of the ADL director Abraham Foxman's words about the book and about Carter as the author of the book in sources cited both in the article (e.g., Besser "Jewish Criticism of Carter Intensifies" in Jewish Week; Traub "Does Abe Foxman Have an Anti-Anti-Semite Problem?" in The New York Times Magazine) [linked in the main article on the book]; Carter's own responses to such criticism [qtd. in that article]) and in its current talk page Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and the split-off article Commentary on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and the Wikiquote cited therein. Foxman denies having "called" Carter an "anti-Semite" in talking with Traub, but Besser does quote Foxman as having previously stated that in this book Carter is "engaging in anti-Semitism." The quotations are already accessible in the cross-referenced article on this book. Among the links in Wikipedia's own article antisemitism is the ADL's webpage on "Global Anti-Semitism" (in "Further reading"); for those interested in the ADL public position on the book, on the ADL website, there is posted an Open Letter to Jimmy Carter (Dec. 20, 2006), co-signed by Abraham Foxman; it states (in part): "Your efforts in the letter to minimize the impact of your charge that American Jews control US Middle East policy are simply unconvincing. In both your book and in your many television and print interviews you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff." --NYScholar 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ISSUE ON SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT

"Carter then began urging the Torrijos regime to soften its policies and move Panama towards gradual democratization. This treaty ultimately helped relations with Panama and Latin America."

To say "this treaty ultimately helped relations with Panama and Latin America" is subjective, at best, and errant, at worst. In light of the fact that American military troops were later required to displace drug-trafficking Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, it is spurious to say that the treaty "helped" relations with Panama.

I recommend the sentence be deleted. Rob Purdie, 5:12PM, 1/12/06

U.S , Israel specific controversy

I've added "within the United States and Israel" to 7.4 on Carter's book "Peace not Apartheid". The wording as it was suggested the books content was generally controversial rather than specifically controversial within the U.S and Israel (as supported by the references). It is important to note this in this case because the national POV differs to a large degree from the global POV. X brass 23:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by X brass (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Military under Carter

Not where it could go, but it would "interesting" to see what others had to say about the military under Carter. I was in the Army during his presidency, and we didn't have enough money in the budget (because of his $6 billion budget cut) to even use blank ammo (here in the States). When we went to the field for training, we had to run around yelling "Bang, bang, I shot you". We very rarely even got to shoot live ammo here in the States, though overseas, ammunition wasn't a problem. wbfergus 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, are you serious? That's hilarious! - Eric 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm serious. With the budget cut so much, the military decided that (Infantry) troops training here in the US didn't need ammo, only the troops serving overseas who would be the ones that would need it first. I don't know about the tankers or artillery guys though. Maybe the Generals in charge of those Division's allocated budget money for ammunition. The Army even tried other forms of Basic Rifle Markmanship training in an effort to determine if there were cheaper means of qualifying soldiers with their rifles, of which I helped participate in at Ft. Dix, NJ. A Basic Training Company consisted of 4 platoons, so one platoon did all of their training with the M-16 and regular ammunition. The other platoons only used the 5.56mm ammunition for the record fire (qualifying) shooting, and trained (zeroed and familarization firing) using other methods.

One platoon used a .22 caliber rimfire adaptor for their M-16s, so they at least used real ammunition, but considerably cheaper and without as much kick. Another platoon trained with a system called the "Weaponeer", which was like a huge video game screen, but used blanks to supply noise and a kick, and the last platoon trained with a system called "Lasertrain", another video game-like system that just shot a laser beam at the targets on the screen, but no kick or noise.

At completion of all their required training, all 4 companies went to the record fire range for qualification, firing four 10-round magazines at various targets. After each magazine was fired, we would walk down range and count all the bullet holes in each target (from the 25 m all the way to the 300m targets), then tape it over, and then spray paint it. This eliminated the possibility that some targets may not go down when hit, due to either mechanical problems or the soldier hitting the target in an area that already had a bunch of holes. The results were tallied after each company had performed the record fire, and after about 6 months of evaluation, the Army decided that troops who did all their training with the real ammunition performed better on the record fire than those who trained with the other systems. wbfergus 11:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

Please, revert 12:16, January 27, 2007. Another editor disagrees with POV statement. Ronbo76 21:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

But I just noticed you already did that. Extremely sexy 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

North Korea

The previous draft attributed the failure of the Agreed Framework to the failure of the US to live up to its side of the agreement. This is far from a universal interpretation and thus violates the NPOV policy. (The Agreed Framework entry is somewhat more balanced). I've included one of the alternate explanations. JoelWest 22:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Post-Presidency Diplomacy section begins "In 1994, Carter went to North Korea at the behest of President Clinton." IAW [6] in "A Moment of Crisis: Jimmy Carter, The Power of a Peacemaker, and North Korea's Nuclear Ambitions" by Marion Creekmore, Jr.("a former diplomat who served as Carter’s adjutant on this mission"), introduction by Carter, Carter decided "if Washington objected, he would go anyway and involve himself directly in a major international dispute" and Clinton acquiesced to the inevitable. So the sentence needs correction, it would seem. Comments? Andyvphil 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No feedback, so I went ahead and corrected assertion, then tightened the section a bit. Andyvphil 14:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Carter Center, etc.

I find three mentions of the Carter Center in the article, none of which mention the controversy around its (and Carter's) funding, etc. This is covered to some extent in the Center's own WikiPage, but WikiPedia's guidelines call for its content to be summarized in the parent article, to prevent POV forks etc. I'm not going to attempt an insert here until I've digested some of the material, if I have time, but for an allegedly excellent article this one has serious POV deficiencies. Andyvphil 00:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Energy Crisis Subsection

Some of the information in the subsection is incorrect. I would have fixed it myself, except I'm rushed at the moment. For example, it is talking about the 1979 crisis, but it mentions the Dep. of Energy creation. The DOE was created in response to the 1973 crisis, not the 1979 crisis. Zreeon 02:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Health notes?

Would it make any sense to have a section on Carter's current health? Or would that require too many updates? I ask mainly because he now the oldest living person to ever be elected President. Will (Talk - contribs) 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Will: Actually, Carter is the second oldest living former president, at this time... George 41 is currently the oldest, but only a few months older. I think to make a section for Carter's health would be pointless, as there haven't been ANY reports of his health anywhere on the news (or if there's been, I've obviously missed it). I'm thinking, once people actually start to report on any health deteriorations, or once Carter is THE oldest former president...Maybe. Otherwise, no, not now. -Nicole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.1.214 (talk • contribs)

Peace not Apartheid

Someone edited that Carter took a wide range of questions at the Brandies speech. That is patently untrue, it was restricted to invitation only and challenging questions from knowledgeble critics were barred. Reapor 20:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide sources backing this up? Extremely sexy 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no source to back up that claim. It is untrue. The sources for the Brandeis visit (including the questions and answers and the ongoing blog of other questions and Carter's answers) are in the main article on the book and on the commentary on the book. I have watched the entire event; the Brandeis faculty/dean moderator explains that she received 178 questions which she herself classified into 12 "issues" and twelve students asked Carter those questions. She identifiec them as not being "soft ball" questions. In my experience of watching the event, they were not "soft ball" questions. Most of the complaints by critics of the book were raised in the questions, albeit in an appropriately-respectful way when addressing a former president of the United States. That's protocol for such a visit. Carter was extremley well-received; the citations that have been deleted from one of my versions of that section in this article document these facts: you can click on the references, watch the entire video of the event (I suggest the Carter Center video because the Brandeis Quicktime video does not load properly for me, even though I have the latest version of Quicktime: it starts and freezes a lot; at least it did a while ago; maybe they fixed it). Then go to the Brandeis Q&A blog for Carter's visit (in the references section in the main article), and you will be able to access all of the 178 questions, additional questions added by anyone who registers for the site, and Carter's subsequent responses to questions. that seems pretty open a process of free speech to me. The source I cited that has since been deleted (a Boston.com news--Boston Globe--article) says that there were 200 protestors in the audience of 1,700 people (faculty, staff, etc.). Attendance was limited to the Brandeis community; Dershowitz spoke after Carter left the venue (a gymnasium), and about half the audience left (or stayed) for Dershowitz's presentation, which was much longer than Carter's. Carter answered questions for about 45 mins., after talking for about 15 mins. It seemed that everyone who asked a question (on the video) was satisfied with Carter's answer, and later Dershowitz was quoted as saying that he too agreed w/ what Carter said in that visit (just not with what Carter writes in the book). Dershowitz said some very positive things about the Carter he knew prior to this book (quoted in press reports later); it's this book that he takes issue with. Some of D's issues are things brought up by the students and, judging from audience applause, and D's own later comments, Carter answered some of those criticism to their satisfaction. Re: C-Span broadcast mentioned below; I haven't seen that: I've seen the video of the whole thing; the entire video of Dershowitz's rebuttal is also accessible from the Brandeis U site (link given in References in main article on the book here). One cannot take what a user reports as a "commentary and note in C-Span" as a verifiable reliable source. One needs a reliable source. From everything I've seen and read it is not true that critics of Carter "were barred" from Derhowitz's rebuttal. Half of the audience simply did not go, according to the Boston Globe report cited already in the main article and in one of my later versions since deleted here.)

That is directly from the C-Span broadcast. Giza D 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by that? Extremely sexy 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

C-Span did a taping of Carter's talk followed by Dershowitz' rebuttle, and there was commentary and note stating that Carter critics were barred. Giza D 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

All not very democratic, is it? Extremely sexy 10:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is hearsay, not fact. There is no evidence that one can consider a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources standards that what Giza D says above is true. Hearsay is inadmissible in Wikipedia articles on living persons: WP:BLP. --NYScholar 08:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As there has been a lot of controversy about the accuracy of this book and Carter's unwillingness to debate or take challenging questions from critics should that be put on the page?Giza D 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What Giza D claims here is not accurate. Carter has responded in many, many interviews to criticism, taken questions from critics, and responded in articles to criticism as well: Just read the articles on the book. There is very little knowledge demonstrated in these claims that Giza D is floating on this talk page. I don't think that he (or she) has read the main articles in Wikipedia and examined and read the sources cited in them. --NYScholar 08:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Or should it be covered in depth on the book page. Wait, it's already there. Jiffypopmetaltop 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it is. I've been working on those pages for weeks. --NYScholar 08:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion of material "removed side notes-that what the main article is for" [7], my partial reversion (I agreed that I had retained material about details of the Brandeis event, from previous editors, that need not be here) and your re-reversion of my revised text: As noted in my edit summary, please be aware of [8]: "Sometimes...a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure...However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material." Emphasis in original. After your deletions, the current text is:

"His latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (summary), was published in December 2006. Carter states that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land."[36] The book declares that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights."[37] Carter said that his purpose in writing the book was to "present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors."[38] Carter's treatment of the subject matter and the use of the word "apartheid" in the title and throughout the book has created considerable controversy within the United States and Israel.[39]"

Now, sentence count is not an exact measure, but Carter is getting three quotes to present his book in a positive light, with specifics, while only the existance of critics unhappy with his "treatment of the subject matter and the use of the word 'apartheid'" is noted. This is not an NPOV summary of the child article.

As I said, I was not responsible for the content you deleted, although I had revised it to that form. What I think I'll do is quote (former co-author and first director of the Carter Center (1983-1986)) Professor Stein's "a title too inflammatory to even print... not based on unvarnished analyses; ...replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments", [9][10] and quote the sentence that Carter wrote and then repudiated, after I find it again. If you object, please explain. Andyvphil 03:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, here it is: Carter wrote: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the road map for peace are accepted by Israel."

... and then retracted: "That was a terribly worded sentence which implied, obviously in a ridiculous way, that I approved terrorism and terrorist acts against Israeli citizens," Carter says. "My publishers have been informed about that and the sentence has been changed in all future editions of the book." [11] Hmmm... probably I can live without the quotes, but the retraction rates a contextualized mention. Andyvphil 04:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Carter's comment about trying to create discussion since he refuses to discuss with his critics, I think it should be mentioned on this page, because it gives insight to Carter lack of knowledge and hypocracy. Giza D 13:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it is a little hard to responde because I just saw this section on the talk page. If you are looking for a little more balance then I have no issue with that. As you mentinioned there are three quotes from Carter in that section. That makes sense because it is Carter's books. I am not against the carter statement but dont know if it summarizes the situation well. My main point is that this summary leads to a long and very thouroughly written page on this subject. This summary should be very vague and without specific details. Those are for the book page. If someone added negatives details, then someone else will add positive details and then you must add background so people can understand the arguments. That is the book page. It is not important enough to add here. I am just trying to stop this from becoming a pov fork with a condensed summary of the book. Jiffypopmetaltop 18:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

O.K.: I read the entry for the book, but I still think it should be mentioned on this page as this was a major news story and Carter has been widely criticised for writing it. Giza D 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a minor news story. Not noteworthy enough for this page, but noteworthy enough for the book page. He has also been widely praised for writing the book. Can't we keep the merits of the book on the book page? If not it becomes unmanageable. Jiffypopmetaltop 21:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Carter has been roundly panned, and even had 14 people resign from his center due to the book. Since we can not agree, will you accept if a third party rules one way or another? 65.96.132.149[12] 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are at that point yet. What exactly do you want to add? Jiffypopmetaltop 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll tell you pretty exactly what I want to do: Delete the last sentence, quote Stein, identify him, mention his and the other resignations, maybe put a discreet inline link to the url of the book article at the end of the paragraph, or maybe move the blue link to that point.

The answer to the question "Can't we keep the merits of the book on the book page?" is No. I've already given you the guideline reason for this, but, as well, the Carter article proper is in bad need of of material critical of Carter to achieve NPOV. It is not idiosyncratic to see the content of the book is the logical expression of the trajectory through the "malaise" speech, the hostage crisis, the rejection by the electorate, the cozying up with Arafat and Kim etc., and the Nobel Prize. I don't see an adequate representation of that critique in the article so far, and that anodyne trailing sentence in the paragraph on PnA just doesn't cut it. The Stein quote, on the other hand, would give readers a reason to think it worthwhile to click the link. Andyvphil 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What's with the attitude? What is the stein quote? What does this mean "It is not idiosyncratic to see the content of the book is the logical expression of the trajectory". If you think the rest of the page is npov, why are you focusing on this section? Why don't you do a quick writeup, post it to talk and then we can take a look. Jiffypopmetaltop 01:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What attitude? I haven't reverted your deletion or gone ahead with my proposed revision without discussion. I've given you the Wikipedia guideline as to why the controversy over the book needs to be summarized here. The sentence you quote (it should have read "...book as the..., btw) was meant to make my POV clear, and "not idiosyncratic" was a claim that my view of Carter is not a tiny minority one: the man is the Ramsey Clark of ex-Presidents, with a pro-anti-American attitude that is popular with the European socialists who award Nobel Peace Prizes and which is precisely what got him bounced from office when the American electorate got a look at what proved not to be the acceptably conservative southern Governor they thought they'd elected. The Stein quote is the one I quoted earlier in this discussion: "a title too inflammatory to even print... not based on unvarnished analyses; ...replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments", [13][14]. Why don't I rewrite the entire article? Well, I have a life, and that's not the way Wikipedia works. Andyvphil 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As two of us seem to think that the criticsm of Carter belongs on the page in regard to his book, is there any objection to putting it back? Giza D 14:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. I object. Jiffypopmetaltop 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I also object. Strenuously. See later comments. --NYScholar 08:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This section should be summarized and a main link created to the book's page. There is no reason to have such a lengthy section on this page while ignoring the very lengthy book page, which does have a full accounting of the controversy. I have tried to make such changes, and while not perfect, they did not deserve a full revert. So...in summation, a summary and main link to article brings balance to this page. Thanks. Jasper23 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Jasper on this. Let's try to avoid a POV fork. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The controversy is as relevant as the book itself to Carter. It is of more importance that the book itself and must be referenced in any discussion of Carter today.

Isn't that why the book has its own page? Jasper23 06:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We should try to find a compromise. Jiffypopmetaltop 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to add original negative research to this article and not discuss changes, the tags stay on. Jiffypopmetaltop 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to removing the tag. Andyvphil 22:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid is not a "POV fork"; it is a NPOV article discussing various points of view on the book in a neutral way (at least it was the last time I edited it) in keeping also with WP:POV. Until this matter is resolved satisfactorily to be a neutral presentation in this article, the tag should remain. (Update: See below: last version I edited seemed neutral to me; last version I've commented and supported seems neutral to me. But if it goes back to including insertion of POVs like Giza D's, the tag will be back on. --NYScholar 08:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Another user who posts above (Jiffy...) asked me to review the content of the section of this article on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. I have done so and made some revisions. The citations throughout this article need to be reformatted from external links and converted to full citations, giving author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed, etc. and they need to be verified as to notability and reliability of sources (all sources). I don't have time to do that. --NYScholar 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Palestine Peace not Apartheid

Corrected heading and moved from inappropriate posting on my personal talk page; post comments about editing articles in the articles' own talk pages. --NYScholar 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)]

Your edit of my entry almost seems to be a way to protect Carter. You altered my edit, which was that Carter refused to debate a more knowledgable critic on the issue. Giza D 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense. I provided sources and cross-links. Your statement implying that Alan Dershowitz is "a more knowledgeable [sic] critic" than President Carter is absurd and reeks of POV. Clearly, you are engaged in POV editing. I had no idea that you (Giza) contributed an "edit" etc.; my changes have nothing to do with you personally. They have to do with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I suggest that you read it and see also WP:NPA, linked at top of my own talk page. If you want to comment on improving an article comment on the talk page of the article, not on my personal talk page. Your comment is misplaced there. Please, do not comment any further on my talk page. --NYScholar 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I read the NPOV and since there was ongoing discussion you had no business to edit without discussing with every one. The point was that Carter claimed his book was to encourage discussion, and then he refused to discuss it.

It is valid, and it's going back. Giza D 10:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've revised it further. See below. I still think everything is already in the cross-linked main articles on the book and the commentary on the book and what Giza attempts to add and revert and add again is unnecessary verbiage. If one clicks on the links in the next-to-last version I provided (which someone reverted to my earlier version), one would have a NPOV on the book and commmentary about it. Neither of those articles is tagged re: neutrality. --NYScholar 12:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is completely inaccurate and bogus to claim that Carter "refused to discuss" his book; he refused to a staged "debate" with a particular person Alan Dershowitz on what appear to many to be reasonable grounds. It is a lie to say that he "refused to discuss" his book; he had been and has been "discussing" it in a press junket involving many, many interviews, book signings, and other appearances, and, most obviously, he discussed it at Brandeis U (the first university inviting him to come to campus to do so, and he continued and continues beyond that visit to invite and address and respond to questions posed by students and others on the Brandeis site linked in the main article's references list. Clearly this user Giza D has not bothered to read the main articles on the book, or, if he or she has done so, he/she has not done so carefully. --NYScholar 12:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have read the book and happen to live in the area where Brandies is. Here are the facts: a minority of students and a few left leaning professors invited Carter to speak at Brandies. This was supposed to be open to the public and I was planning to go myself. Alan Dershowitz, who has written several books on the subject, was asked to come by other Brandies students; at this point Carter backed out. A few Carter supporters demanded him to speak on his terms. This ended up being a preselected audience and questions with no challenges. There was an immediate backlash and Dershowitz was given equal time. The C-Span brodacast shows Dershowitz not putting restraints on his questions or audience. The original edit was to show Carter is not willing to debate more knowledgable people. Giza D 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of "no original research"; cite reliable sources, as I have done throughout my work on the book. See WP:NOR. It is not necessary to repeat information already cited and documented thoroughly in the main articles Palestine Peace Not Apartheid; and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, including in Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestin Peace Not Apartheid. Your personal impressions of the book are not germane to this article. See the policy linked. See also the talkheader: This talk page is for making improvements to the article (as an article), not for discussing the subject (Jimmy Carter or any of his work). You need to follow Wikipedia editing guidelines. You are not doing that. --NYScholar 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research, Carter claims he wanted to encourage debate. He refused to debate when challenged.Giza D 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed section tag on section about the book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

The solution to the problems created by editing wars in this article re: the section on the book is simply to cross-link the two main articles re: the book, which (currently) adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Those attempting to interject their own and others' POVs on the book and to highlight them need to desist from that. Readers of this section are simply referred to Wikipedia's articles about the book, which contain a full account of the controversy, with representative examples of conflicting views about the book. No one POV on the book should be privileged in this section of this article on Jimmy Carter (focus). This is an article on a living person and WP:BLP prevails. All non-neutral comments need to be deleted from the article. --NYScholar 06:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a POV, this is relating to a major dispute about Carter's lack of knowledge and hypocricy. Giza D 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your point of view re: Carter's so-called "hypocricy [sic]" is your POV. The cross-linked article presents the various points of view on the controversy in a neutral manner. I suggest that you read the article. Apparently, you have not done so. You keep reverting neutral point of view presentation to POV presentation (your own POV); that violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; if you continue doing that, I will ask administrators to review this article for neutrality of editing. It has been tagged prior to my coming to this article recently. I was directed here by another user who posted above, asking for me to provide a fair view of the article. I have done so. Giza D and others revert my neutral changes to their own POVs. That violates W guidelines. --NYScholar 05:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, you were the one who started reverting. Giza D 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the editing history: my own making bonafide good faith neutral editing changes after being asked to do so to remove bias and POV (see earlier comments and explanations in editing history) is not "reverting": see W:3RR. I came to this article after being requested to do so by another user on my talk page. The other user was concerned about the lack of neutrality in this article and asked me, the user said, an "objective" and "fair" editor, to take a look. I did so and contributed what I could to the section on the book, which he/she asked me to examine. (I don't have time to "cleanup" the problems throughout the whole article; they remain.) --NYScholar 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I included in "and others"? ... It is not true, by the way, that "{a}ll non-neutral comments need to be deleted from the article". WP:BLP refers you to WP:NPOV where you will find "...where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight...and all significant published points of view are to be presented..." In the case of PPNA WP:POVFORK also applies, as I've already pointed out: "Sometimes...a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure...However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material." Emphasis in original.[15] All of which adds up to the fact that the criticism (consisting, perforce, of "non-neutral comments") of PPNA must be given its due weight in the summary here of the PPNA controversy. Andyvphil 13:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Two accounts? To whom is this directed?

I added the above heading and bracketed questions: I don't understand to whom the following comment is being directed. Someone moved this from editing history to talk page? who? Please clarify. --NYScholar 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)]

Are you using two accounts? Why do you keep editing this user's comments? Jiffypopmetaltop 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a spelling corrector though, hence. Extremely sexy 01:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

E.g. [16] Andyvphil 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, you got it, man. Extremely sexy 11:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There's actually some talk page guideline against Bart correcting spelling errors on talk pages uninvited, but I hereby invite him to correct any I make. And Giza D doesn't seem to be complaining either... Andyvphil 12:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, so and I will just continue in the same vein. Extremely sexy 11:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't touch mine anymore. Jiffypopmetaltop 01:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not though? Extremely sexy 12:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a protect Carter page

It seems that a few people want to protect Jimmy Carter from criticism that they are reverting claiming NPOV as their reasoning. The orginal edit was backed up by "C-Span" and the "Boston Globe". Let's just acknowledge that Carter refused to debate the Israeli expert Dershowitz and his questions were prescreened. Giza D 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Jiffy & NYScholar seem to want to exile crit of Carter's execrable book to, in effect, a footnote, and I will not agree to that. But they have a legitimate point that the book is a minor part of Carter's life and can't be given excessive prominence in the article. As a current event it needs to be treated more fully now than it will be later, but there is still a limited amount of space that should be devoted to it here. So, OK: Carter offered to make "free" book promotion appearances, so long as a plane was sent to pick him up and he didn't have to face a challenging format. And his dismissal of Dershowitz, who is his intellectual superior in every way, was ridiculous, as is every other aspect of the unjustified self-regard of this failed politician. But is this really the best way to use the limited space available to balance Carter's assessment of his own book? All you've done is shown he doesn't want to debate Dershowitz, who would make mincemeat of him even if Carter were more right than he is. For the third time, Professor Stein, Carter associate for a quarter century, first Executive Director of the Carter Center, co-author (alternating chapters) of an earlier Carter book on the same subject, and a professional historian wrote, of PPNA: "a title too inflammatory to even print... not based on unvarnished analyses; ...replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments". Given the source, that's a devastating critique, and it's about something more important than Carter's self-importance. But the Brandeis kerfuffle is consuming all the available space. Andyvphil 23:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nor is there any mention of Carter's "Too many Jews" remark... Tomer^talk 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to "protect" Carter; trying to conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

See the tag at top in talkheader: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Carter article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."

Therefore, just focus on how to make improvements to the article in keeping with all the guidelines and policies linked in the other tag WP:BLP.

Anyone who wants to read all of the representative criticisms of Carter's book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid can access them directly via the links already provided in the cross-referenced main articles; there are cross-links to main articles on the critics there, including Dershowitz. There is no neutral reason following both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV to highlight his criticisms over anyone else's.

The most neutral way to handle this is to refer to the main articles on both the book and commentary on the book, which both contain Wikiquote pages, where a wide variety of comments on the book (incl. Dershowitz's) are represented. Dershowitz's name is Wikified link here; Stein's pov is fully documented in the article Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, as is Dershowitz's pov. But it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to argue for or against those critics' points of view here or in those other main articles. There is no way to miss what they have to say or their points of view on the book. This article is about Jimmy Carter and not them. There is no attempt on my part to follow anything but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in my revisions of this section. In these revisions, and in making them, I do not make any comments on contributors instead of content: see WP:NPA. Just read the section with a fair and balanced mind in view of the guidelines in Wikipedia (as just linked). Try to stop injecting your own personal points of view on the controversy in reporting it. This is an encyclopedia article, not an argumentative essay. --NYScholar 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Now the way you have made the entry makes it appear that Carter's actions were thoughtful and reasonable. Either the whole Brandies situation should be put on this page, including Carter's contradictory stance on the debate, or all of it should be moved to the book page. I have to correct your errors now. Giza D 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill it all?

Outsider here. It is _beyond_ ridiculous to have the details of a debate that didn't even happen (Dershowitz) in a main biography of Jimmy Carter. I realize that a few people right now might think that so & so inviting Carter to debate so & so and Carter saying no for so & so reason but later being invited by so & so junior and speaking for x minutes with x protestors answering x questions which are not or are not available on the internet is of absolutely freaking vital importance in the scope of the man's life. But, it is not. Write all the exacting detail you want in a sub-article, but the very existence of that kind of detail in the main bio of a person of this importance is a gross violation of the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV. The Jimmy Carter article is not a playground to fight out the political tiff of the month. Derex 21:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the details are excessive. But Wikipedia is not paper, and current events are a staple. I've winnowed others' contributions to this section a couple times and I expect the process will continue as it fades into the past. But you have to be careful not to adopt Carter's self-importance, of which this event is illustrative. It appears to be his position that he is immune from facing criticism by any less exalted than himself. I won't insert that assertion in the article, but I insist that some evidence for his foibles be left to speak for iself. If not here, where? ... If the only evaluation of the book is Carter's that's an NPOV problem. I've made a suggestion several times about this but have not achieved consensus. I would appreciate your response. It would at least show that you are paying attention. Andyvphil 23:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia not being paper is a fine argument for a detailed subarticle. It is no argument at all for excessive detail in a main bio of a person with such enormously wide-ranging importance. Were we to include anything approximating that as a general rule, this would be a book not an encylcopedia article. Derex 01:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a huge pov fork and details should be left on the book page and not on the main bio article. I suggest that we bring the section to talk or leave it as a redirect stub. Jiffypopmetaltop 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)