Talk:Jimmy Carter/Archive 7

Replace infobox image
The image in the infobox was taken 40 years ago. Surely it should be updated to a more recent photo, at least from this side of the century? Commons has some recent portraits of him.  Nixinova  T  C  05:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All presidential infoboxes have the official portraits as the image, taken during their time in office, it has become standard. maybe you should call for RFC. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This photo now appears on the §Longevity section. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Should the frequent false reports of his death be mentioned?
I frequently see posts on Yahoo Answers saying that he has recently died. Easily several times a year, maybe more often, there is a rash of these.

I don't think it's really notable, at least not in this article (it might be more notable in the article on Yahoo Answers as an example of its lack of reliability).

But I think that it should be mentioned anyway, because when someone sees a report of his death and comes to Wikipedia (either to add a date or death to the article or just to read about the person), they should see that it isn't true.

47.139.46.85 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources that discuss this in sufficient depth, then maybe it belongs here. Otherwise, no. It should indeed serve to demonstrate that Yahoo Answers is unreliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not pander to these jokers who only want attention. Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Too Much of our Article's Material on Human Rights is Sunday School and Goody Two-Shoes
For example, the first two times we include this phrase:


 * " . . to promote and expand human rights."


 * " . . establish a Georgia Human Rights Council that would work toward solving issues within the state ahead of any potential violence."

In fact, I remember arguments, especially regarding foreign policy. Some people said if the U.S. focused too centrally on human rights, it would make us flat and predictable, and therefore playable. Others said, to the contrary, getting out in front on something as central makes us much more effectively a world leader (stating both views from U.S. perspective).

The only place I see where we address some of the controversy is in our Criticism of American policy sub-section:


 * "In 1984, Carter stated he had been wrongly presented as weak by Reagan due to a commitment to human rights during the previous presidential election, .  .  .  "



We should probably include more such material, pending good references of course. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

East Timor, and broader context being squarely within our wheelhouse here at Wiki
In fact, I'd say that, next to accuracy and a variety of good references, broader context is one of the defining characteristics of an encyclopedia. On that alone, I'd say the reasons why Indonesia invaded East Timor a scant one year and two months before Carter took office are relevant. Furthermore, since one of their reasons was to take the place of South Vietnam as the major regional ally of the United States, and especially since the Carter Administration largely accepted them as a regional ally, I'd say this one is highly relevant.

The two other reasons were to (1) avoid the "negative example" of an independent nation (East Timor was a former Portuguese colony within the archipelago of islands, most of which were and are Indonesia), and (2) the initial estimates of large amounts of oil and natural gas under the Timor Sea, which in fact turned out to be excessive estimates.


 * The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective, edited by Robert Gellately and Ben Kiernan, Cambridge University Pres, 2003, Ch. 8 "Encirclement and Annihilation": The Indonesian Occupation of East Timor, John G. Taylor, pages 174-75.

My thinking is we go with the first reason in our article, and the other two in a footnote. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A broader context is not needed here, as this is not an article about Indonesia. The details you wish to add are peripheral in this biographical article focused on major and informative events in the life of Jimmy Carter. Drdpw (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Even more so since Human Rights was one of the big themes of the Carter Administration. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , like said, the broader context is not needed here. This isn't an article about Indonesia. Stating that the Carter administration supported Indonesia in spite of its invasion into East Timor is sufficient. The other detail is a WP:COATRACK. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to try to find one or two additional sources which talks about East Timor in the context of the cold war. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , even with "additional sources about East Timor in the context of the cold war," you'll still be wandering WP:OFFTOPIC. Drdpw (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like you're listening to us. This isn't the place for background on East Timor and Indonesia. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

But if we happen to come across a reference which talks about why Carter made an exception to his human rights policy in this particular case, that would change things, right? I don't have such a reference at this time, but I do try to stay open to new quality references, as I'm sure we all do. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

East Timor, and three references within broad sweet spot, right?
A member deleted months-old material on Oct. 24. And when I added back most of it on Oct. 25, another member confirmed the deletion. And I myself favor short and sweet, too.

However, I do have doubts about going from three references down to just one. The two we've deleted are:





I suppose the first thing is to see how much each talks about Carter's time in office. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The Carter Presidency: A Re-evaluation:


 * "The American A-4 bomber was, along with the British Hawk, central to the saturation bombing campaigns of 1978-9. .  ..


 * "In fiscal year 1980, Indonesia received substantial US aid. It was one of six countries admitted to be violating human rights but whose aid was justified under statutory language which allowed aid which would 'directly benefit the needy people . . .'."

This is squarely within the Carter years. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and I have added the Dumbrell book citation along with one from an issue of of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to the section. Drdpw (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I think your edit is a clear improvement. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The book's clickable ISBN doesn't really take us anywhere useful


We can click on the specific ISBN and it takes us to a page with that number in a search box. We can click again, but we don't really go anywhere.

In general, I think we should limit the number of clickable bluebirds in a reference to a single useful one, or maybe, maybe two if the second is highly useful. So, yes, we should probably lose this ISBN (which is searchable in multiple places in the rare event a reader needs something beyond title, author, publisher, date, and page numbers like we have here). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It kinda tells you want the quote is, so I think it might be fine. Either way, I do support what you're trying to do here with the East Timor stuff. The current section reads like a condemnation of Carter's policy there with no context whatsoever. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The title of the book being clickable is helpful. The ISBN number, not so much and earlier today I deleted it with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Carter&diff=926478374&oldid=926432363 Regarding East Timor itself, I don't want to white wash it or anything of the sort. It was pretty awful.  I do want to put it in the context of the cold war. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have restored the ISBN to the citation; removing it weakens the citation. Before you cut any more ISBNs, please read ISBN. Drdpw (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * From the ISBN page, I also see "This Wikipedia page needs to be updated. In particular: in light of the March 2017 RfC, . . " Okay,, if you, or any of our fellow members for that matter, can explain how a highlighted ISBN delivers value for the majority of our readers, well, I am all ears. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jimmy Carter article and not broader topics such as this, please take this discussion to that talk page or to another more apropos place. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Myth propagation: "an association with the US Navy's fledgling nuclear submarine program"
A sentence in this article works to propagate the myth that President Carter was in the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarine program. He was not.

Carter had a 3-month TEMDU (temporary duty) assignment to Naval Reactors in Washington D.C. (I'm sure any number of secretaries did as well). He briefly attended the Navy's Nuclear Power School, then dropped out upon his father's death.

Those are the facts...and that's it as regards any "association" with the U.S. Navy nuclear submarine program. In other words, there wasn't any. None.

Serving aboard diesel submarines and working at a Canadian meltdown have zilch to do with the nuclear submarine program. Rickover brought very, very few officers from the diesel boat world (read: culture) over to the nuclear-powered boats...and, historically, Carter was not one of them.

One ref: https://atomicinsights.com/jimmy-carter-never-served-nuclear-submarine/

Like many, I have respect for Carter's other & many fine deeds. But it does his legacy no honor to propagate a falsehood.

Regards,

--67.48.200.162 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is the information being removed
Their is good reason why my information concerning Jimmy Carter should be sufficient. One being that a UTI is not trivial but important. If the case is that my paragraph about a UTI that I published is not notable enough, than Jimmy Carter Falling should not be acceptable in that section either. For falling and a UTI is very notable and both if left untreated can lead to death.BigRed606 (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The earliest-serving of the five living U.S. presidents
Carter was not, as Clinton and Obama began their presidencies in their 40's, while Carter was inaugurated at age 52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.193 (talk) 22:24, January 15, 2020 (UTC)
 * "Earliest" does not mean "youngest". Carter was sworn in in 1977, which is earlier than Clinton (1993) and Obama (2009). – Muboshgu (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020
AnnaLoggs1994 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC) I would like to request edit this page... Permanently!!!
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aasim 23:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020
Infobox Officeholder Jendais (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarification
Just a suggested edit to perhaps note Jimmy Carter didn't actually serve in WW2, he was (technically) in the Navy as he was a member of the Naval Academy starting in 1943 (during the war) but didn't graduate until 1946 (after the war). Thanks!

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

Styopa (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I didn't find a location in the article that says he served in the war, only that he was awarded the World War II Victory Medal. The article on that medal states that there are service members who received the medal despite not being a veteran of World War II. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020
Add "On March 22, 2019, Jimmy Carter became the longest living US president at 94 years, 172 days old surpassing George H.W. Bush", in the longetivity section. JayGatsby0 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is already in the article. "...on March 22, 2019, he gained the distinction of being the nation's longest-lived president, when he surpassed the lifespan of George H. W. Bush, who was 94 years, 171 days of age when he died in November 2018..." &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 12:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Longest married?
The news article [] says, "He has been married to wife Rosalynn for 73 years," which is probably the longest of any U.S. president, and if we can find a reliable source that confirms that Carter has been married longer than any other president, we could include that as well. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020
If possible, find a source that says he actually did vote in the 2016 general election and for whom, and add a proper citation to it at the end of In the Democratic primary, Carter voted for Senator Bernie Sanders,[347] and in the general election, voted for Hillary Clinton.[348]

Otherwise, change In the Democratic primary, Carter voted for Senator Bernie Sanders,[347] and in the general election, voted for Hillary Clinton.[348] to In the Democratic primary, Carter voted for Senator Bernie Sanders,[347] and said that in the general election he would vote for Hillary Clinton.[348]

because the citation (348) is from August 2016, when he had not yet voted in the general election, which wasn't held until November. He could have changed his mind and either not voted for voted for a different candidate, or an emergency could have prevented him from voting at all. The current text is not supported by the citation given, which doesn't say that he did vote in the general election or for whom. 47.139.41.227 (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Noted Carter's endorsement of Clinton during the DNC instead. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 12:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Naval Service
Carter's years at the Naval Academy from 1943-1946 are not included in cumulative years of service for military personnel. His years spent within the inactive reserve are also not included in cumulative years of service. Furthermore, the biography incorrectly states he served in the Navy Reserve from 1953-1961. This section needs to be updated to read: "Years of service- 1946-1953". This includes the time period between his commissioning and release from active duty.

I took the initiative to correct President Carter’s naval service. I used your information that you provided here on JC’s Talk page. I don’t have a military background like you seem to have. So I didn’t know before I read the read your information that years in the Naval Academy don’t count as years of service. I thought his years of Naval Service should be corrected to reflect his actual years of service. I hope you don’t mind me using the information you provided here. NapoleonX (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Years of marriage update
The Carters celebrated their 74th wedding anniversary in July 2020, making them the longest-wed presidential couple. Lacicero (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

new picture
Shouldn't a more up to date picture of Carter be used? EPIC STYLE (<b style="color: #120502;">LET'S TALK</b>) 07:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about the infobox image? When multiple images of a person are available, it's quite reasonable to use a picture from when the person was most prominent — for any US president, this will be a picture from when he was president.  Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Honors & awards
Why does the section close with "In 1991, he was made an honorary member of Phi Beta Kappa at Kansas State University." yet not include his many honorary degrees, including Oxford? Seems those would be a lot more important and the KSU thing is here because a KSU fan inserted it? Tempted to revise. --2603:7000:2145:5400:BD90:3BC5:FFA4:2CD6 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

He got the medel of freedom. 2601:1C2:101:3480:6C4E:310B:BAB0:DE2A (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021
I would like to have myself edit this page please. JimmyCarter1924 (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC) I would like to have myself edit this page please.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Africa Section
There is a link to the city of Salisbury, now known as Harare in that section. Right now, it links to the English city of Salisbury. The link should be changed so it links to the Zimbabwean city.

73.254.192.168 (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Source of father's wealth
The article currently says  As phrased, being elected caused him to be relatively wealthy. Now, I can't speak to the pay in 1953, but in 2021 the Georgia state reps make under $18,000/year. Half a year's pay would not make one a relatively wealthy man. Unless the sources cite this as the source of his wealth (and I don't have the sources to check), we should rephrase this. "Half a year into his term as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives, Earl Carter died in relative wealth.", perhaps. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request
Add April 24, 2021 next to October 1, 1924 2600:1700:9E90:5C50:34D9:887B:9C05:6439 (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Lede revert
To expand on my revert, I believe that attempting to list Operation Cyclone more prominently than any other policy pursued by the Carter administration is slightly WP:UNDUE. In particular, the bit about it being the CIA's single most expensive operation is out-of-place here because the vast expansion of the program under Carter's successors, Reagan and George H.W. Bush, could hardly have been foreseen during Carter's tenure in office. Reliable sources are clear that the actions approved by Carter in 1979 and 1980 to counter Soviet activity in Afghanistan were cautious, limited in scope, and further restrained by a desire to protect Pakistan from Soviet retaliation and to preserve plausible deniability—concerns that had all but evaporated by the middle of the 1980s. Without going into excessive granular detail, two sources that help to illustrate this point are listed below: Again, while the program drastically expanded under Carter's Republican successors to include things like the (in)famous provision of Stinger missiles to Afghan guerrillas and even "sabotage and propaganda operations inside Soviet Central Asia" (Coll p. 90), none of that was necessarily envisaged by Carter. Without those subsequent modifications, the inception of Operation Cyclone itself might seem far less significant in retrospect.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "In any event, policymakers back in Washington did not believe the Soviets could be defeated militarily by the rebels. The CIA's mission was spelled out in an amended Top Secret presidential finding signed by President Carter in late December 1979 and reauthorized by President Reagan in 1981. The finding permitted the CIA to ship weapons secretly to the mujahedin. The document used the word harassment to describe the CIA's goals against Soviet forces. The CIA's covert action was to raise the cost of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. It might also deter the Soviets from undertaking other Third World invasions. But this was not a war the CIA expected to win outright on the battlefield. The finding made clear that the agency was to work through Pakistan and defer to Pakistani priorities. The CIA's Afghan program would not be 'unilateral,' as the agency called operations it ran in secret on its own. Instead the CIA would emphasize 'liaison' with Pakistani intelligence. The first guns shipped in were single-shot, bolt-action .303 Lee Enfield rifles, a standard British infantry weapon until the 1950s. With its heavy wooden stock and antique design, it was not an especially exciting weapon, but it was accurate and powerful. —Source:"
 * "Charles Cogan: There were no lethal provisions given to the Afghans before the Soviet invasion. There was a little propaganda, communication assistance, and so on at the instigation of the [Pakistani] ISI. But after the Soviet invasion, everything changed. The first weapons for the Afghans arrived in Pakistan on the tenth of January [1980], fourteen days after the invasion. Shortly after the invasion, we got into the discussions with the Saudis that you just mentioned. And then when [William J.] Casey became DCI under Reagan at the beginning of 1981, the price tag went through the ceiling. —Source:"

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021
Please remove

Carter was also weakened by a signing of bill that contained many of the "hit list" projects.

and add

Carter was also weakened by signing a bill that contained many of the "hit list" projects.

Thank you. 64.203.186.80 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Personal Life
I would like to suggest the section on personal life be reversed. The family section should be first, and the sentences on home building and Elvis Presley should come at the end. His marriage and children are far more important than a brief acquaintance with Elvis, and perhaps the whole section on Elvis Presley should be cut.Princetoniac (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

He also was related to elvis --216.87.237.181 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021
Change from american politician to a politician 216.87.237.181 (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: He is an American politician so there's no need to remove information. --Ferien (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Gallup Poll?
In the section on the 1976 Democratic Primary, the article states that "As late as January 26, 1976, Carter was the first choice of only four percent of Democratic voters" and then cites a Gallup poll without actually providing said Gallup poll. Is there anywhere in which said poll (and evidence to support the January 26 statement) could be found?ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021
Hello, I would like to request you to fix the cite error shown at the end of this page according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Cite_errors/Cite_error_group_refs_without_references Thanks. Hutah (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2021
This is a very long sentence, and the "whom" is confusing.

In 1994, president Bill Clinton sought Carter's assistance in a North Korea peace mission,[252][253] during which Carter negotiated an understanding with Kim Il-sung, whom he went on to outline a treaty that he announced to CNN without the consent of the Clinton administration to spur American action.[254]

Please replace it with:

In 1994, president Bill Clinton sought Carter's assistance in a North Korea peace mission,[252][253] during which Carter negotiated an understanding with Kim Il-sung. Carter went on to outline a treaty with Kim, which he announced to CNN without the consent of the Clinton administration to spur American action.[254]

I think this is what's meant, but if this changes the intended meaning, at least please break the sentence into two sentences. 2600:1003:B858:E7D9:7C54:B668:61E6:4AB7 (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2021 (2)
This sentence has lots of duplication:

In 1994, president Bill Clinton sought Carter's assistance in a North Korea peace mission, during which Carter negotiated an understanding with Kim Il-sung, during which Carter negotiated an understanding with Kim Il-sung.

Please capitalize "president" and remove one of the two "during" clauses. 64.203.186.84 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ The duplication was an error on my part when answering the above request. President shouldn't be capitalized there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2021
Change activistithin in the introductory section paragraph 2 to activist within 108.255.38.91 (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Completed by Klue6824. — Sirdog (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Spelling problem in the intro
Currently it says "Nevertheless, his ambiton to expand" where ambiton should be ambition, but can't edit due to the page being semi protected.

2601:600:8B80:740:6570:CF02:17A5:3505 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)ranieuwe
 * ✅ Corrected spelling. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize info at the beginning
When I view this article on mobile, first I see info about the presidency, party membership, governorship, senatorship, then the infobox with his photo and other info including the military service, and after reading many phrases, I see info about his 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winning. In my opinion, this prize is so important, that it should be displayed much higher. Maybe just at the beginning: "is an American former politician who served as the 39th president of the United States from 1977 to 1981" -> "is an American former politician who served as the 39th president of the United States from 1977 to 1981 and was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002"? Another option is to include the Nobel info somewhere in the infobox. Maybe "Civilian awards" in the infobox should mention explicitly the Nobel Peace Prize? Grillofrances (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

No sound
Video "Carter discussing his legacy and the work of the Carter Center on the eve of his 95th birthday." is without sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dcboz (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

First sentence
Why is he an "American former politician" instead of a "retired American politician"? "former" can work for someone who just went into another line of work ("I lost that election; I guess I'd better send out some resumes"), but when you've stopped your political involvement because of your age, you're "retired". 49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Counterpoint; why isn't he just an "American politician"? Why do we need to say "former" or "retired" at all when we have date rangers? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "retired" is better because he's no longer very politically active. He's very well known for continuing his political activity after his presidency (which is very unusual), so the fact that he's no longer prominently politically active is more significant than for individuals like Bill Clinton, or for Gerald Ford before he died.  49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

WW2 veteran and Korean war veteran
Jimmy Carter should be listed as a WW2 veteran. He was in the Naval Academy from the summer of 1943 till his graduation in June of 1946. This qualifies him as a WW2 veteran. If you want to be picky you could call him a WW2 era Veteran as his service was state side for service training. He was also on active duty from 1950-1953 so he is at least a Korean war era veteran. His listing should at least say WW2 and Korean war Era at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.50 (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Carter and coal
The section on the U.S. energy crisis discusses (almost exclusively) Carter's plans on conservation, non-fossil fuels and so forth.....but no mention at all that one of the cornerstones of his plans was coal. In fact, in the very speech we link to (i.e. the so-called "The Crisis of Confidence" speech), Carter says this on coal: "I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our Nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source...[and later]...You know we can do it. We have the natural resources. We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on Earth."

Shouldn't this be included as well?Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Birthday
Update his age. He turned 98 today. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It updates automatically and will update after it becomes October 1. It is still September 30 in much of the world. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Additional information + sentence formatting change under Personal Life
According to this ABC article, Carter cited the Southern Baptist Convention’s views on the equality of women as the reason he left. I propose this change:

From ‘In 2000, Carter severed his membership with the Southern Baptist Convention, saying the group's doctrines did not align with his Christian beliefs, while still a member of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship’

To ‘In 2000, after the Southern Baptist Union announced they would no longer permit women to become pastors, Carter severed his membership with them saying “I personally feel that women should play an absolutely equal role in service of Christ in the church.” Carter remained a member of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship’

Arguably this addition may be overly detailed - but it gives the reader a more well rounded view of Carter and his views on faith and women. I believe also that the abc article is perhaps more suitable than the nyt article used as a reference - there is a hard paywall on the nyt article. However, the ABC article makes no reference to Carter’s remaining in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

Additionally ‘while still a member of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.’ does not work. I think it should be in a new sentence. Dangerscott (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

✅ 3mi1y (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image
I added a more recent image to the infobox which was reverted by another editor who told me to discuss this on the talk page. I think that we should use a more recent image of Carter while he is still alive, but once he dies, use an official portrait like all other presidents. Interstellarity (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We use the official portrait of still living presidents on their pages as well. I think the official portrait photo is best.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to discuss which official portrait we should use. I'll lay out some options on possible portraits. Which portrait do you think is best? Interstellarity (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also prefer a recent photo tbh. i dont care how someone looked like 50 years ago --FMSky (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally back Option 6, since it generally looks nicer. I think 5 has the best colors, but 6 is higher resolution. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,maroon,red,darkred,red,darkred,maroon); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 13:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I like Option 1 or 9.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We should use a photo from his period in office. Most of these are far too tall & would need cropping for an infobox, and 1 & 10 plus 5 & 6 are the same photo. Leave it as it is probably. Another annoying half-assed proposal from this editor. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am against using a recent photo because all presidents dead or alive are using official portraits. Clinton and Bush use official portraits despite being out of office for years and their appearances have changed. It’s more consistent. I support keeping the current infobox image. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You realized User:Interstellarity has just changed that, in mid-discussion? Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, well I’m in favor of option 9 then, I think that was the image used before this discussion began. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 9, I think this was the image used before this discussion began or at least the one used a few months back. It's the best quality image/portrait IMO.


 * Option 8 or Option 9 – option 8 was the image used prior to this discussion. I’m good with either. Corky  19:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw your revert on my edit changing the info box image. The reason why I changed it is that a substantial number of editors supported this image and the discussion has stopped since November. I would appreciate it if you could provide an explanation regarding your revert so that we can find common ground in something we can both agree with. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Carter ran as an outsider
He campaigned as the small town boy from rural Georgia, a simple peanut farmer... compared to well, Gerald Ford, member of Congress for 24 years, member of the Warren Commission etc etc.. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more specific as to what you want changed? Would be helpful to know what exactly is being taken issue with in the article. Thanks. Planetberaure (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was responding to this - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Carter&diff=prev&oldid=1140283889 AUSPOLLIE (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

President Carter enters Hospice Care
Carter Center: ATLANTA (Feb. 18, 2023) — After a series of short hospital stays, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter today decided to spend his remaining time at home with his family and receive hospice care instead of additional medical intervention. He has the full support of his family and his medical team. The Carter family asks for privacy during this time and is grateful for the concern shown by his many admirers.

Coasterghost (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Coasterghost prepare to start changing every "is" to "was" Shane04040404 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we not act like ghouls about this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,maroon,red,darkred,red,darkred,maroon); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 21:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Shane04040404 Yikes. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yikes, indeed! <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,maroon,red,darkred,red,darkred,maroon); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 21:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Praying for Carter. Such a good man. We love you! <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,maroon,red,darkred,red,darkred,maroon); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 21:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

UPI says Carter has received the last sacrament of the church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:3E43:4D00:9156:4ABB:5DC4:AF3D (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Which church? He is Baptist. Donald Albury 01:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the editors should start preparing a draft of his Wikipedia article phrased in the past tense? 2600:4040:96F4:8A00:ED90:5578:AA5:B940 (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's admittedly morbid and not what anybody wants. But it may be prudent in light of current events. 2600:4040:96F4:8A00:ED90:5578:AA5:B940 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors have been updating this article quite extensively over the last few days, and it is in very good condition. It will take less than 5 minutes to change tenses in this article when Mr. Carter dies, whether in 10 days or 10 years. We've got lots of experience in doing this, including adding the standard template. It is a bad idea to have multiple versions of an article around, because it is easy to "lose" updates and improvements to the main article. It's a pretty fundamental point that we don't maintain two versions of the same article.  Risker (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I always get off so hard on knowing that, everytime something happens (big or small) that changes a celeb's Wikipedia page, many Wikidorks will be disappointed that *they* didn't get to be the one to do the update. I love the thought of so many pale Wikipedians hovered over their keyboards, praying in vain that *they'll* get to be the "herald-of-death," but they'll fail because another Wikipedian will be faster.  This Schadenfreude really gets me revved up. 2601:14F:4400:A020:B0E9:22CC:B02C:9CF3 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ...Are you okay? <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,maroon,red,darkred,red,darkred,maroon); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 18:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is an understatement. I can't wait for "the voices made me do it" and "the clocks keep looking at me". AUSPOLLIE (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Capitol portraits
The three African-American Georgians whose portraits Carter had publicly displayed were King, Henry McNeal Turner and Lucy Craft Laney. I have no suggestion as to how that should be incorporated in the article, but now you know. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Wow (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2023
82.8.163.164 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Jimmy carter is currently the 3rd oldest living person to have served as a state leader.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2023 Jimmy Carter
The photo in the latter part of the article states it is President Carter in Plains in 2008. That is actually a photo of President Joe Biden on the bicycle. 2600:1700:5580:C880:946F:1A67:18C4:B9B4 (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That looks to be Carter in 2008. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see how File:JimmyCarteronBicycle.jpg looks like Joe Biden, but if you zoom in, it's clearly Jimmy Carter. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I made this mistake at first too. It's Carter. <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,maroon,red,darkred,red,darkred,maroon); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 16:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Health problems
This article says that Jimmy Carter didn't have any health problems at all until August 2015, when he was 90 (almost 91) years old. Is that true? I find that very hard to believe. Seinfeld429 (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Seinfeld429: By "health problems" here, the article's talking about serious ones, and, yeah, it doesn't list any before 2015, when he was diagnosed with cancer. It is exceptional, I'd agree (thus the Longevity subsection). Heavy Water (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of race names
Regarding comment in the article history "rm capital letter added by political minded editor (if black is not capitalized, white should not be either": there are contexts where the colors as hues are not capitalized but the color words used to name races are, as in "Zoe Saldaña is a Person of Color who plays a character with blue skin, Neytiri, and a character with green skin, Gamora".  In particular, most people including the editor that you reverted probably agree that if it is going to be "White" then it should also be "Black" when describing races.

However, I agree with a statement that you did not make: there are also contexts where the colors are not capitalized regardless, so whether we should use capitals is still worthy of debate. — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 14:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has some guidance in this area, see MOS:RACECAPS. To wit: "Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white).[h] The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort (Asian–Pacific, Black, Hispanic, Native American, Indigenous,[i] and White demographic categories)." Which is to say, we strive for consistency, but either "some Black people and some White people" or "some black people and some white people" are equally as correct.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, of course, "black" was used in the same sentence, and I don't see any, so I think this is a non-issue. Heavy Water (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This issue recently came up at Talk:Malcolm X, so I'm linking to that discussion, which involved the AP Stylebook. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Modify outline structure to identify "1980 Presidential Campaign" as a major topic
It contains important information of relatively wide interest that is made difficult to find because of the present organization of the article. I came here specifically to find out something about that campaign, and was initially frustrated when I thought it had not been written. The topic outline in the left panel, which should have guided me to the information immediately, shows "1976 Presidential campaign," followed by "Presidency." The last subtopic under that heading is "1980 Presidential campaign." The HTML should be changed so that topic shows up at the same level as the "1976 Presidential campaign." It's a very important topic in its own right, and certainly should not be treated as a subset of "Presidency." InquiringMind42 10:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by InquiringMind42 (talk • contribs)

Fascinating bias
He wrote extensively on Israel and apartheid and its not mentioned once? And when it's mentioned it's downgraded and written as "criticisms"? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I oppose the Palestinian leadership (much of it, particularly Islamic Jihad and Hamas, desire the expulsion or murder of the Jews (which obviously cannot be achieved with negotiation)) but MY views do not belong in the article and neither do yours. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't write anything of my views, you did. I wrote that Carter wrote a book where he criticized Israel's policies as apartheid, and wondered why that was not mentioned in the article, or even given any weight. Carter's views certainly do belong in his own biography. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You'll need to provide secondary sources discussing this to demonstrate WP:DUEWEIGHT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If Carter wrote such a book -- it is a worthy addition (as are any books written by such persons).
 * The topic of the book -- its thesis -- may be wrong-headed. But that does not mean the book should not be mentioned.
 * Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ... it's not mentioned once? And when it's mentioned ...
 * See Jimmy Carter – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I literally created that section myself, from scratch. Keep the facepalm to yourself. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I love when wikipedia users complain about bias due to the omission of a particular bit of information, as if any distinct piece of information is barred from wikipedia. Find an objective way to describe it and add it. HistorianFromSyracuse (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This! If you think an article is missing key information, add it, or ask someone else to. It's not bias to miss out info, if a person was a member of the Nazi Party for example, the sentence "Name was a German politician" would not be biased; it'd be missing info. If the sentence was something more like "Name was a German politician who served under the Nazi Party, but he was one of the good ones" or something sillier than that example, then yeah, you could state bias, but this point needs to be clear; I've seen this dispute way too often. Omission =/= bias.
 * ~ <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,maroon,red,darkred,red,darkred,maroon); -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Mycranthebigman of Alaska ^_^ 19:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I clearly stated that it was mentioned and downplayed as “criticisms”, and not mentioned as “apartheid”. Check the version of the article when I wrote this and see for yourselves. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Stop including bias in your statements. 2600:4040:5365:8E00:A522:4F56:641:FEA6 (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You did not clearly state that. Go back and look at your post. You haven’t clearly formed a question or framed your point, and you did not propose any alternative ways of writing about this topic. You didn’t even make it clear in your post that Carter was comparing the state of the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians to Apartheid, you just said he wrote about them. Nobody can read your mind. It’s not a surprise that people who get upset at the wording of things on Wikipedia can’t communicate. Refer to my last post for advice on using Wikipedia. HistorianFromSyracuse (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"Carter appealed to voters after the scandals of the Nixon Administration, and is credited with introducing the term "born again" into American lexicon."
These statements are introduced without any references. Both of these are big deals, without references. The editor who is adding them suggests that they are hinted at in the religion section. They aren't, and I'd be worried if the religion section was making claims that Carter was elected because of scandals of a previous administration; that's a political analysis, not a religious one. Given I can easily find references to the term "born again" going back to the 1960s, I have a hard time believing that it was Carter's presidency that brought that term into the "American lexicon".

This article is going to be at the top of ITN in the near future. We have a responsibility to make sure that every significant statement is properly referenced. So if these statements can be referenced, they should be appropriately placed in the text of the article and the citations added. Risker (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's a contemporary discussion of his appeal. NY Times, April 25 1976. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Daniel K. Williams in The Election of the Evangelical: Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and the Presidential Contest of 1976; Randall Balmer in Redeemer: The Life of Jimmy Carter; amid many others, have entire books about this. Carter's evangelical faith and piousness was central to his appeal in the 1976 presidential election against Ford and popularized the term "born-again". It strains credibility to say that this is not worthy for mention in the article. (Including the lead.).
 * The claim itself is sourced from the sources in the "religion" section. KlayCax (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Randall Balmer in Redeemer: The Life of Jimmy Carter KlayCax (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Burke's article, the one that mentions the usage of the term "born again", says . It does not say that Carter or his election introduced the term into the American lexicon. That is a pretty odd article, in that it stars with a discussion about Billy Graham, a preacher commonly associated with that term, having held political influence as far back as the Truman era. I suggest that be directly attributed to Burke, as in "Burke states that Carter introduced the term "born again" into the political sphere." (It should also be made clear that Burke's area of expertise is religion, and not politics. From the tagline of the article: "Daniel Burke is a contributing editor at Tricycle: The Buddhist Review and the former religion editor at CNN.") The Balmer article focuses mainly on the influence of Carter's religious beliefs on his foreign policy while President, and I suggest it should be incorporated into the Foreign policy of the Jimmy Carter administration article. Given that Balmer is a theologian and not a political expert, I'd suggest that he is not sufficiently expert enough to analyse the effects of evangelicals supporting Carter. The New York Times on November 6, 1976 ran an analysis article entitled “South Savors Carter Victory And the Status It Symbolizes”, where the author draws the conclusion that Carter won because of extremely strong support of Black voters in the South, as well as voters from the industrial cities of the northern states. There wasn’t any discussion of faith-based issues. Frankly, I'd be inclined to remove the whole sentence from the "religion" section, and it definitely doesn't warrant mention in the summary. Risker (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * means here. That Carter's usage of the term popularized the term in American lexicon is indisputable and is backed by a multitude of reliable sources.  His religiosity is a notable part of his character and should definitely be included in the lead.
 * As for Randall Balmer: he is both a theologian and historian of religion and by all means a reliable source; Redeemer: The Life of Jimmy Carter has been extensively cited in the academic literature. Other historians similarly say Carter's evangelical faith played a key role in his support during the 1976 election. KlayCax (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Introduced" means...introduced. It does not mean "popularized"; they aren't synonyms in any way. (Bluntly put, the well-sourced Wikipedia article about the term makes it clear that it was in common use well before Carter's first election.) And constantly referring to clearly biased texts (i.e., religious-based as opposed to independently historically validated) isn't proving your point, except to suggest that it's a viewpoint held by some religious commentators. It is probably reasonable to say that some religious commentators [with the 3 references you have identified] state that Carter's faith played a role in his support during the 1976 election, although perhaps it would be helpful to explain why that support dried up for the 1980 election. I mean, he was still an evangelical. That level of balance would be helpful. Risker (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Carter by Hart.jpg

Grammatical correction needed
Paragraph 2 Carter was born and raised in Plains, Georgia, graduated from

should be

Carter was born and reared in Plains, Georgia, graduated from

(Peanuts are raised, children are reared.)

Please correct this, as teacher/governor/President/veteran Carter should not be so dishonored by having bad grammar on his wikipage. Thanks 2601:100:8980:78A0:20EC:4269:BD4:3574 (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Most people say "raise children" (and use less and few "wrong"). We should go by what our readers say and write, not cling to pedantic over formality. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be: and use "less" and "few" incorrectly. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:F958:141E:1363:C534 (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023
In the 1980s former President Jimmy Carter took up painting in his free time. Using his home woodworking shop as a studio, Carter has since produced more than a hundred works, capturing the landscapes and people of his beloved Plains, Georgia, and the far-flung places to which he has traveled to advance the work of the The Carter Center. Book: The Paintings of Jimmy Carter ISBN 9780881466881. King Beef Jerky (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Illusion Flame: Well, they have a source. Whether it supports that or not, I don't know. And obviously they formatted their request incorrectly. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the article already does give due coverage of his painting and woodworking, and other than introducing a whole lot of unnecessary purple prose and hagiography on the matter, the proposed addition adds nothing to the article. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023
The 1980 eruption of Mt. St Helens also happened at the end of his presidency 2001:D08:D8:8CAC:E9D7:722A:6E9C:D0B8 (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

1943 is the start of his Naval service..
You have him starting his military service in 1946. That is not the truth. He joined the navy in June of 1943 with the US navy class of 1947. 2600:1015:A012:9074:E348:9FF:EFB6:4430 (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I found this from the Academy: "Naval Academy students are midshipmen on Active Duty in the U.S. Navy." If that was true at the time, then it indicates 1943 as the start of service. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Carter graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1946. He was a student during World War II, when requirements were accelerated, so he graduated in three years, not four.


 * Even though students are considered to be members of the military and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, their time at an academy does not count as time in service. Federal time in service begins at commissioning. There was a well-known case at the U.S. Court of Claims where Daniel Noce sued to have his academy time count for time in service. He won in the lower courts, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against him.


 * Based on these facts, Carter's military service began in 1946, as the article states. Billmckern (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Not true as a midshipman in the summer of 1944 he spent 6 weeks on a destroyer chasing Nazi subs. Your claim he did this duty as a civilian is idiotic.


 * And the facts you can cite to prove your assertion are?

The proof you have requested is all ready shown in his being awarded the American campaign medal. A medal awarded for war time service up until March 2, 1946. His 6 weeks of chasing Nazi subs in the summer of 1944 made him eligible for that award. He was on that destroyer as an active duty midshipman not as a civilian. The US navy does not issue the American campaign medals to civilians. Like you seem to believe.


 * Naval Academy students go to sea during their summer academic breaks. It's part of their education. And as I've indicated, service for service academy graduates starts after graduation. Billmckern (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * March 2, 1946 Jimmy carter would of still have been a midshipman not graduating until June of 1946. How could he receive a ww2 campaign medal? Because he did active duty on a us Navy ship in 1944 that's how. 2600:1015:A022:2D41:50FA:A14B:947A:E33B (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For more proof just read what the qualifications are required for the American campaign medal. He recived it for his time in 1944 chasing Nazi subs on the east coast. 2600:1015:A021:8A94:FC04:E884:C8BE:237F (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * How many times can we go over this. Naval academy midshipmen go to sea as part of their training. That's doesn't count for time in service. In fact, no academy time counts for time in service, as I explained above. Cadets and midshipmen can go to sea, go to military schools, and earn the applicable service medals or qualification badges, but that still doesn't count for time in service. Billmckern (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request - 9 June 2023
In the Legacy section, the page states "Carter was the first incumbent president since Herbert Hoover in 1932 to lose a reelection bid." This is incorrect - Gerald Ford lost his reelection bid in 1976 to Jimmy Carter. Elidunn1 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ford did not seek reelection. He was never elected. Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This feels "too cute by half." Perhaps it should say "Carter was the first elected  incumbent president since…"? jhawkinson (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * While Wiktionary adheres to that strict definition, dictionary.com provides that definition of reelection, in addition to one of simply being elected to continue serving. I think jhawkinson's suggestion makes sense (the source notes "Carter had become the only elected president to lose his bid to stay in the White House since Republican Herbert Hoover in 1932") and I've implemented it. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Health update from May
Carter’s grandson released a statement in May stating what I wrote, the edit was reverted. Hellopeople900 (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to properly source the statement. First time, you didn't provide any source at all and I reverted you. Second time, you used a source that is considered unreliable per WP:NYPOST, and it was just linked to the main page of that site (no article at all). Another editor reverted you there, for not just that, but for other problematic edits you made . MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I see you undid your own edit on that here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hyphen
I saw this edit summary and thought it might be helpful to comment here; I'm not going to get involved in reverting anyone but wanted to try to answer the "why a hyphen" question. The words "below average" wouldn't be hyphenated unless the two words are being used to describe and modify a noun, in which case they become a compound adjective and would use a hyphen, similar to how "English language" becomes "English-language sources" as used in WP:NONENG for example. Describing presidents as "below-average president" (with the hyphen) is reflected in media usage as well (LATimes, Axios, CFR, Washington Post). As I said I am not going to edit the article, I just wanted to point out that adding the hyphen wasn't wrong because it's a compound adjective in this instance. - Aoidh (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the hyphen is wrong there. I don't think it is a compound adjective because "below" is an adverb, not an adjective.  You can have "English sources" and "language sources", but if you want to indicate that the sources are from the English language, then I think you do need the hyphen: "English-language sources".  You use a compound adjective when they don't make sense individually.  You can have "average president" but not "below president", so you shouldn't use a hyphen in "below average president" - the meaning is clear.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

is an expert on this. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It may or may not be necessary, I'm not sure and will defer to ChrisTheSpeller if there's a reason why it wouldn't apply, but I was just trying to point out that as far as usage in reliable sources adding the hyphen isn't wrong, even if it isn't necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I was wrong. I asked my language expert friend, and he says that you do need the hyphen.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonsense --FMSky (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What about it is nonsense? Also to fix the ping above, the name has spaces and would be . - Aoidh (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Instead of "compound adjectives", let's talk about "compound modifiers", which can be made up of various parts of speech, including adverbs. The WP article compound modifier says "these adverbs without the -ly suffix therefore commonly take a hyphen." Washingtonpost.com almost always uses a hyphen ("earned a slightly below-average grade last season"). The hyphen is definitely correct in this case. Chris the speller   yack  01:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Gloss on "hospice care"
This article from the Washington Post states that Carter "chose to opt out of any more 'medical intervention'"; he decided he would no longer receive treatment in a hospital because that would take him away from Rosalynn's side. In this case, "entering hospice care" does not imply that his death is imminent. FWIW. Donald Albury 17:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hospice care requires that the patient must in fact be dying. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends on how you define "imminent". While more than half of patients entering hospice care die within three weeks, 6% of hospice patients survive more than six months. Carter is already into the long tail of survivors. Statistically, he now has considerably more than a 6% chance of surviving more than 6 months after entering hospice. Donald Albury 15:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * He has opted out of medical intervention and will remain in hospice care until the end of his life. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023
Edit the last sentence about his great great grandfather's relationship with "a black female slave that he owned" to "a Black woman he enslaved." 204.209.15.71 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ That would probably be a misuse of the word "enslave". The proposed sentence would be valid only if Carter's ancestor had been the one who first forced the woman into slavery. It is far more likely that he bought or inherited the female slave. - Donald Albury 19:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the fact that his great-great-grandfather would still have owned the woman (and that she would have “worked” for him as a slave) means that for all intents and purposes he enslaved her. I don’t think the verb “enslave” necessarily only applies to the first moment in time one person captured another person as a slave. He bought her as a slave and kept her as a slave, which means he enslaved her. That she was already enslaved by another is ultimately irrelevant here. 103.211.18.33 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The definition of "enslave" is "to make someone a slave". Why are you so set of avoiding saying that someone was a slave? How is is saying that a person was enslaved better than saying that they were a slave. It is a unnecessary euphemism. Slavery was a horrible institution. Being a slave was never the fault of the slave. Calling a slave an "enslaved person" is mealy-mouthed, and does not make the fact of slavery less horrible, although I think some hope it obscures that horror. Donald Albury 00:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but I would submit that it is the “enslaved” construction that more decisively captures the horrifying reality of slavery, in that it phrases it as an action that one individual actively committed against another. To say “he enslaved” is to rightly put the onus of perpetuating slavery on the enslaver, as opposed to “a slave he owned,” which arguably continues to dehumanise the enslaved person by making it their primary ontological identification. If an individual X makes an individual Y work for them under conditions of slavery, regardless of whether X was the first to do it or last, does it not mean X enslaved Y, using the definition you quoted yourself: “to make someone a slave?” I do not see how using enslaved in any way or form obscures the horror of slavery. I think either construction is ultimately fine (I am not the original IP who made the edit request; I was only responding to your rationale for not using “enslaved”), but there are interesting debates over it that may explain the issue better than I can: https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/05/historians-debate-whether-to-use-the-term-slave-or-enslaved-person.html . 103.211.18.33 (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023
Jimmy Carter in HS: should read:…”joined Future Farmers….[use hyperlink for FFA website].” NOT as written now -> NOT “joined a youth organization. The way it is now is like saying he joined a youth organization called the Boy Scouts. Sociologically - Across the U.S, Future Farmers is as well known as the Boy Scouts. It’s like saying “he joined a youth organization called the Boy Scouts” - Any Jr HS or HS kid in America knows it. It’s weirdly grammatically wrong. Ubiquitous to American schools forever. Comes across as ESL contributor 2603:7000:8240:15:3922:2A3A:3F9B:6392 (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ ayakanaa  ( t · c ) 04:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit from 4th to 3rd oldest
Needs to be changed to 3rd oldest living from fourth oldest 2601:18C:9100:6440:A841:6093:CBC2:B672 (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Acalamari 12:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (Who died? The three above him on List of oldest living state leaders seem still extant.) --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 16:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was honestly confused as to why you commented as you did and why I was reverted, as the list showed Carter in third; however, it seems that the revision of the page I saw when making the change was vandalism. The above IP and I both didn't realize nor did I think to check, unfortunately. Acalamari 02:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Death
Someone needs to add his date of death and details. As is, Wikipedia shows his age at 99 as if he is still alive. Today (on the day Rosylyn has passed) I see articles that say he was 99. Poor journalism, it seems some are simply not paying attention to details, possibly relying on the Wikipedia clock continuing as if he is still alive. 68.4.64.117 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Traditionally men usually died before women, but in the 20th century there are many counter-examples. Sandra Bem died in 2014; 9 years later her husband is still alive. Georgia guy (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously? The Carter Center's message about Rosalynn's death includes a statement from Jimmy because Jimmy is still alive. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia shows that he is still alive because that's accurate. He released a statement today. Wikipedia would not change this article to state that he is no longer alive without reliable sources verifying that information. His being alive at 99 is not unrealistic, there are individuals older than 99. - Aoidh (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd humbly propose that the article continue to state that Jimmy Carter is alive, given the minor detail that he's currently alive. GoPats (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * are you sure about it. You know he's dying. 24.222.102.50 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023
Please change the following text:

Bush v. Gore did not rule that "Bush had won". It ruled that the Florida recounts must stop. While Bush was declared the winner following the ruling, to say it specifically ruled that Bush had won is factually incorrect, and such an assertion is not present in the source provided. 87.115.251.186 (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Humanitarian
If we are going to say that Jimmy Carter was an “American politician and humanitarian…” we might as well list that he was a peanut farmer. Or just not list that he was a humanitarian at all. It seems pointless. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not pointless. His post-presidency career as a humanitarian is central to his notability. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Wars and battles
Jimmy Carter did not serve durning WW2 the war was over in 1945, Carter joined the us navy in 1946 2600:1009:B04D:2AB7:497F:7ABB:C74A:A914 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Midshipmen at Annapolis were considered part of the Navy. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Korean War not WW2
Jimmy Carter served during Korean War not World War 2 2601:19C:5100:1054:2178:3C81:A130:BD67 (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Midshipmen at Annapolis were considered part of the Navy. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023
27.123.137.202 (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Jimmy Carter is dead can I edit his Wikipedia
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Liu1126 (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2023
Possible vandalism regarding Carter's death, which included including today as date of death, which has not been reported by any news outlet 186.84.88.253 (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Cannolis (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2024
In chapter 'naval career': Please change 'The painstaking process required each team member to don protective gear' to 'The painstaking process required each team member to wear protective gear'.

'don' is an error. Jackthegek (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "Don" means to put on an article of clothing. I don't see what the issue is. Billmckern (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see definition. M.Bitton (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that word. thanks! but can't another, more common, word be used instead? Wikipedia's language should be understandable for its readers. Jackthegek (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Portrait should be changed
I always thought the portrait used in this article was not ideal. Not only is Carter's expression weird (a half-assed smile instead of the big one he is known for), the specific image is an edit of, and as you can see, the saturation, sharpness and brightness are all turned up the wazoo. It just stands out next to the other presidents' portraits.

I suggest we change it for or maybe even. Guyermou (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Missing word in first paragraph in subsection 'Economy'
There seems to be a word missing in this sentence 'Due to the $30 billion economic stimulus legislation – such as the Public Works Employment Act of 1977 – proposed by Carter and passed by Congress, real household median had grown by 5.2%, with a projection of 6.4% for the next quarter.' between 'median' and 'had'. The missing word is likely to be 'income' but I do not have acceses to the source. — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 16:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC) —

Bosnian Ceasefire
There should be a mention that he negotiated a four month cease fire during the Bosnian War. Here is an article about it from the Washington Post. Here is the Carter Center article about it if that's an acceptable source. The Vital One (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)