Talk:Jimmy Carter

Please change it. It’s in the personal life section 64.18.11.12 (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:I researched this a bit and suggest the following new language: Donnel Jeffrey “Jeff” Carter was born August 18, 1952 to James Earl “Jimmy” and Rosalynn (nee Smith) Carter.

:

:Source https://jimmycarter.info/

:MOnTheHunt (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

This reiterated phrase is in the main section. Sure, it doesn't really matter too much but at this point in time, it would be better off as "only U.S president" because as all of us know, Jimmy Carter is the only U.S president to accomplish this feat and if it happens again, then we can consider the wording of "first U.S president" but I think we have a long while before we even get a runner-up in that regard. ~ MountainJew6150 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

: I agree. Being the first to do something puts you in a special category for sure, but being the only one makes you unique. That's worthy of emphasis. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not think that reaching 100 is a "feat" that Carter "accomplished"; nor do I think it is "doing something," other than not dying. Carter was lucky -- okay, maybe he exercised and ate right, but, nevertheless, his having reached 100 is trivia and, in my opinion, does not belong in the lead. I will not delete it, because everyone else seems to want it there. I merely offer you something to consider. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:It would be far better to say among other things, "the longest-lived US president." The gosh he reached 100 is the trivia part. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::Why even "the longest-lived US president"? If he had still been serving as president at age 100, that would be noteworthy. The fact that he was the longest-lived is no more important than if he'd been the tallest or the shortest. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:I was today years old when I found out that surviving 100 years, something only about a mllion people out of 8 billion currently living people, wasn't a feat that is accomplished. Sure it's "trivia" but frankly, let's be straight up, 90-95 of Wikipedia is glorified trivia that is presented as important information. If him reaching 100 doesn't belong in the lead, then his post presidency work doesn't belong in the lead either, nor does for example, on Donald Trump's page, the fact that he became the oldest president in history twice and is the second non consecutive term president (that's not even a anti Trump sentiment since we're supposed to be objective here), but if those objectively true fact about Trump shouldn't be in his lead, then this objectivelt true Carter fact shouldn't be. But yes, being the ONLY president in 250 years to live to 100 is indeed something to put in the lead and acknowledge as noteworthy for the sheer rarity of the fact, with it being again the first time in TWO HUNDRED FIFTY YEARS! One more counter argument, if him being the first president of 45 people to be president living too 100 years old isn't worth putting in the lead, and is considered un-needed material, then by extension we shouldn't have the first female president referencing it as well in her lead when it eventually happens, because both are equally rare and impressive feats, they are both at the end of the day, trivia by this logic. 71.8.165.62 (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

::People are fascinated not just because he reached 100, but which way he did. Not only he reached 100, but even more impressive is the fact that he is the first president to be born in a hospital. First time in US history that a president born in a hospital, and immediately becomes first president to reach 100! Context matters!213.230.87.116 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The debate over whether Carter reaching 100 is significant reminds me of how longevity is perceived differently in global politics. In the U.S., it's a rare milestone, but in other countries, some leaders remain active well into old age. Mahathir Mohamad, for example, was still running for office at 97. Perhaps it's not just about reaching a certain age, but also about how one spends those later years. Baginda 480 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740618089}}

{{discussion top|The user clearly does not have consensus to enact this change, as various editors point out that Jimmy Carter's notability does not only stem from his presidency, or his political activities in his native Georgia, but also from humanitarian efforts post-presidency. It may be even argued that to the contrary, there is consensus against this proposal. Either way, the lead sentence stays. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)}}

Should the first sentence of the lead be rewritten to read as follows:

James Earl Carter Jr. (October 1, 1924 – December 29, 2024) was an American politician and humanitarian who served as the 39th president of the United States, serving from 1977 to 1981? Векочел (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Jimmy Carter isn't just notable for his presidency, while he is known for this by many, he was also known for his time as the governor of Georgia and in the Georgia state senate. His humanitarian efforts are also notable and well known. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• No – It is very normal to introduce a subject by describing them more generally, even if they are known for a particularly significant role. The current wording is appropriate. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. Carter held the most powerful and, arguably, most important political office in the world. The same applies to most U.S. presidents from the early 20th century onward. The short, succinct description is the most appropriate, if not routine (i.e. established through practice) in Wikipedia. E.g. Franklin D. Roosevelt; John F. Kennedy; Lyndon B. Johnson; and so on. As an aside, encomiums such as the one in the present notation invite a veritable Pandora's box of editorial disputes. Let's follow Franklin D. Roosevelt. -The Gnome (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• No {{sbb}} I see no reason to avoid terms commonly applied to Carter, and I see no reason at all to standardize introductory sentence across articles about US presidents - they were different people, it is normal to introduce them differently. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::A lot of people would object, practically by definition, to denoting as "humanitarian" a US president, on account of their policies, especially internationally. We're looking at a future series of RfC's on such an appellation. Why not have the humanitarian aspects of Carter's policy simply in the main text? -The Gnome (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::He is described as a humanitarian for his post-presidential works, not as a description of his time in office. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes He was notable for being a politician and the highest office he held was president. The rest of his works can be mentioned further down in the lead, but he was a politician first. Nemov (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. Succinctly summarizes what he is most known for, per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• No. While I'm unsure whether "humanitarian" is an appropriate label for the first sentence (it doesn't feature heavily in the body), the proposed version seems reductive of the rest of his political career. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. There is no higher office in the United States of America. It is his most notable achievement and the extra words feel like WP:PUFFERY. As Nemov stated, his political and humanitarian contributions can still be stated in his article. The lead sentence can just get to the point. Penguino35 (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• No The lead sentence absolutely needs to call him a humanitarian, as that is a major part of his notability. His post-presidency humanitarian efforts were just as impactful, if not more, as his presidency. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• No Yes - I actually think the nom's proposed wording is better than the current wording, but I am voting "no" for WP:OTHERCONTENT reasons. If you look at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, they use wording similar to the current wording on this article. For the sake of consistency, I think we ought to preserve the current wording. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• :After reading User:The Gnome's comment; it's sorta interesting that for the newer presidents, we seem to use the "John Doe was an American and politician who served as....." language, and for the older ones we use the more succint language. Was that a concious decision? NickCT (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::Oh weird. Looking at this further, it seems like the wording differs for living versus dead presidents. Is that the issue here? NickCT (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::Ok. After reconsideration; it seems like the convention is that the wording changes for living versus dead presidents. I'm not sure I understand why the wording changes, but I'd stick to that convention. I'm changing my vote. NickCT (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It's because of MOS:BLPTENSE. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::It's not just the tense though. For living presidents we seem to say "John Doe is an American and politician who served as the Nth president of...." For dead presidents we say more succinctly "John Doe was the Nth president of....". NickCT (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Actually, nevermind. Reagan and Ford seem to break the rule. I'm not sure why sometimes we use the "potlician and X" language, and sometimes we're more succinct. NickCT (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Yes, that's because of MOS:BLPTENSE. Living presidents can't be introduced using the past tense. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I think you may be misinterpreting what I'm saying. Forget the "is" and "was". Some bio's for presidents use " and politician" in their first line, and some use "Nth president of the United States". Tense doesn't come into play. NickCT (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Yes, but no {{em|living}} president's bio uses "Nth president of the United States" precisely because of the tense issue. If Carter were still living, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I'm confused. We could say "Barack Obama was the 44th president of the United States". Using "was" doesn't infer he's dead. NickCT (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::According to MOS:BLPTENSE, that's what it implies: {{tq|If a person is living but has retired, use {{xt|is a former}} or {{xt|is a retired}} rather than the past tense {{!xt|was}}.}} ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• No. It is a good introduction to the article, as he was not only politician who served as president, but also has notable humanitarian career years after leaving the presidency. Onikaburgers (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Nothing historically a US president has done besides serving as president has ever eclipsed, or even approached, in terms of notability the attribute of having been a president. Let's not forget that no US president was only a president in their lives; everyone was also something else: Randomly, Trump has been a famous real estate investor, as well as a TV personality. Grover Cleveland was a sheriff. LBJ served in Congress for almost forty years before assuming the presidency. Ike was a gigantic military figure of World War II. And so on. (Twenty-five American presidents were lawyers, some of them quite notable in their time.) This is not about "good" or "bad" introductions; it's about what's distinctly most notable about the person. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I get your point, but I disagree that the presidency always eclipses everything else. Some presidents had pre- or post-presidency careers that were historically significant in their own right—Carter’s humanitarian work being a prime example. His Nobel Peace Prize and decades of global efforts weren’t just a side note; they became a major part of his legacy. The same can be said about Reagan, whose acting career was prominent, and mentioning it in the lead sentence not only provides important context but also helps establish the tone of the article. The idea that a president’s other achievements are automatically secondary oversimplifies history. Onikaburgers (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::And FYI, even Trump's leading sentence introduces him as a media personality, and businessman besides being a president. Onikaburgers (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::The intro to the Trump article, wholly justified, speaks volumes about Trump's career. And, after saying this, I break into a Forrest Gump run to get away. -The Gnome (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• No I'm not strongly opposed to the change, but it doesn't seem like much of an improvement. MOS:OPENPARABIO says that the first sentence should include {{tq|one, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for}}. Obviously Carter is known for being president, but he didn't exactly go down in history as one of the "greats". His legacy isn't so much about his presidency as it is about his humanitarianism and his character. The current wording says what needs to be said. The lead itself, in the third paragraph, currently says "{{tq|Polls of historians and political scientists have ranked Carter's presidency below average. His post-presidency—the longest in U.S. history—is viewed more favorably.}}" I don't think it would be helpful to remove the thing that even his political opponents regarded him highly for to focus solely on what he was known for being...okay at. Kerdooskistalk 20:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Greetings, Kerdooskis. I'm afraid the criterion you invoke is rather political. Do we really want to shape the article on the basis of being just ("helpful"?) to Carter's legacy? Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Not to speak for Kerdooskis, but that seems like a pretty unfair reading of {{their|Kerdooskis}} comment. Perhaps {{they|Kerdooskis}} meant we should include content that is helpful for readers? – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The Gnome—I'm not sure what you're implying (that I'm pro-Carter?), but Anne drew is correct. This is about making the article helpful to readers and portraying the topic accurately. Carter's humanitarianism efforts are a significant component of his legacy (regardless of one's perspective of him politically or socially), at least as significant as his one term as president. The first sentence in the lead should summarize the topic's notability, not merely the seemingly most important job title the person had. So it wouldn't make sense to remove the "humanitarian" label for Carter. I just don't see how anything is gained with the change; it trades info on the topic's notability for, I suppose, some word count efficiency. Kerdooskistalk 17:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::No, it's not about maintaining "the legacy", it is about helpful introduction to the article. Onikaburgers (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::"Notability" then, which I used multiple times. Kerdooskistalk 04:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I agree with your point and was just replying to The Gnome, who I am not sure what they are trying to imply with their twisting. Onikaburgers (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::*Oh, sorry! Didn't notice the indentation, or lack of. Thanks! Kerdooskistalk 22:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::*Care to clarify please, Onikaburgers, what do you mean by "twisting"? -The Gnome (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::*:I meant that your comment seemed to misrepresent Kerdooskis’ argument by suggesting they were trying to shape the article in a way that favors Carter’s legacy, rather than focusing on how to best summarize his notability for readers. That’s why I clarified that the goal is to provide a helpful introduction, not to maintain anyone’s "legacy." If that wasn’t your intent, then fair enough, but that’s how it came across from reading your comments. Onikaburgers (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:No. Carter is uniquely significant for his post-presidency humanitarian work. Heck, one of the things he's famous for is being a president that most people liked more after he wasn't president anymore because of how well known he became for his charity work. I'd be totally open to changing the word "humanitarian" out for something better if anyone has any ideas, but the first sentence should have some kind of allusion to his work in the Carter Center and such. CambrianCrab (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• No, one size does not fit all. In the case of Carter, his Presidency ended in the ignominy following the fall of the Shah and the subsequent Iran hostage crisis. Despite that he acquired a new public role and widespread international respect for his post-presidency activities and stances. I'm not sure that 'humanitarian' is necessarily the best term. Much of what Carter later did would once have been described as being a 'statesmann' role internationally and in domestic comments, but we should follow sources on this. {{TQ|The current wording says what needs to be said.}} and {{TQ|I don't think it would be helpful to remove the thing that even his political opponents regarded him highly for}} per Kerdooskis. Reagan and Eisenhower (and 'The Donald') were all well-known for other things before politics, but no other presidents I can think of have had such a long distinguished career after their party-political life has ended. Many of the other former presidents named are almost entirely known for their political roles, of which the presidency marked their career zenith.Pincrete (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• No (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) - I think it is more informative as an Encyclopedia to include the humanitarian and politician aspects in the lead. Those descriptors are notable and seem to improve the reading experience for those wanting to learn about the subject topic.

:MaximusEditor (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• No - The proposed change is not an accurate summary of the article's subject, per MOS:FIRST. The humanitarian aspect is as important an aspect of the article's subject as the political description, as shown by reliable sources and the body of the article. Not all presidents are known solely for their political work (e.g. Ronald Reagan, a WP:FA) and the first sentence should reflect this when such exceptions occur. The opinion that being a president is the most important thing about any president and that this is all the lead sentence should note is contradicted by the manual of style and RS/article coverage of this particular article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:* Comment - Would this work? : James Earl Carter Jr. (October 1, 1924 – December 29, 2024) was the 39th president of the United States, serving from 1977 to 1981, and a humanitarian Or some combination of the two. CF-501 Falcon (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:::That reads very awkwardly and seems like an unnecessary departure from the style of the current structure (which is also present in the Ronald Reagan featured article). - Aoidh (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Got it. In that case, No don't change the current lead. Carter is known for both being a former POTUS and humanitarian. - CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 12:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:::The whole thing reads like WP:PUFFERY designed to obfuscate the fact he will eventually be best known for his one term presidency. I guess some time in the future when the dust settles this article can be looked at objectively like all the other guys on US currency. Nemov (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The word humanitarian is not puffery and is well attributed. The opinion that {{tq|he will eventually be best known}} is at best an unverifiable presumption. The lede sentence should reflect what is and can be shown, and currently does. - Aoidh (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:No. WP:WoT. {{u|Jamarr81}}^🗣⸎ 01:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:- No. I think humanitarian should stay. I would delete “American” as that is obvious because he served as US president. Dw31415 (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• No the current version is better while being both precise and accurate. SportingFlyer T·C 06:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom|}}

the page peview of jimmy carter is very explicit, involving the the N-word being repeated in all caps. please get this fixed asap Bro10283 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Vandalism reverted, page protected. It may take some time for the Google cache to clear. Thanks for the notice. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)