Talk:Jimmy Carter

BLP tag

User:Arctic Kangaroo added a BLP tag to this article. I personally think that this tag is highly unnecessary on this article. I believe this page already has enough references. Does anyone else agree? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I asked Arctic Kangaroo at his talk page to give us a list of statements from the article that he believes need sources for BLP concerns. Hopefully he gave come and contribute soon. Only (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

He's reverted my comment, so I don't know if he'll be contributing the list like I asked of him. If he does not reply or support his use of the tag in the next 48 hours, I say we remove it. Only (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think it is rather impolite to just revert it like that. Sure, editors are perfectly entitled to remove messages from their own user talk, but to offer no reply or action is something which will reflect poorly on him. Chenzw  Talk  11:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

VGA Nom issues

Still needs a lot of simplification. A careful copy edit will clean up minor errors.

Question:

This seems self-contradictory: "During his presidential campaign in April 1976, Carter responded to an interviewer and said, "I have nothing against a community that is ... trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods".[85] His remark was to show support of open-housing laws.[85]" Needs clarification. Which is it? Open housing or closed racial covenants? --Gotanda (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Gotanda: Based on the source, this was Carter supporting open-housing laws that make it illegal to discriminate the rent/selling of a house based on a person's race. I've simplified each section on the article using the automatic readability checker with the highest reading level being 8th grade. I've had trouble simplifying the Legacy section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Still self-contradictory.

• During his presidential campaign in April 1976, Carter said to an interviewer and said, "I have nothing against a community that is ... trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods".[85] (Meaning he thinks it is OK to preserve racially segregated communities.
• He wanted to show support of open-housing laws that makes it illegal not to sell or rent a house or apartment to a person based on their race. (This means the opposite)
• It just doesn't make sense. Something has been misinterpreted from one of the sources, in paraphrasing, or in simplification. --Gotanda (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Gotanda: From the source I found that Carter said "I have nothing against a community that is made up of people who are Polish, or who are Czechoslovakians, or who are French Canadians or who are blacks trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods. This is a natural inclination" and it appears his comments had "particularly offended many blacks and whites". So I think it maybe just some weird paraphrasing within the source because from what I gathered Carter made his "ethnic purity" comment as to show that he understands why a race-dominant community wouldn't want to integrate with other races but also voices support for a housing law that prohibits discrimination of race. I believe here, him understanding isn't equivalent to him endorsing such action. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Well, then you need to explain that in the article. Readers do not know what you have read. This requires context and explanation. As written, it is just a confusing set of contradictory statements next to each other with no connection. --Gotanda (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Gotanda: I added the explanation. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• See my last edit. Four or five usage / grammar errors and one simplification. Every time you go to correct the content is an opportunity to add new, minor errors. That means everything needs another copy edit. --Gotanda (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Public financing of campaigns

There is still a lot of complexity to reduce in this article, but there are other issues as well.

I looked at this very long sentence, "Carter's campaign supported people donating money to congressional campaigns,[86] creating a federal agency for consumer protection,[87] creating a separate department for education,[88] signing a peace treaty with the Soviet Union against the usage of nuclear weapon,[89] lowering money given to the military,[90] increasing taxes for the rich and lowering them for the middle class,[91] supporting the Social Security Act,[92] and having a good budget by the end of his term.[93]"

I looked at the first statement. It is not supported by the reference. In fact, the reference contradicts it. Carter was not in favor of people making donations. The article says he was in favor of public financing. It makes me question the accuracy of other simplifications. --Gotanda (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Checking the rest of the sentence, I find the second and third statements supported by the refs (consumer protection, department of education). The fourth one about a "peace treaty" with the Soviet Union looked questionable since the US and USSR were not at war. The ref cites the paper from the 14th, but that is incorrect. After much looking I found the article on the 15th. It calls for a freeze agreement, not a peace treaty. The title of the article is incorrect in the ref. It cites a subheading, not the title. Checking these takes time. --Gotanda (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• The ref for defense spending cuts does support the statement in the article. The cited date is incorrect. October 3 not 2.
• Ref for tax policies supports statement, but is again just slightly incorrect. The paper is "Spartanburg Herald-Journal" not just "Herald-Journal".
• Ref for supporting the social security act implies his position during the campaign, but is a signing statement for a law passed after Carter was elected. A report on the actual campaign would be better. And, a secondary source would be better than this primary source statement by the subject of the article.
• Ref for budget supports a "balanced budget." It is unclear what a "good budget" means. Some would conclude that a good budget is deficit spending; others, running a surplus. Again the ref has a small error with the title of the newspaper.

So, checking just one long sentence because it seemed complex has revealed about a half dozen errors. Some are very, very minor, but some completely change the meaning. To me, this makes the article less reliable. It is unclear to me where the errors came in: in the original source, in the simplification, or both. But, the main point is that every statement and ref need to be checked if this is anything to go by. I do not have time to check all of them. Other editors will have to get involved to check the rest. Not just the nominator. --Gotanda (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Gotanda: I fixed the issue you've laid out, some of these you are right are minor (nit picky), with some just finding the right words to replace previously complicated terms such as "peace treaty" I meant it in terms of a peace treaty against nuclear weapons which now has been changed to an agreement. The good budget one I'm having a little trouble since Carter said he wanted to have a "balanced budget", I'm not sure how to rephrase that if you think it should even be rephrased.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Rewriting simply is hard. It can be harder that writing using more complex words and grammar. In this case, you have made the sentence even less accurate. The phrase "signing an agreement with the Soviet Union to stop using nuclear weapons" implies that both were using them. Only the US has used nuclear weapons. When simplifying are you reading the whole source referenced? Just close paraphrasing from EnWP seems to cause difficulties when you work on these. Sometimes the article seems based on the headlines, not a full reading. The Source says Carter called for a "freeze." That was very specific and meaningful language. Consider making an article for the Nuclear Freeze Movement and linking to to it. Or, simplify it correctly "stop making more nuclear weapons".

Re nuclear weapons: that is exactly wrong. It is just plain incorrect. Did you read the cited article in The Blade? It suays exactly nothing about either country using nuclear weapons.

• Regarding the budget, please read my first explanation. "Good budget" is meaningless on its own. What is a balanced budget? Write that in very simple words.

• As far as "nit picky" goes. That comes with VGA. Either it is correct, or it is not. I did say they were minor, but it better that you fixed them. --Gotanda (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Gotanda: For the budget part, based on this source, Carter wanted to manage the budget so that enough money goes to government resources. I fixed the agreement part to: signing an agreement that would stop the Soviet Union from using nuclear weapons. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• No. That is exactly incorrect. It is just plain wrong. And, this is an important topic. Did you read the whole cited reference in The Blade? It says exactly nothing about either country using or not using nuclear weapons. Quote: "Mr Carter called for an agreement with the Soviets on a "quick freeze" on nuclear weapons." And Mr. Carter said his proposed "quick freeze" should apply to the carrying capacity of missiles and to further developments in strategic weapons technology." Nowhere does it call for the the Soviet Union to stop using nuclear weapons. You just keep making this more and more incorrect with these changes. --Gotanda (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

VGA nom issue: "seen as"

This passive, hedging statement "seen as" is in the article six times. It adds complexity and reduces clarity. These should be replaces by simple, clear, direct statements. --Gotanda (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Gotanda: Though I do not agree with this issue, what word replacements would you recommend. Here's my take on some replacements:

• First "seen as": "At first, he was not seen as a serious presidential candidate" -> At first, many believed he was not a serious presidential candidate.
• Second "seen as": "Carter is seen as an important person in the Habitat for Humanity charity" -> Carter is also known for volunteering at Habitat for Humanity events.
• Third "seen as": "he was seen as having little chances against better-known politicians" -> Carter's campaign was not well known against other presidential campaigns
• Fourth "seen as": "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was seen as a threat and Carter saw the Soviet Union as dangerous" -> Carter believed the Soviet Union was dangerous after its invasion of Afghanistan.
• Fifth "seen as": "Carter's presidency was at first seen as unpopular in historical rankings of American presidents" -> Carter's presidency was unpopular in historical rankings of American presidents.
• Sixth "seen as": "The Independent wrote, "Carter is widely [seen as] a better man than he was a president"" -> well this one I can't change because it's a simplified quote and I feel at least one "seen as" isn't that bad.

I hope my "seen as" replacements are a good start! I didn't want to replace them until I've received your feedback. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• They do need to be replaced if you want to follow the "How to write Simple English pages"
• First: better.
• Second: "known for" is basically the same vague, passive construction. Rewrite with specifics. He volunteers every year. Media report on it widely. The "known for" is widely used on EnWP, but isn't really necessary and is not simple.
• Third: "not well known" and "against" do not work together in that way. Rewrite.
• Fourth: Better.
• Fifth: Better.
• Sixth: No it isn't. Read the quote in The Independent. You have already changed to "seen as," it is not part of the quotation. One more example of why extensive use of quotations is not the best way to write simple articles. There is no need to quote a sentence from an unattributed article. Paraphrasing is better. Eliminate the whole quote and replace with simple a simple SVO sentence.

• Finally, I am going to once again suggest that you slow down and concentrate on one article at a time. Right now you've got two VGA noms at once (Jackie O, and Carter) and two GA noms (Jacinda Ardern and Willis Tower). Recently, you contacted me about Christopher Plummer as well. As a group on this wiki we cannot keep up with all of them. Enthusiasm to get more GA/VGAs is good, but they take careful time and attention. Your quick rewrites often introduce new errors. Take your time. --Gotanda (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)