Former featured article candidateJimmy Carter is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleJimmy Carter has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowIn the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 25, 2006Good article reassessmentKept
May 1, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 12, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
December 13, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
September 11, 2021Good article nomineeListed
October 1, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 1, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Jimmy Carter claims to have seen a UFO?
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 11, 2002, and December 29, 2024.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 1, 2024.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

“Donel” Carter’s name is actually Jeffery.

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

Gold dolphin pin?

Jimmy Carter was awarded the gold dolphin pin not shown on his awards list. The gold dolphin pin is a qualification award for officers qualified to operate submarines. 2600:1015:A005:3806:E9:647A:729D:2446 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Submarine Warfare insignia? It is mentioned in the last sentence of the Naval career section. I gather that most sailors who serve in submatines for at least a year complete the requirements for that pin. The military awards listed in the infobox are medals, which the "dolphin" pin is not. Donald Albury 16:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's awarded after completion of qualifications. it is worn right above the medals rack. 2600:1015:A005:3806:E9:647A:729D:2446 (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2025

Jimmy Carter did not serve in combat during WWII. 192.174.115.172 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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) 17:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And more to the point, "Midshipmen at Annapolis were considered part of the Navy" is the usual answer to this. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WW2 service? WW2 ended in 1945. Carter didn't enlist until 1946.

WW2 ended in 1945. Carter enlisted in 1946. How could he have served in WW2? 2603:90D8:403:39A7:22AA:710C:6AEB:F3A (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Midshipmen at Annapolis were considered part of the Navy" is the usual answer to this. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is so defined in law. Per 10 United States Code Section 101 (d), midshipmen (and cadets at the Army and Air Force academies) are on active duty.("Defense Primer:Military Service Academies" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved January 8, 2025.)

"American politician"

I will start by saying that whether we redundantly call Carter an "American politician" is too trivial a question for me to pursue; as I said, all U.S. presidents were American politicians. Why not state that Carter was a human being or a mammal? But I'm not going to delete it, and I can't imagine why it upsets you so much ("Not putting up with this"). As for "Long-standing," "American politician" was there for a number of days, and it was not there for a number of days; I am not going to count them to compare, and it doesn't matter anyway. I appreciate that you're not fighting about "humanitarian" or capitalizing "governor." That's all from me. Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find the phrase "American politician" to be redundant, especially considering that many of the previous US presidents have bios which omit this description and read as "X was the nth president of the United States, serving from..." I have opened up an RfC on the Ronald Reagan talk page, which I imagine will carry weight on determining the way this article is worded. Векочел (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Yarrow pardoning

No mentions of Peter Yarrow being pardoned on his last day in office?

Article by Washington Post: original, archive

Happy to add in. Noaaah (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pardons would belong at Presidency of Jimmy Carter. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was Carter valedictorian or not?

The first paragraph of the section on Education, under Early life, states that Carter was class valedictorian and that he was not. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jonathan Alter's biography he was not.

Carter claimed later that the incident cost him his chance to be valedictorian;[1]

--Jo1971 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "not" is likely correct here. The source that says he was valedictorian is marginal -- a blog article in navyonline.com with the byline of "Bill the Goat". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would one of you care to make the edit? Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the edit, per this discussion. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added the Alter footnote as talk provided. Maurice Magnus (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Alter, Jonathan (2020). His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life. Simon & Schuster. p. 45. ISBN 978-1-5011-2548-5.

MOS:LEAD comments

@Mb2437: I think you're misunderstanding the quote "leads should not radically change after a public figure's death" from MOS:LEAD. The relevant section is:

This is a summary of the following guideline from MOS:LEAD:

When a subject dies, the lead need not be radically reworked; Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date.

In context, I think this is pretty clearly a statement that the lead should not be rewritten as a "tribute" page, not a statement that a lead becomes "frozen" or "locked in place" after a death. (And calling a trim a "radical change" feels like a stretch to me.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The trim was non-constructive and was not written neutrally. The lead need not be radically reworked. A 1,100-byte removal is a fairly hefty cut. At 500 words, it does not need trimming at all; it is concise and clear and, again, has been verified as a good lead. It has not been frozen in place, several minor changes have been kept that improved the quality. MB2437 05:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you think failed NPOV?
Regardless, the response shouldn't be reverting the whole edit or keeping only "minor changes" (see WP:ROWN)—it should be to fix whatever you think fails NPOV, instead of tossing the baby out. Neither a dead subject nor GA status prohibits "hefty" changes to a lead.
"Need" is irrelevant—what matters is whether it's an improvement or not. Readability isn't determined just by word count either—even two words is "too long" if you can convey the same information in one instead, or if lots of those 500 words are spent on irrelevant details. If you'd like to expand the lead back to 500 words by adding important material go ahead, but don't do it by reinserting padding. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is padded about it? Scholars and historians generally rank Carter as a somewhat below-average president, but his post-presidency period (the longest in U.S. history) is viewed highly favorably and earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. had multiple WP:EDITORIAL points, and cutting out several key moments of his presidency that led to his landslide defeat in the following election. The trimmed version entirely glosses over these points. Reducing his presidency to a 132-word prose does not satisfy due weight, and is detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject from the introduction. MB2437 06:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If you can cut a word, cut it out."—George Orwell

Born and raised in Plains, Georgia, Carter graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1946 and joined the United States Navy's submarine service.

He married Rosalynn Smith, and they worked closely together throughout their lives.

Carter returned home after his military service and revived his family's peanut-growing business.

Opposing racial segregation, he supported the growing civil rights movement and became an activist within the Democratic Party.

After serving in the Georgia State Senate and then as governor of Georgia, Carter ran for president in 1976.

Initially a dark horse candidate not well known outside Georgia, he secured the Democratic nomination and selected Walter Mondale as his running mate.

They narrowly defeated the Republican Party's ticket of President Gerald Ford and Senator Bob Dole.

Born in Plains, Georgia, Carter graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1946 and joined the submarine service.

He married Rosalynn Smith, and they worked closely together throughout their lives.(Wife's in infobox)

before returning home to tend to the family peanut farm.

Opposing racial segregation,A civil rights activist against segregation?! He went on to support the civil rights movement as state senator and governor

before running for president in 1976.

Initially a dark horse candidatenot well known outside Georgia,Redundant w/ "dark horse" he secured the Democratic nomination and selected Walter Mondale as his running mate.

They narrowly defeated the Republican Party's ticket of President Gerald Ford and Senator Bob Dole.

I'd also drop the running mates (not important enough for the lead), but that matters less. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made these changes to the lead. Feel free to partial revert if you think there's issues here, but this is roughly a 40% cut, without losing much (if any) information. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning! Going on to the third paragraph, the whole thing has two issues: first, it's too long. My first suggestion is to break the list into two paragraphs (foreign/domestic, maybe).
Second, it's basically a bullet-point list of facts, which makes it both too detailed and too simple—there's too many facts and too little explanation. If some of these facts are unimportant, they should be chopped. If you think all of them are very important, maybe that's true, but then we need to explain why they're important. (I certainly didn't get the impression they're important!)

On his second day in office, Carter pardoned all Vietnam War draft evaders. He created a national energy policy that included conservation, price control, and new technology.Puffy? Carter successfully pursued the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, and the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. He also confronted stagflation. He signed into law bills that established the United States Department of Energy and the United States Department of Education.

Choppy, needs to be rewritten to flow better. Awkwardly darts back-and-forth between foreign and domestic policy, despite a great segue through the energy crisis.

The last two years of Carter's presidency were marked by the Three Mile Island accident, the establishment of diplomatic relations with China, the Nicaraguan Revolution, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. the Iranian Revolution, which resulted in the Iran hostage crisis and the 1979 oil crisis.

Maybe we can group the "peace treaties" stuff (Camp David, Panama Canal, China) into one thematic sentence, and Iran/Soviet escalation into another?

In response to the Soviet invasion, he escalated the Cold War by ending détente, imposing a grain embargo against the Soviets, enunciating the Carter Doctrine, and leading the multinational boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow.

I think this is better summarized by just saying "leading to the end of détente" after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Individual examples can be discussed better elsewhere. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

This sentence does not make sense: "Carter later recalled an abrupt phone call he received in June 1977 from Presley, who was seeking a presidential pardon from Carter, to help George Klein's criminal case." Was the pardon for Presley or for Klein? If it was for Klein, a pardon wouldn't "help" his criminal case, and what does that even mean? It would presumably end the prosecution of a criminal case against him. Maurice Magnus (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"First U.S president to reach age 100"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

RfC on lead

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 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 "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not to speak for Kerdooskis, but that seems like a pretty unfair reading of their comment. Perhaps they meant we should include content that is helpful for readers? – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, it's not about maintaining "the legacy", it is about helpful introduction to the article. Onikaburgers (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability" then, which I used multiple times. Kerdooskistalk 04:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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. The current wording says what needs to be said. and 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The word humanitarian is not puffery and is well attributed. The opinion that 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)[reply]
No. WP:WoT. {{u|Jamarr81}}🗣⸎ 01:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Carter
No tags for this post.