Talk:Amy Carter

Marriage and Family Info Needs to Be Updated

Amy is divorced from her first husband, and she has since remarried. John Paul Parks (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

She is pregnant with her second child, due 28 August 2010. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/11/DDV01EQ0UU.DTL Mizshan (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The link leads to an August 11, 2010 article about Roslyn Carter wherein she states that Amy has an 11 year old son, is pregnant, lives in Atlanta, and is a substitute art teacher. There's no discussion about the state of her marriage. Is SFGate, sister-site of the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, not considered a reliable source? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge

Might emerge from stub-hell tomorrow, but a decade is more likely. In either case, article can be split at that time. Merge histories, retain a redirect. Jerzy·t 15:45, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

There has been no meaningful rebuttal, but only a unilateral closing off of the discussion that policy mandates in the face of a proposal to merge: User:Mike Halterman presumes to remove the template bcz "Amy is the only Carter child to actually earn her own article". But this does not support retention of a separate article bcz it raises more questions than it answers. What has she done that justifies an article?

'Graph 1: She's a relative of celebrities (just like the other Carter children). Not notable.

'Graph 2: She protested at least twice, got arrested once, got sprung. That could be part of something notable, but no evidence of that has been offered, and the fact that it's pretty thoroughly forgotten creates a presumption of non-notability that Mike has done nothing to overcome.

'Graph 3: MS, Married with kid, going on 38. Non-notable. (What was her field? I never knew, and no evidence anyone else remembers; no evidence she uses that presumably high quality education.) Creates a further presumption of non-notability that Mike has done nothing to overcome.

_ The article has existed for over 5 months without anything of substance being added (lets not count the anon vandalism that Mike properly axed) after its first 4 minutes. At least 6 non-vandals have touched it since the original author, and there's a consensus that it's still a stub.
_ Leave the merge tag alone; removing it after 17 days, when nothing but stub-refinement, Cats, vandalism, and the Merge proposal has happened in 5.5 months just puts your good faith in question.
_ I dunno about anyone else, but i'm in no rush about this; i wouldn't mind giving it another 5.5 months to see whether evidence of her notability accumulates. Don't worry, be happy. We didn't need the article for 4 years, so even if a merge proposal is some kind of scarlet letter, a few months of that for this decisively non-urgent article should be no big deal.
_ Take your time, and find us some evidence of notability. Jerzy·t 07:04, 2005 July 28 (UTC

She is notable because she was quite visible during her father's presidency (as was her uncle, but not her brothers). We can add the reference President Carter made about asking her advice about Nuclear Weapons during a speech or debate; this was a somewhat notable event of his presidency/reelection campaign. NoSeptember 15:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

As presidential offspring go, she is certanly among the more notable, and it in fact could be argued that many LESS notable presidential children have separate pages. (George W. Bush's daughters, for instance, have their own page, and aside from their underage drinking incident, neither has done much of anything noteworthy, thus far.) If nothing else, Amy Carter's activism and her association with Abbie Hoffman distinguish her from many of her "White House kids" contemporaries. It is doesn't seem unreasonable that she should have her own page. Markt3 01:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

@Markt3 - Another precedent is the no-holds-barred mockery by the right for a 9 year old presidential child. To my knowledge, the political children were 'hands off' at that point until poor little Amy came along.

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

"Hands off" wouldn't be entirely accurate. There's plenty of stories the "adventures" of presidential children as well as criticism. They were covered by the press just like anyone else associated with the White House. Lincoln's son, for example, was covered and even widely criticized for not fighting in the Civil War. Doug Wead's All the President's Children talks about that and others.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/All_the_Presidents_Children/AzPd0aVnOl0C?hl=en&gbpv=0

You might be thinking of Mrs. Kennedy asking the press to leave her children alone and out of the spotlight and the press generally honored that request. Carter on the other hand injected her into the mainstream when he said that he consulted with her on the nuclear arms race making her a discussion point. That doesn't make mockery or criticism right but I'm just pointing that as well as the coverage and discussion of former presidential children long before she came on the scene.

Dbroer (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Notability

I added that she illustrated a children's book with her father, and I believe this ties in with her major (I believe she majored in art history, but don't hold me to that). Someone does need to mention how Amy factored into Jimmy's policy-making (however minor it is, it's notable since she was young). Mike H (Talking is hot) 22:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, she is notable; i forgot all the fuss that was made over that book -- no, wait a minit, i guess i'm thinking of Harry Potter. </snark>

Which is to say that (with whatever admirable or embarrassing motivation) she's competant to hold onto his coattails. She may even be supporting hubby in the style he's accustomed to with her illustrations for brochures and her unique velvet-painting style, but i'd still see nothing notable. Who reviewed the kids' book? How long was it in stores nationwide?

We already mention that they spoke abt policy, but it would be more notable if they never had. If you can come up with how, that might be notable if it's verifiable: it would be cited as an insight into how he lost his way at the helm of a superpower! Which is to say, don't hold your breath until you find out.

I think it's great that the content is improving, but i see no trend yet of it developing toward viability as an article.
--Jerzy·t 23:59, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

I'm glad to know you're the only one who decides what's article-worthy and what isn't. Piss off. Mike H (Talking is hot) 00:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The article already exists, so it's not as if we're debating on whether to create it or not. Amy Carter is a widely known daughter of a president. She's just as "notable" as Chelsea Clinton is/was. At least for the next 30 or 40 years I think she's notable. Beyond that she may fade into the anals of forgotten presidential daughters. Is there some precious resource this article is taking up that needs to be "recycled", so we need to take a hard line on "notability"? Paper encyclopedias, and even DVD encyclopedias need to be edited for size constraints. With the cheapness of hard drive space I fail to see why this article should be removed or merged into the Jimmy Carter page. If it were it would only be more distracting from the Jimmy Carter page. Hell, this discussion (or really what just amounts to the whining of one person who sounds like they have some grudge) takes up FAR more resources than the single Amy Carter page. Oh, and looking through all the guidelines, nowhere do I see "notability" as a requirement for an article in Wikipedia, so this entire discussion is rather moot. Maybe you're referring to vanity pages, which obviously don't belong in an encyclopedia. This is obviously not a vanity article, so I see no issue here. So, as you see the impetus is not for anyone to justify the Amy Carter page, but for anyone thinking it should be merged to justify it. This hasn't been done. If you can do that, please do, otherwise remove the "merge" link. Vellmont

Just on general principles, I agree with this. Sometimes it seems that there's a "merge mania" here on WP. While I can understand merging two articles that basically discuss the same thing, it seems too often to be used as a way of eliminating articles that some people feel "aren't important" enough. Really -- the reason that I come to Wikipedia, and the reason I find it so interesting, isn't because it's a replacement for Encyclopedia Britannica; if it was, I'd just read E.B. and be done with it. No, I read it because it has vast articles on all sorts of niche (some might say, bizarre) topics. This is a GOOD THING. Amy Carter isn't Jimmy Carter; she's been famous enough to have a few articles written about her in the mainstream press...she gets her own WP page. Any time two pages that aren't closely related to the point of duplication are merged together, content is very often lost -- or at least the possibility of adding more content is lost. I think we should take a very light approach to merging, and when there is any doubt that something deserves a separate article, give it one. There's no limit to the number that WP can have, so why throw out information? --Kadin2048 06:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be a shame to let this discussion close without mention of what justifies doing so -- since not a word on this talk page does. (The level of Wiki-insight in the arguement of Vellmont (talk · contribs) is quite understandable, but their personal attacks on me will preclude my helping orient them. BTW & in contrast, Mike, a few months more experienced here, has shown himself more reasonable to me elsewhere than how, on this page, he lets himself continue to appear.) Despite the continuing lack of reasons for separate retention, AxelBoldt (talk · contribs) has a credibility that makes his removal of the tag quite sufficient to satisfy me that the matter needs no further attention from me. The att'ys Sturm & Drang are neither Wp'ians, nor needed at WP.
--Jerzy•t 18:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Married Name(s)

Still "Amy Carter"? "Amy Carter Hentzel"? "Amy Carter-Hentzel"?
--Jerzy·t 16:06, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

Still AC as of 2002; not sure we need to put it in the article, but having it here documents we weren't just guessing. Jerzy·t 23:59, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Corrected her surname at the top of the page and put in a short sentence about it. Looked back at the archives (Sept. 29, 2005), whoever changed it didn't provide an explanation, let alone a link. However, the Christian Science Monitor article that's already linked at the bottom clearly says that she still has her own name. Ariadne55 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Her age?

Born in 1967, married at age 32 in 1996? Something doesn't add up

was she a mistake (?) I mean her brothers are significantly older/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levineps (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The answer is almost certainly unverifiable; in any case, the subject is unencyclopedic, and thus off-topic here.
--Jerzy•t 04:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It can be verified if Rosalynn ever was interviewed and asked about it. In any case, my oldest sibling is 17 years older than me, and my parents told me they tried for an entire month to have me. So just because it's the last child, doesn't mean it's a mistake. Mike H. That's hot 07:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Rosalyn has written about it. For many years, she had an ovarian condition which prevented her from having children. She had it corrected, and soon thereafter, conceived Amy. John Paul Parks (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says she was born in 1967 and the picture below with Marcel Marceau states that it was taken in 1977. I'm sorry but she really doesn't look 10 years old in that picture...you can tell that she's at least as tall as President Carter and nobody is 5 feet some odd inches tall at age 10 unless you're Shaquille. :P Anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jed Bartlet (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, ignore this. I'm a nitwit. I just figured it out. --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 23:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the picture... that's a hilarious mistake! -Rolypolyman (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Roughly?

The article states "Amy has three brothers who are roughly 15 to 20 years older than she is." Roughly? I presume they all have birth certificates showing the years of birth. In that case, there is nothing "roughly" about determining their ages. John Paul Parks (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Of which four children?

The opening sentence makes no sense. It seems to be out of context.

"Amy Lynn Carter (born October 19, 1967) is the youngest of the four children and the only daughter of U.S. president Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn Carter."

It's not clear what this is supposed to mean. Need to mention the other children in context with this. Poorly worded, as well.

--Davjosmes (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What is unclear about it? To me, it says: the parents had four kids. The first three are sons, the fourth is a daughter. No? Am I missing something? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Holton Arms???

Someone added to Personal Life that Amy Carter attended Holton Arms. This is not consistent with the info on her schooling in "Life in White House" and I'm 90% sure it is incorrect. She famously attended DC public schools while her father was in office, and the family returned to Georgia when he left office. Of all the private schools in the DC area, Holton seems like the least likly for her or her family to have any association with. The only references I found appear to be based on this article and more authoritative sources (NY Times, Wash Post) only reference her attending DC public schools. Can someone with a better knowledge of confirm this and correct the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.40.161 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Amy Carter

President Jimmy Carter's Daughter Amy Was 28 Years Old When She Got Married On September 1,1996,In Plains, Georgia.69.174.152.106 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the reference to "Socks, owned by Bill Clinton" correct?

I thought Chelsea owned Socks.47.139.46.149 (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Unverified information

I've removed the following information, per WP:BLP, because it lacks a source (and my web searches have failed to find a source). Please feel free to put it back into the article if the text is accompanied by a footnote that cites a reliable source:

Carter and Wentzel later divorced; Carter remarried and had a second son.

I've also modified the infobox to show only one child, and to remove mention of a divorce from her first husband. Again, anyone is welcome to put that information back into the article if they can provide a reliable source for it. Otherwise, this information, in the article, is a violation of WP:BLP. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

she met Wentzel while working at chapter 11 bookstore. She was dating and living with someone else when she started working there. I was her manager at the bookstore at that time. 2600:6C5A:417F:4C97:C15B:1FEF:2A41:1FF9 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

picture

i think its time for a new picture the one on currently and as she is 56 i know there are more pictures and i think it should be updated to a more accurate photo of her now if not tell me why if so tell me what one Tupac Shakur Thug Life 4Life (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)