Talk:Jimmy Carter

Imprecise info herein? On December 12, 1952, an accident with the experimental NRX reactor at Atomic Energy of Canada's Chalk River Laboratories caused a partial meltdown. Carter was ordered to Chalk River to lead a US maintenance crew to assist in the shutdown of the reactor. The painstaking process required each team member to don protective gear and be lowered individually into the reactor for 90 seconds at a time, limiting their exposure to radioactivity while they disassembled the crippled reactor. See: https://nuclearheritage.com/jimmy-carter-and-the-nrx-accident-how-legends-grow/ ~2026-37609-20 (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

According to the given source, Serge Marguet, the text pertaining to this incident as written in our article is correct. Springer says:

Serge Marguet is an expert in reactor physics at Electricité De France (EDF), the French leading utility owning a fleet of 58 nuclear reactors. EDF is one of the major companies in the world nuclear field. He has taken part, for the last 30 years, in the development of the calculation scheme of the French nuclear reactors. At the beginning of the 2000, he headed the EDF research team on severe accidents, subject on which he was appointed as expert by the European Commission, in charge of the evaluation of the 6th European Framework Programme, related to severe accidents. Serge Marguet is also teaching reactor physics at the National Institute of Applied Sciences of Bourges (France) for 15 years, as well Neutronics in the EDF Institute of Technology Transfer.

I'd say whatever Marguet writes outweighs anything "The Society for the Preservation of Canada’s Nuclear Heritage" says. I've added the words, "Carter's job, according to the CBC's reporting, was to turn a single screw, but even such a limited exposure to the very high radiation levels was dangerous", per Marguet. Carlstak (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Audio File says “Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan” but Carter also talks about the Iranian Hostage Crisis in the clip ~2026-40092-22 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I came to this Wikipedia page to understand more of how Carter's presidency was misunderstood (i.e., Carter, a great man, and well-meaning president who was rail-roaded by others in power so as to avoid future presidents being like him).

Someone included an article written by some British guy named Andrew Roberts in which he ranks Carter as 'the worst U.S. president.' This same clown, Andrew Roberts, ranks Ronald MF Reagan 'as one of the best 3 U.S. presidents.' As such, this Andrew Robert's opinion and article should be striken from this Wikipedia article on Jimmy Carter.

This Wikipedia article does Jimmy Carter and this country a great disservice. There is no analyses on how although at the time he served he was viewed as a "failure," he was actually ahead of his time.

Furthermore, as I've mentioned, many in the U.S. government couldn't allow Carter to succeed (I'd like to see information on this included in this article). Take for example his trying to rescue the hostages from Iran. It is well-known military officials worked against Carter and failed purposely so thus to make Carter look like a weak leader.

Overall, this article needs a lot of work.

For those of you who are interested in making this article more fair and accurate, here's some great information that can serve to guide you: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-jimmy-carter-may-be-the-most-misunderstood-president-in-american-history

Hoping we can pay better respect to undoubtedly one of the best human beings to have ever served as a U.S. President. Perhaps he didn't have the most firm and most clear outlook on how to accomplish the good he meant to accomplish, but his intent and his work have to count for something!

To those of you in agreement and working towards improving this article: Thank you. ~2026-45994-06 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I happen to agree that Carter's presidency has been under-appreciateed, but my opinion does not count in Wikipedia. Only what has been published in reliable sources counts in Wikipedia. Wikipededia is not the place to right great wrongs. Donald Albury 16:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remover reference to Andrew Roberts'opinion. It is unnecessarily opinionated and erroneous. ~2026-46982-48 (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Roberts' opinion is attributed and cited to his book. That you don't like it is not sufficient reason to remove it from the article. Donald Albury 16:58, 28 August 2026 (UTC)