Talk:Reagan Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Reagan Doctrine is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the United Nations WikiProject.	UN Portal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reagan Doctrine article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 End of the Cold War 2 Very misleading statement 3 Added Terrorism category 4 AfricaEditor's recent edits 5 Criticism Section 6 Legacy Section 7 Dr. Jack Wheeler

[edit] End of the Cold War

"In Nicaragua, pressure from the contras forced the Sandinistas into holding free elections, which the Sandinistas then lost." Hardly seems NPOV. The Contras were, if anything, responsible for the Sandinistas' loss in the second election they held. They did not "force the Sandinistas into holding free elections". I'm changing it to something more neutral for now. EdibleKarma (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very misleading statement

"However, relative to the large scale atrocities committed by communist regimes that the Reagan administration was endeavoring to remove, these losses were infinitesimal small.[7]. While the contras were killing scores, communist regimes and insurgencies worldwide were killing scores of millions"

Very POV statement. While not contesting that 'scores of millions' have been killed under Communist rule in previous decades, this paragraph is extremely misleading placed here. The Reagan doctrine was pursued in the 1980's, while the links offered are discussing Communist democide under Stalin and Mao....well, the one link that works, anyway. While to the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China of the 1980s were still repressive, we're going to need a whole lot more substantiation for an statement that they or other Communists were killing 'scores of millions' during the Reagan era, even if this were the place to argue over whether that legitimatizes the political murder of Washington-backed groups.

220.131.106.225 (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Terrorism category

should you really use two transitional words in a sentence like, " Nevertheless, blowback happened after all, however from an unexpected side, as the case of Osama bin Laden shows."

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine"

added catagory terrorism because of the fact that many modern terrorist cells were directly and indirectly supported by the reagan doctrine, contributing to the modern day terrorist threat. This doctrine was undeniably one of the most influentual policies contributing to and creating middle eastern terrorist groups. Solidusspriggan 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfricaEditor's recent edits

I definitely think the new version is an improvement on the older one you did AfricaEditor but there remain some big problems with it. On Al-Qaeda, do you have any sources that say that? If so, please provide them either as a reference in the article itself or here if you don't know how to add references. The part that starts critics say... really needs a citation. As for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists section, I hope you'll forgive me for removing this again and not to see this as a 3RR violation. There is nothing to suggest any of that and as you state yourself, it is unsubstantiated and not widely believed. As such, it really has no place here. I appreciate your efforts to help with this article.--Kalsermar 21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

The criticism section is extremely NPOV, and the "sources" cited label themselves as "Washington's most unofficial source." I am a firm believer in the concept of, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. Therefore, if these statements cannot be validated by a scholarly source, I will cheerfully remove them. KansaiKitsune 14:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy Section

I've yet to even read the rest of the article, having skipped to the legacy section to find something out, but this section alone makes it apparent someone should say something. This section is blatantly POV and fails to be objective throughout. The section takes a very biased tone, obviously very much NOT the point of Wikipedia. The information given is almost purely subjective and unfounded, and the links provided don't even correspond to the statements. Saying the Western Hemisphere is "one of most peaceful, prosperous, and free regions of its size in the history of mankind" is a useless claim for a Wikipedia entry to make, it's flatly impossible to support. The next statement is just as unfounded, hinged on the word "virtually", asserting what must by its nature be an opinion as fact, and then weakly supports this opinion by a link to a site whose only concern is how well countries stack up against an arbitrary metric of "freedom", prosperity and peace be darned. The next statement about Cuba only further deteriorates credibility, considering Cuba has what is widely recognized as one of the best healthcare systems in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba). It's absolutely valid to say Cuba ranks low in political rights, civil liberties, etc. But the section doesn't say that, it just says Cuba is autocratic and therefore a bad place to live. Further, asserting that it is due to the Reagan Doctrine alone that America has secured hegemony over our hemisphere indicates a clear misunderstanding of history and quite an affinity for leaping to distant conclusions. There's nothing to support the notion that America wouldn't have the dominating sphere of influence it has in this region without the Reagan Doctrine, so that claim needs to go. The entire second paragraph is inaccurate, unsupported and rife with loose terminology. The third paragraph provides yet another blatant proof that the editor of this section is biased. Is communism evil? No, I don't think it is. I think countries have suffered under evil regimes in the guise of communism, but again, this is opinion. And guess what? Because it's opinion, it doesn't belong in a Wiki entry, so I'd appreciate it if others didn't go out of their way to tell me they think communism is evil in Wiki entries as well. That entire paragraph is decidedly blatant about its purpose, to defend the Reagan Doctrine and decry communism, neither of which serves Wikipedia's purpose.

Furthermore, as the section is titled "Legacy of the Reagan Doctrine", should it not perhaps take a look country by country at the pertinent regions and conflicts? Where's mention of the Iran-Contra Affair, or involvement in Afghanistan originally deemed a Reagan Doctrine success, but followed by immediate neglect leading directly to the Taliban coming to power? Are these not germane to a discussion of the Reagan Doctrine's legacy?

Apologies for the long rant. Basically, this section (and likely the whole article if it's the same main editor responsible) needs to be rewritten by someone who actually cares to follow Wiki guidelines, maintain an unbiased position and only make supported, credible claims. And I'm too lazy to do it.

That Central America paragraph was, as you say, very poorly done. Not only that, but I don't really think it adds anything factually, so I've eliminated it completely, in full agreement with your point about it. AfricaEditor 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Jack Wheeler

I was forwarded an article that he wrote about the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" and I have been trying to find information about this guy to see how reliable he is. I can only find information that he says about himself. Some of the claims he makes seem a little out there. One of the claims, and the reason I am asking this question, is that he was the architect of the Reagan Doctrine (not just a supporter, but THE architect). Does anyone have any idea who this guy is? --Hhoblit (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)