Talk:Ronald Reagan

Template:Maintained

Cold War sentence

A sentence in the Cold War section, presumably added by User:Halgin, stated the following: "The Cold War that terrorized the world for four decades had wound down to barely a whimper by the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency."

I have issues with that:

• "terrorized the world" - since there weren't little men that ran around from house to house and terrorized women and children, I see the wording of this as slightly blown out of context.
• "barely a whimper" - not specific

I reworded it to take care of the issues: "The Cold War was a major world event for four decades, but the confrontation and depleted relations between the two superpowers decreased dramatically by the end of Reagan's presidency."

• "Terrorized the world" was poor contextual wording and is now shown to be what it really was: an event.
• "Wound down to barely a whimper", a not-specific metaphor is now an actual description

On top of that, the first version was copied directly from the source ([1]) and it was not in correct citation format. The section starts with this sentence and then goes into "The significance of Reagan's role in ending the Cold War has spurred contentious and opinionated debate" which is the subject and purpose of the section. Basically it's saying that relations improved after Reagan's presidency but the impact he had on the end of the war is debatable. I see the second revision as the better one. Happyme22 (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the second version fraught with some pov that doesn't effectively communicate the citations noted. The whole 'peace through strength' thing, for example. Aside from sounding very, very Orwellian, in the citation the only ones who refer to these strategies as such are "Reagan admirers". In fact, the author of the reference states that a 'firm but fair' was a better assessment of Reagan's strategy. I think that the shading of this article can go one way and then the other. I know folks have their own opinions, but we really need to aim for objective neutrality. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind, i made some tweaks to the areas in question. I will probably make more. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, again I really like you as an editor and you have helped to make this page more NPOV, but now it seems as if every one of Reagan's positive phrases ("peace through strength", "Reagan Revolution") has to be labeled as coming from his supporters. Even CNN reffered to Reagan's tenure as the Reagan Revolution, and says he advocated peace through strength. Take the very definition of peace through strength from that article: ""Peace through Strength" is the doctrine that military strength is a primary or necessary component of peace." What's wrong with that? That is exactly what Ronald Reagan communicated and advocated. Saying that it is better described as "firm but fair" is your own POV; saying that it's another phrase used to describe peace through strength is okay.

Secondly, your edits to the Cold War section were not very helpful. They completely distorted what the sentence said. It went from saying "that Reagan did have a role in ending it, but the role is primarily opinion" (paraphrased) to "Reagan's role is still being debated." Those are two different ideas and the the second one was not collectively agreed upon.

Bottom line: I see them both as being POV edits. Not that I haven't had my share of those, but these definitely are. Happyme22 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its fairly clear that the over the top positive appellations were given by his supporters, just as those negative nicknames ("The Great Sleeper", "Teflon president", etc) were given by people who didn't approve of the Reagan Administration's actions. We aren't here to be positive or negative, but objectively neutral. Did Reagan have supporters and detractors? Yep. Do we record what both sides said? Yep. Do we give any more play o one side or the other? Nope.

I am not arguing that 'Peace Through Strength' is not a military doctrine. I am stating that Reagan's policies were defined in the cited reference as being better described as "Firm but Fair", as Peace Through Strength was not a precisely followed policy by the Reagan Administration.

As for the Cold War re-edits, Reagan's role in ending it is debated. This is the previous version:

"That Reagan had some role in accelerating the downfall of the Soviet Union is collectively agreed, but the extent of this role is undefineable, and therefore primarily opinion"

and this is the edit I offered:

"Reagan's role in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet Union is still debated, and therefore primarily opinion."

My edit doesn't side with the opinion that Reagan accelerated the downfall of the Soviet Union, and it removes the contention that it is collectively agreed (as it is almost certainly not). The last part of the statement about the role being 'indefinable and therefore opinion' negates any counter-argument to the extend to Reagan's role, and subtly rendering any consideration of such as 'opinion.' My edit addresses that both sides of the argument have valid points, and we are going to stay the hell out of the fray, and we are certainly not going to take sides or render an opinion as to their validity. I think that my edit places itself firmly in the objectively neutral viewpoint. They are POv edits - NPOV edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute - you're telling me that Ronald Reagan had absolutley no role in the end of the cold war/fall of the USSR? I know that his role is being debated, but as the previous version stated, it is collectively agreed upon that he had some role. So including that he had some role but that it is still being debated is the more NPOV way to go, because it encompasses both sides. That's what was cited, that's what was agreed upon, and that's what needs to go in.

As for peace through strength: which article is it that you keep reffering to? I thought it was this one, but there is no mention of "firm but fair" in there. Happyme22 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at the sentence again, Hap: there is an enormous difference between contributing and accelerating when used in this context. I am not saying that he had no role; as the opinions on either side of the contribution article are fairly well-matched in both credibility and citation, its better to not take any one viewpoint and run with it. For all we know, the USSR was doomed after the Cuban Missile Crisis. That Reagan had a role in the ending of the Cold War is obvious - however, we aren't going to tout Reagan's role any more than Ike, Kennedy, Nixon or Carter, because that isn't npov.

The citation is #186 in the list.I think I properly linked it to the statements. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well you make a good point. There is a difference between contributing and accelerating, so how about this: "That Reagan had some role in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet Union is collectively agreed, but the extent of this role is continuously debated and therefore primarily opinion".

As for peace through strength: I really like that article you cited, and Mr. Knopf does make good points, including the "firm but fair" contention. After reading through how the author defines firm but fair, I really have no problems including it. I just don;t think that we should say that firm but fair is the more apt description of the policies, because then we are making our own inferments or using those of a single author. Finally, in the legacy: cold war section, instead of labeling the policies as "firm but fair" we can simply say "It was Reagan's defense policies....."

BTW, I don't know if you heard about poor Nancy... --Happyme22 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

the end of your new sentence "and therefore primarily opinion" is unnecessary and has, in my mind, a negative connotation towards the opinion in question. it would be better off with just [a slightly modified version of] the first clause of your sentence "Reagan's role in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet Union is still a matter of debate." i respect the work the two have you have done on this article and will in this instance defer to your judgments on whether or not to change this since it is more stylistic than substantive SJMNY (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hap first: I can agree with that, and I appreciate you considering my view. I think that SJMY has a pretty good compromise, and I thing that your sidestepping the strength thing with Reagan;s defense policies is a good step in the right direction.

And no, I hadn't heard. This is the second time that something like that has happened (while in the UK). Maybe her blood pressure meds are off a bit (yes, that's blatant OR). I hope she feels better.

SJMY - thanks for contributing I think yiour suggested alternative is an excellent one. As well as rendering a negative connotation, it's also a bit redundant. Good catch. If no one else disagrees, I think you should be the one to change it - you earned it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the compliment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I hadn't read this until after I made the changes, but I too want to thank SJMNY for contributing and helping us reach common ground. Happyme22 (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Siberian Logic Bomb

Further information: [[:Farewell Dossier]]

CIA slipped bug to Soviets, MSNBC.com (2-26-2004) According to Thomas Reed, former Air Force secretary and then-National Security Council member, a CIA program was approved by Reagan in January 1982 in which a computer logic bomb was programmed into software which was meant to be stolen by the Soviets, which they then used to control an oil pipeline in Siberia. The logic bomb, once activated, altered the way that pumps and valves were working within the pipeline and increased the pressure within it beyond capacity, resulting in "the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space" and did significant damage to the Soviet economy, making it a contributing factor to its economic downfall. Could anyone see a way to incorporate this into the article if it is notable enough? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

intersting story that might be worth a small article or inclusion somewhere, but i don't think that this, one of probably hundreds of CIA operations during Reagan's presidency, warrants mention in Reagan's biography (maybe in the article "Presidency of Ronald Reagan") unless it was notable at the time or somehow becomes a point of contention between the U.S. and Russia today SJMNY (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Environmental legacy

The article needs info about his environmental policies from his time as California Governor through his Presidency. Remember his remarks on trees? Atomic Wedgie (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I actually agree. It belongs in the 1980 presidential campaign section ad I'll look for it when I have the chance. Happyme22 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

he said "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do" though i don't know what the context of the statement was. (theres allegedly a report in the journal "Nature" that backs this claim up, though i can't find it and only read about it through an associated press story about the report.)

the quote aside, the article "Presidency of Ronald Reagan" would be a good place for any extensive discussion of his environmental policies, though a mention of them would be appropriate here as well SJMNY (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you have a source? Happyme22 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

He did identify himself as member of the Sagebrush Rebels, the first grassroots-movement to counteract conservationism, and his presidential support essentially started the anti-environmental movment, which is still cutting down the environmental protection legeslation set by Reagan's predecessors. unfortunatly, i don't have a source.AnkhAnanku (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia: Age

I thought Reagan was the oldest man elected president of the US (70 for his first term, 74 for his second). If so, shouldn't that appear in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.228.204 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

He was 69 when elected and inaugurated and turned 70 only three weeks following. I hadn;t even noticed that it wasn't in the article until now. Thank you for pointing it out. Happyme22 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

John McCain would beat the record, if he's elected... but yes, as of now, Ronald Reagan was the oldest president at his election, inaugaration, and at the end of his term of service. He used to be longest lived president, until Gerald Ford beat that record. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, McCain would not be the oldest president inaugruated; Reagan would still hold that record because of his second inauguration in 1985, where he was 73 years old. McCain, if elected, would be 72, and thus the oldest person to assume the office of the presidency, not be inaugurated. Happyme22 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but doesn't that tidbit belong in the McCain article once - and if - he actually gains the presidency? We don't have a crystal ball here; there are so many parts of this article that can be addressed in the here and now, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm totally with you on that. In no way did I mean to imply that this somehow merits inclusion. Happyme22 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Priority assessments & WPBiography workgroups

I have changed the politician and filmbio workgroup templates into separate ones as Reagan's level of priority for politics ranks higher (top) than his priority as an actor (high). There is no way to denote this within one template. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Disneyland

Wasn't Reagan at opening day in Disneyland back in the mid 1950s? I notice that he is shown in the opening show and that other websites mention this too. Should this fact be in the article? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He was indeed, but I think that fact falls under WP:TRIVIA. --Happyme22 (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cold War legacy section image use

User:Southern Texas inserted a portrait of President Reagan in the Oval Office in 1985 with the caption "Reagan focused on an end to the Cold War throughout his term". Arcayne removed it. Here's my thoughts on it:

A place for an image is provided by the somewhat-lengthy two paragraph addition, and I don't think it hurts the article by adding one. The particular image that was used, however, was not really notable in relation to the text. I would prefer an image of Reagan with Gorbachev (options: 1, 2, 3, 4).

As for the caption: I see little wrong with it and I'm not sure why your objected to it, Arcayne. Reagan was committed to ending the Cold War; he himself states that in his autobiography (see: Reagan, Ronald. An American Life. Simon & Schuster, New York: 1990, pp. 14-15), and acknowledges that he began talking with Soviet insiders regarding the Cold War in his first term (he calls it "quiet diplomacy" on page 14). How much he actually contributed to the end is the debatable part.

To me, this whole issue is not that big and I'm willing to let the whole thing slide unless there are considerable objections. I surely don't want to get into another argument right now, because I've got a lot on my plate at home and in Wiki. But thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort-of a related comment -- I agree with adding a photo in this circumstance considering the Cold War was a big part of the Reagan legacy. I like image 2, but in all honesty it is a bit trivial and corny, plus it shows him in his older, least healthy years. I think image 3 is more appropriate... very stately on both Gorbachev and Reagan sides. I should note this this is an unbiased opinion. I am a Democrat and have never voted GOP in my life (LOL!)... but my personal, third-party opinion is that you are correct about the addition considering his legacy. :) 72.213.129.138 (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For myself, my problem is twofold: first of all, captioning an image with the unrelated comment "Reagan focused on an end to the Cold War throughout his term" is inappropriate, as the image is not specifically related to that caption statement. It would be like having a picture of Ron in a wheelchair and captioning that he was incapable of controlling his staff from breaking the law in the Iran-Contra Affair. Clearly, the captioning lends itself to the idea that the subject isn't open to debate, and - as has clearly been shown, that legacy is hotly debated.

Secondly, we already have a painted image of Reagan, his official White House portrait. How many of these doe we need? I would prefer a photo (perhaps even the one of him and Gorby in cowboy hats, if it can be licensed appropriately), if at all. The article seems a bit image-heavy to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it is a very long article, and I know that long articles get pretty boring without photos. So it seems we like the cowboy hat image; I'll try that. Happyme22 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just at the Reagan Library the other day, and took this picture there. I put it in as well. Happyme22 (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cabinet

How is this an FA without a {{Infobox U.S. Cabinet}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a longer article, and an exact duplicate of the cabinet table is found at the Presidency of Ronald Reagan article. Believe me, it can be an FA without one. Happyme22 (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

69 days, 70 days

Why is the day count in the article at all? Who cares how many days it was? It's just words for the sake of words. I say take it out altogether. -- Zsero (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And you didn't bother to wait for consensus, or even any discussion before doing it, either, did you? Clearly, it has been thought noteworthy enough to put it in the article. The "20-year presidential curse" struck Reagan too, and very shortly after he took office. Not so unusual that someone would find that noteworthy. My edit was simply aimed at getting the wording right. Isaacsf (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it needs to be there in the first place, and taking it out solves all the bickering about the exact number. It's useless verbiage, designed to sound impressive and signify nothing. It's the stuff you pad an essay with when you're trying to increase the word count; here we should be trying to decrease it.

Oh, and there's no need to wait for consensus to make an edit. I explained here why I was doing it, and then I did it. You obviously object for some reason, so now let's talk it out. Why exactly do you think it's significant? -- Zsero (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that is is significant because it occured so soon into office (roughly three months). This boosted his approval ratings and its timing had an effect on the administration. I originally thought that it was 69 days, but quick google search shows that "Reagan shot 69 days" turns up 79,100 hits, while "Reagan shot 70 days" generates 134,000 hits. Perhaps something such as "...only 70 days into his administration (some sources cite 69), Reagan was shot...." --Happyme22 (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

1) The date tells the reader that it was fairly soon after the inauguration. How does the exact number of days affect that? Would his approval ratings have risen less if it had been three months, or three weeks? How is the article better with the exact day count?

2) This isn't a case where we can cite conflicting sources; it's a simple matter of fact, and there can be no dispute. It doesn't matter how many google hits each number gets. Just count the days, if you care so much. -- Zsero (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed (see below) Isaacsf (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I did in fact just count, and it is 70. But I would like to see what some other editors think before proceeding. Happyme22 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording matters. It was on day 70, which is 69 days after he was sworn in, on day 1. Isaacsf (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but I objected to removing the content for no clear reason. Someone thought it noteworthy enough to put it in there, and others think it is worthy enough to spend time trying to get it right, so I just felt that deleting it is sort of like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

As for padding an essay, I disagree. If it were day 274 or day 621 or something like that, that might be the case. But the point is it was very early in his presidency. I suspect that many historical references will include this in the future. The official White House biographies do make mention of length of time or significance of the date in some cases of assassinations, anyway. Harrison died "a month after taking office." Lincoln was shot on Good Friday. JFK was "hardly past his first thousand days in office." See:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/wh9.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jk35.html

On the other hand, not all assassinated (or even died in office) are so noted, and Reagan didn't die in office anyway. Still, as I've said - someone thought it interesting enough to include in the first place, and it is verifiable. I was just trying to get it right. Isaacsf (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this was a wacky topic of discussion. I've removed the reference, as the assassination attempt and the swearing in were not directly related. Hinkley was so far gone, he would have taken shots at a halibut, had the little Jodie Foster voices from Catch22 told him to do so. That last part was more for amusement's sake, but the wording was as awkward as a 5th grade dance. Granted. Z culd have been a tad more tactful, and waited to build a consensus, but everyone at this particular section has added an edit immediately after posting a comment on discussion without awaiting group nods (myself included). Let's try to keep it polite, Isaac. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, where was I impolite?

Addressing your other comments, I've not expressed a strong opinion as to whether or not it is noteworthy. My edit was simply to get it right. It was on Day 70, which was 69 days after he was sworn in. Apparently, someone thought this noteworthy enough to include in the article, some time back. I felt the removal was not in keeping with Wikipedia etiquette.  :-Frank Isaacsf (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if your comment "And you didn't bother to wait for consensus, or even any discussion before doing it, either, did you?" wasn't meant as impolite, I withdraw my chastisement.

And, understanding that Z should have edit-summaried his post with more explanation (and grace), sometimes edits that have been added in at some point will be edited out as unnecessary, like a tadpole's tail or Nixon's horns. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok, perhaps it was a bit provocative...I felt it was equal to the comment it replied to. In retrospect, maybe I was reacting to the miniscule amount of time between my cleanup and its wholesale deletion...as if I were the one who put the tail on the tadpole in the first place. Rather, I just wanted the tail to be the correct length :-) Isaacsf (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't we all...and in the end, it falls off anyway. :)

I guess we are good, then. I pulled it becasue the two events (Reagan getting elected and the assassination attempt) aren't directly related. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The end of the Cold War

Mikoyan has just changed this section, claiming that Reagan didn't get major concessions in the arms treaties, on the grounds that the treaties applied equally to both sides. This is a ridiculous argument; of course they applied equally to both sides, but it was the USA that wanted limits on conventional forces, and the USSR that didn't. That the USSR was forced to agree to these treaties was a major concession, and there's no possible explanation for it except the strain Reagan and Thatcher put on the Soviet budget, through Star Wars, funding the Afghan resistance, and bringing down oil prices.

Mikoyan also points to glasnost as if it explained events. But glasnost itself is one of the events that needs explanation. Surely nobody imagines that Gorby introduced it out of the goodness of his heart! It was a last-ditch attempt to save communism, like the NEP 60 years earlier; forced by the defeat in Afghanistan and the impossibility of keeping up with Western defense spending.

Let Mikoyan make his case here on the talk page. In the meantime the information he deleted, which appears to be adequately sourced, should be restored to the article while that discussion happens. -- Zsero (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Speculation, speculation, speculation. I assume you have proof from Gorbachev himself that he was forced to sign the treaties? Same goes for the speculation that Gorbachev introduced glasnost because of Afghanistan, same goes for the speculation that glasnost was introduced because the USSR "was unable to keep up with Western defense spending". These are all nice theories, but they are not facts and please don't try to present them as such. "Major concession" is not a fact, its an opinion - USA that wanted limits on conventional forces, and the USSR that didn't - clearly they could have because they signed the treaty.--Miyokan (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Miyokan is correct here, Zsero - in that some of your statements are speculative. However, you are correct in that the changes that Miyokan should discuss these changes here prior to making them. I know he's following the BRD cycle of editing, and that's hunky-dorey. I think that the catalyst of editing boldly to inspire folks to discuss the matter isn't really needed here. Simply opening up a conversation can do wonders. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The role of budget deficits was extremely important in the collapse of USSR, Russian politicans have learned that lesson and now Russia has huge budget surplus and third largest forex reserves in the world.

The role of glastnost was quite subtle. Gorby did introduce it out of the goodness of his heart, but the establishment supported his reforms only because they saw the USSR could not keep up with the West. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, we aren't looking for what you think, we are looking for what you can prove. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This [2] is a good treatment of the subject and it completely validates Zsero's position and Reagan's role. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of opinion but of facts. The Soviets' oil revenue was plummeting; the cost of keeping up with the West was soaring; they were running out of money fast, and it was impossible for them to keep up. It's also a fact that the Red Army was defeated in Afghanistan.

It's also an indisputable fact that the whole point of the arms talks was that the West wanted the Soviets to cut back on their superiority in conventional arms, while the Soviets wanted to talk only about nuclear arms, in which the West had the edge. The fact is that the Soviets ended up agreeing to conventional cutbacks, i.e. conceding their position. None of this is even remotely speculative. It's simply what happened.

Now unless we're to believe that a fairy came and changed the Soviets' hearts, and it was pure coincidence that this change came about just when they were running out of the money they needed to keep up in the arms race, it's trivial to conclude that A caused B. And just to stave off the claim that even this trivial analysis is OR, we have sources saying just that. That is all we need. QED. -- Zsero (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, do you think that maybe you can turn down the volume on your snarlyness machine, Zsero? Honestly, there are people in Wikipedia ()indeed, in this very article) who could editorially hit back so hard that your grandchildren would be bruised. Keep it polite and keep it professional - there isn't going to be any room for anything else. I hope that makes my point crystal clear.

It isn't a matter of facts, and it isn't undisputed - that we are talking about it here is pretty conclusive proof that these 'facts' are not necessarily seen as such. AAs it would appear that Miyokan has some knowledge of the Russian side of the subject, it might be helpful to simply ask him for citations that prove his statements. While you're at it, perhaps provide some to prove your own, please. Just keep your ego out of it, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, have you read this [3] source? The author is Russian economist and the former prime minister of Russia. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, as I said, those are all theories based on no hard evidence but observations like "A happened and then B happened so therefore C is true". For those theories to be fact, one would have to know the motivations behind the actions taken by the Soviet leadership, and since no one does, then it is pure speculation. You cannot prove any of those theories, they are just mere speculation, a mere hypothesis based on no hard evidence but simply observations.--Miyokan (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The work by Gaidar is a scholarly science unlike claims by journalists (he studied Soviet economy, not the minds of Soviet leaders). The argument about "observations" is valid for all scientific research. You should know that even in natural sciences no one claims the he found "the truth" . One must only keep his claims consistent with experimental observations. That holds for all original scientific research. The search for "the truth" is even less relevant here, in WP.Biophys (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Doop, I had not read that, though Yegor Gaidar is pretty well-known feller (the alleged poisoning thing brought him somewhat to the fore). Maybe bring some citations from that link to source the statements being made here.

Miyokan, maybe it will be easier if we just use citations to make our pints. Would we agree on that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes :-) --Happyme22 (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[Copyright violation removed] --Happyme22 (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Source - [4]--Miyokan (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, how the Soviet Union collapsed and who contributed to it is a matter of opinion and speculation, not fact, it is still a matter of debate and there is no concensus. The entire premise that Reagan had some kind of meaningful role in the collapse of the Soviet Union is a view held only/primarily in the United States, that has been described as stemming from the blend of sentimentality, Cold War triumphalism and superficial news coverage that reflects the dangerous American habit of neglecting the world's complexity in favor of drawing a self-indulgent, solipsistic caricature of international affairs[5], you won't find anyone in Russia or outside the US who subscribes to this premise. Similarly in the UK, they push the view that Margaret Thatcher had a meaningful role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. The only thing we can write is the facts - Gorbachev introduced glasnost - Gorbachev/Reagan jointly signed arms treaties - Gorbachev/Reagan had summits.--Miyokan (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we can cite any scholarly work on the reasons of the Soviet Union collapse. It follows from the books that main reason of the Soviet economy collapse were low prices of oil at the time (that follows from books by Gaidar who is a professional economist). Huge military expenditures also contributed. The role of Gorbachev was less significant, and the role of Reagan is mostly propaganda. Of course, Gorbachev claims that he made the "perestroika". This should be taken with a healthy criticism. Gorbachev is a primary source, and his direct citation should be kept to the minimum. I am also against last edits by Myokan, but the claim that Sovet Union provided major military concessions to the US should be better sourced (the link is dead or wrong).Biophys (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would submit that Gorby supporters' claims are as notable as those of Reagan's supporters. There is scholarly research on both sides of this discussion, which means - as editors here in Wikipedia - that we aim for objective neutrality, and avoid picking sides. Considering hte heat coming off these replies, making backing off a bit from the rhetoric is going to help every one find the appropriate middle ground here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: The end of the Cold War - The reasons of the Soviet collapse

I think the following segment is not completely correct:

By the early 1980s, Moscow had built up a military that had surpassed that of the United States.[145] Previously, the United States had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but with Soviet technological advances in the 1980s, the gap between the two nations was narrowed.[145] With the Soviet military buildup came large budget deficits; as a result, Gorbachev offered major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe.

It implies that Soviet concessions resulted from the military build up. No, they resulted from economic collapse due to low oil prices, as was convincingly shown by Gaidar. Also it tells about "Soviet technological advances in the 1980s". There was no any technological advances as far as I know.Biophys (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an exact citation for the low oil prices (you mentioned a book source above, but it needs a page number to merit possible inclusion)? I replaced the dead link with one that attributes the concessions Gorbachev made to the US to the large-scale military buildup because they were trying to keep up with the US and their economy had become even weaker as a result; this contributed to Gorby's willingness to sign a 1987 arms agreement (I'm thinking it's the INF Treaty - it's all in that NYT source). And since you are stating, and I seem to be agreeing, that there were little Soviet technological advances in the 80s, that should be rephrased to talk about the military buildup. And what's all this about oil? What exact role did oil play? Happyme22 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Doopdoop added a source, and the source seems to back up what information was added. Happyme22 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the military build up also played a significant role. The only "technological advances" I can think of are production of huge quantities of biological and chemical weapons during Gorbachev's tenure. Soviet Union indeed left US far behind in those areas (As Kouzminov proudly stated, "Soviet Union was the only country in the world that could start and win global biological war") - for obvious reasons. I will take a look at the book by Gaidar (Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia, by Yegor Gaidar, Brookings Institution Press (October 17, 2007), ISBN 0-815-73114-0) to find an appropriate citation (but I only have a Russian edition). The entire book is about Soviet economy collapse due to low oil prices. It is very convincing, although a little boring.Biophys (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha well thanks. As I mentioned, a contention has been added to the article regarding oil prices with a cite provided. If you find something to back up that argument, please present it here. And you might want to take a look at the section below. Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Boring? Dude, the text was the Cure to Insomnia (at least for those uninterested in the topic. I found it pretty densely written - typically Russian - but excellent).

Not that it has happened yet, but it has gotten a bit close to it a few times: make sure we aren't asking for opposing views to have more citation than any other view. While I am thinking that the article is straying a bit far from the article about the man and the man alone. Isn't there an article on the Cold War where this stuff is better suited? I think there might even be an article on Reagan and the Cold War. Let's just avoid all the crazy talk about how Reagan had any effect on the Cold War's ending, esp. since it can be cited that he simply didn't have as much effect as Reaganuts would have us belief. As with all things, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2: The end of the Cold War - The myth that Reagan escalated the cold war (increased arms buildup) and "bankrupted" the Soviet Union

"The Reagan-era defense buildup did contribute to ending the Cold War, but the causal connection is more indirect than described in the conventional wisdom. In other words, the impact of the Reagan buildup was not primarily a function of the strain it placed on the Soviet economy. The Soviet Union never increased its military spending to match the rate of the Reagan buildup and hence avoided exacerbating the defense burden on the Soviet economy."

"From 1977-1988, which included the peak years of U.S. defense spending increases, Soviet military spending usually increased only one to two percent per year, not nearly enough to match the U.S. rate of growth. After 1988, the Soviets actually cut their defense spending. This reflected the constraints of a weak Soviet economy, as Reagan and his aides correctly perceived, but also shows the Reagan buildup did not lure the Soviets into making the military drain on their economy worse. The calculations of Soviet military spending given here are from CIA estimates cited in F. Stephen Larrabee, "Gorbachev and the Soviet Military,"[[6]] Foreign Affairs 66, no. 5 (Summer 1988), p. 1003, and U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, 1995 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, April 1996), p. 94."

Source-[7]--Miyokan (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure how it is a myth that Reagan escalated the Cold War. That's a pretty true fact. He built up the military first and foremost, and deployed missiles to parts of the world. That surely didn't make the Soviets happy, thus escalating the war. Happyme22 (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh*... It is obvious from what I subsequently quoted that "Reagan escalated the cold war" was referring to "Reagan increased arms buildup".--Miyokan (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So what are the numbers of Soviet military spendings according to the CIA? I mean in dollars, in % of Soviet GDP or whatever? Those CIA idiots knew nothing about Soviet program of biological weapons before defection of Passechnik. They based some of their estimates on official numbers of Soviet statistics that were completely invented (I can easily provide a citation of a historian about it). This is not to say that SU made a significant military build up in 1980s; probably it did not. But they could not support the Soviet military at the already existing level since the oil prices dropped down.Biophys (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Myokin I see a lot of problems with your not-so-neutral point of view version as well, which I will outline on this page when I can (not right now, but soon). Happyme22 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just another point. It was written in some sources that Reagan's "star war" program, although a total propaganda, had a significant psychological effect on the Soviet leadership, and perhaps indeed accelerated "perestroika". Biophys (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC) But maybe I am wrong here. It only led to intensification of Cold War and operation RYAN.Biophys (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Happyme, everything I wrote is sourced, it is not my POV, it is what the sources say - "Verifiability, not truth". Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. That's rich, accusing me of POV when one looks at your user page - the huge American flag, God Bless America! and that Reagan is a personal hero of yours, so of course you do not like it when you have sources that take away from his impact on the cold war.--Miyokan (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And now you have crossed the line of decency by personally attacking me; what the hell does it matter what my user page says? I love my country - so what? I've simply disagreed with you, and you have now attacked me personally for a reason I cannot even begin to fathom. I'm not objecting to your revision because I tend to favor Ronald Reagan. I am objecting because it is flat out POV! This article is about Ronald Reagan, not Mikhail Gorbachev (see Mikhail Gorbachev for his article) and it is not about how much Gorbachev and his policies contributed to the Cold War end; that is completely irrelevant to Ronald Reagan. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. I am only checking in right now and cannot get around to outlining, in detail, what is wrong with your revision, but that will come soon. Happyme22 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I too agree that "God bless America" was inappropriate argument by Miyokan, especially since he had this red user box.Biophys (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Those sourced edits were just as POV as the edits which assert Reagan's role in ending the cold war. Why are you trying to cover up the sources that assert Reagan's role as minimal? What "the hell" is wrong with adding the well-sourced information that says the Soviet Union never increased its military spending to match the rate of the Reagan buildup and hence avoided exacerbating the defense burden on the Soviet economy, a common misperception? Let's discuss this. If I offended you I apologize but I was not the one that I was not that brought up the POV argument, it was you that first asserted, "You sir apparently have a real chip on your shoulder". As a side note to Biophys, who seems to always pop up in articles that I edit, that userbox is nothing incriminating, it is obviously tongue-in-cheek poking fun at the paranoia on wikipedia, are you seriously trying to make people believe that it was serious and I am a member of the KGB?--Miyokan (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I said the following: it is irrelevant and inappropriate to refer to userboxes in such discussions. Everyone can display userboxes he likes if this is not against WP policies.Biophys (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually you said the following-"I too agree that "God bless America" was inappropriate argument by Miyokan, especially since he had this red user box". And I never referred to Happy's userboxes. Saying "especially since he had this red user box" implies that there is something incriminating about it, that is obvious to anyone.--Miyokan (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe I am he one to be suggesting this (I am usually the cause of this sort of stuff ;) ), but let's everyone calm the hell down.

• Miyokan - recognize that Happy is just as proud of his nation as you of yours. Respect his,and he will respect yours. You are providing citations to make your points, so keep that up, and try to avoid the personal asides, even if - scratch that, especially if - you feel goaded into being confrontational. Give others the respect that you would want to receive.
• Happyme22 - Miyokan is from Nizhny Novgorod, Russia, and he has a lot to be proud of, coming from there. Consider that he sees this article, which has some points that he finds to be incorrect, and he is trying to address those points, and feels he is finding an Amero-centric audience. Note that he didn't snipe at anyone until someone ignored his usage of citations. He was out of line, but responding to it only exacerbates the situation. Let it go and move on.
• Biophys - you have been asking for citations, and Miyokan is giving them. Then you sya that there are other citations that controvert them. Rather than speaking in generalities, provide those sourcesthat speak to precisely what you are saying. At this point, I would rather insist that you do this, in order to avoid accusations of POV that will soon - if they haven't already - fly.

Everyone needs to back off a little bit and take a breather. Hap and Biophys, consider what a valuable resource Miyokan's point of view is: he's a Russian (therefore possessing a unique perspective on the Cold War); note that when asked for sources, he provides them. How many times have we dealt with POV pukes who not only fail to provide sources for their viewpoints, but then attack folk who ask for them? The situation we are now in can be easily returned t a helpful one. Miyokan, understand that addressing the editor and not the editor (unless they are acting like utter rat bastards, in which case you head straight to AN/I) is counter-productive. Keep your cool, and you will find that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Gosh, I feel all growns-up. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3: The end of the Cold War - "Major concessions"

"With the Soviet military buildup came large budget deficits; as a result, Gorbachev offered major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe"

Whether they were "major concessions" is a matter of opinion, the sentence can be reworded without the POV statement. We already have a primary source (Gorbachev) that rejects the premise that he made any concessions and said that both "A lot of forces on both sides had an interest in prolonging the arms race," including military-industrial lobbies on both sides. Furthermore, the source does not support this statement. It is not alleging that these "major concessions" (note the source says that diplomats considered it a "serious concession") were as a result of budget deficits.--Miyokan (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Should "Soviet military buildup" be changed to "Soviet military expenditures"? --Doopdoop (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts?

The end of the Cold War - Take Two

Let's try that again, but with citations only and a lot less feeling. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that I am Russian too and have "the unique perspective". We need really good scholarly secondary sources here, not the tales by Gorbachev himself (a primary source). Here they are.

1. The book by one of the best Soviet/Russian economists Yegor Gaidar Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia, by Yegor Gaidar, Brookings Institution Press (October 17, 2007), ISBN 0-815-73114-0. See for example chapters 4.7 and 4.8 (pages 190-205) in Russian edition (ISBN 5-8243-0759-8).

2. Book Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, 1994 (ISBN 0-87113-567-1) (see also Reagan's War) by Peter Schweizer and other similar sources cited by Gaidar among hundreds of others.

The books are consistent with each other although written from different sides and different perspectives. Brief summary of certain points from the book by Gaidar (and Victory by Schweizer), as I understood them:

1. Yes, Reagan contributed a lot to the fall of the Soviet Union (SU), but not by accelerating the Cold War, but by agreeing with the Saudis to increase the production of oil three times, which dropped down the oil prices and finally the Soviet economy.

2. Gorbachev was forced to conduct new "perestroika" policy and he rightly did so in attempt to save the SU (which was supported by the Soviet Politburo), but it was already too late. Perhaps his policies accelerated a little the fall of the SU, but he hardly can be blamed of that.

3. SU was doomed to break down from the beginning, due to the following factors: (a) inefficient "socialist" economy built during the Stalin's industrialization (there was no way to compete with Western or US economies); (b) heavy crisis of agriculture due to Soviet collectivization (hence the buying grain and other similar production abroad); (c) yes, the huge military expenditures which accumulated gradually in 1960s to 1980s (SU had achieved at least a parity with the US, a much bigger economy).

4. However, SU could be kept on a float as long as oil prices were high. Both Soviet and US leadership realized that. Therefore, SU leaders funded and tried to use terrorists like Haddad to blown up the oil infrastructure (with a little success at that time). On the US side, Richard Pipes recommended at the beginning of 1980s to destabilize the SU by dropping oil prices (page 193). William_J._Casey supported this. In April 1981 Casey visited Saudi Arabia to discuss this matter (page 192). In November 1982 Reagan signed a directive NSDT-66 about undermining the Soviet economy by various means including dropping oil prices. That was possible in part due to intervention of SU in Afganistan, which made Arab countries more friendly to the US. When Saudi Arabia increased the oil output three times (page 196), and other OPEC members followed, the priced dropped down, especially starting from 1985 (nice chart 3.11 at page 104).

5. Soviet Union needed a lot of money to support other socilaist countries.

6. Gaidar specifically disprove the version that SU fall was due to the "military buildup" during last decade of the Cold War. There was no any! That was not a market economy which could increase or decrease the production quickly. Everything was defined by the current capacity: if a factory produced 100 tanks per year, it could only continue doing so, year after year, under conditions of the Soviet economy. However, the militarization of the Soviet economy played a key role: huge amount of food and consumer goods (or parts for consumer goods) were bought abroad, whereas the internal resources of the country were used for the military production. The consumer goods were bought in exchange for oil and other natural resources. So, when the resources prices fell, everything disintegrated very quickly.

P.S. Gaider describes the collapse of the SU in great details, with numerous Tables, charts, etc. - probably the best scholarly source on the subject.Biophys (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The above is fascinating. I am willing to work with everyone participating in this discussion; Arcayne and others know that I'm a pretty reasonable guy if the discussion is civil. Here is what was wrong with Myokan's revision:

• Contention 1: Apparently you are correct that the USSR did not build up their military to try and match that of the US, because their economy was too weak and they couldn't, thus not further hurting the economy. The sentence added to the article was a copyright violation, however, from this (and I'm not talking about the quote in the citation parameter). It was also written with POV words, i.e. lure.

• Contention 2: You repeated that the Reagan Admin. persuaded the Saudis to lower oil prices. It did not have to be repeated.

• Contention 3: With the Soviet military buildup came large budget deficits; as a result, western diplomats claim that Gorbachev offered "major concessions" to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe, however this claim is rejected by Gorbachev who dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions.

"Western diplomats claim" is POV. Scare quotes on major concessions is POV. Furthermore, you totally contradict your other argument: you said that the USSR didn't build up its military at all, yet here we have Gorby offering concessions because their economy is weak from these buildups. You also failed to provide a source, linking it to this New York Times article, which states the opposite. And also, what do you think Gorbachev is going to say? He's surely not going to admit that Reagan had any influence over him: they were enemies! True, I cannot prove that Gorbachev is making it up, but this New York Times article says it is what most likley happened because "an arms agreement would end a long period of frustration in foreign policy, marked by his failure to halt 'Star Wars', to induce the United States to stop testing nuclear weapons or to end his country's entanglement in Afghanistan....Western diplomats here said today, by breaking the logjam in arms control, he may revive prospects of further arms agreements, including his ultimate arms control ambition, an agreement limiting the 'Star Wars' program. Thus, diplomats said, Mr. Gorbachev's announcement represented a serious concession.....The major concession lies in Mr. Gorbachev's willingness to sign a separate pact eliminating medium-range missiles in Europe. He had insisted since October that such an agreement must be part of a package that would include deep reductions in intercontinental missiles and strict limits on Mr. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative." While it is US diplomats saying this, the logic cannot be ignored.

• Contention 4: "Gorbachev says that "A lot of forces on both sides had an interest in prolonging the arms race" and that glasnost was undertaken not because of any foreign pressure or concern but because Russia was dying under the weight of the Stalinist system. He said the Soviet Union could have withstood any arms race and that Soviet Union could have actually decided not to build more weapons, because they the weapons they had were more than enough. From 1985 onwards, Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the policy of glasnost (openness); freedoms of expression and of information were significantly expanded; the press and broadcasting were allowed unprecedented candour in their reportage and criticism; and the country's legacy of Stalinist totalitarian rule was eventually completely repudiated by the government.[citation: "Gorbachev, Mikhail". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-03-16.]"

First, it is coming from Gorbachev himself, not a scholarly source. Second, it has very little to do with Ronald Reagan himself, thus the bulk of it does not belong. I'm going to go through every line and make comments after each:

Gorbachev says that "A lot of forces on both sides had an interest in prolonging the arms race" and that glasnost was undertaken not because of any foreign pressure or concern but because Russia was dying under the weight of the Stalinist system. [Primary source, not secondary. Gaidar is cited above saying that oil had a huge affect on Gorbachev's implmentation of perestroika and glasnost] He said the Soviet Union could have withstood any arms race and that Soviet Union could have actually decided not to build more weapons, because they the weapons they had were more than enough. [That's just dandy. There is no relevant point here.] From 1985 onwards, Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the policy of glasnost (openness); freedoms of expression and of information were significantly expanded; the press and broadcasting were allowed unprecedented candour in their reportage and criticism; and the country's legacy of Stalinist totalitarian rule was eventually completely repudiated by the government. [Again, this has little to do with RR].

• Contention 5: "It is argued that it was Reagan's defense policies, hard line rhetoric against the Soviet Union and Communism, as well as summits with General Secretary Gorbachev that played his part in ending the War."

It's not argued: it's a fact. Reagan's beefed up military had an affect on the USSR, period. Joyce Barnathan, a reporter in Russia during the 80s, says, "As a reporter in Moscow during the 1980s, I could see the loathing -- and the fear -- that Reagan provoked. After years of détente, the arduous Soviet-American effort to find common ground, along came this new President ordering up space weapons, arming anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan, and launching a blistering new phase of the Cold War. The Soviets blustered back, but their sclerotic system wasn't up for another fight. The image that sticks in my mind is one elderly guard at a lonely train station deep in Ukraine. 'Why is your President Reagan creating this Star Wars?' he asked plaintively. Pochemu? -- Why?... Reagan repeatedly upped the ante -- and the Soviets realized that the costs of matching him militarily were beyond their means. The Soviet economy was languishing: Military spending ate up 14% of the budget, while growth slowed to 2.2%"

The text just wasn't suitable how it was, as outlined above. I know that we can create something from it and other ideas offered by Biophys, who seems to know his stuff. Happyme22 (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also see Predictions of Soviet collapse. I think we do not have major disagreements here. Soviet military spendings were more than 50-60% of the Soviet budget but no one knows exactly how much. Some of the funded projects were really crazy, like seismic weapons or sending accelerators of charged particles into the outer space to use them as beam guns against US satellites. Everything of that kind was funded.Biophys (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With the Soviet military buildup came large budget deficits; as a result, western diplomats claim that Gorbachev offered "major concessions" to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe, however this claim is rejected by Gorbachev who dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions.

"Western diplomats claim" is POV. Scare quotes on major concessions is POV. Furthermore, you totally contradict your other argument: you said that the USSR didn't build up its military at all, yet here we have Gorby offering concessions because their economy is weak from these buildups. You also failed to provide a source, linking it to this New York Times article, which states the opposite. And also, what do you think Gorbachev is going to say? He's surely not going to admit that Reagan had any influence over him: they were enemies! True, I cannot prove that Gorbachev is making it up, but this New York Times article says it is what most likley happened because "an arms agreement would end a long period of frustration in foreign policy, marked by his failure to halt 'Star Wars', to induce the United States to stop testing nuclear weapons or to end his country's entanglement in Afghanistan....Western diplomats here said today, by breaking the logjam in arms control, he may revive prospects of further arms agreements, including his ultimate arms control ambition, an agreement limiting the 'Star Wars' program. Thus, diplomats said, Mr. Gorbachev's announcement represented a serious concession.....The major concession lies in Mr. Gorbachev's willingness to sign a separate pact eliminating medium-range missiles in Europe. He had insisted since October that such an agreement must be part of a package that would include deep reductions in intercontinental missiles and strict limits on Mr. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative." While it is US diplomats saying this, the logic cannot be ignored.

With the Soviet military buildup came large budget deficits; as a result, western diplomats claim that Gorbachev offered "major concessions" to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe, however this claim is rejected by Gorbachev who dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. - Scare quotes? If you say so. Remove them.

Furthermore, you totally contradict your other argument: you said that the USSR didn't build up its military at all, yet here we have Gorby offering concessions because their economy is weak from these buildups. - I said that the USSR didn't build up its military in response to Reagan's buildup.

New York Times article says it is what most likley happened - that is your opinion. I do not think that this is what most likely happened. It is all very iffy. Gorbachev signed a nuke pact because he HOPED in the FUTURE there might be some agreement to reduce SDI? Just as you say that of course Gorbachev would say that he was not pressured, of course the western diplomats would say that it was a major concession.

I do not see the problem with changing it to this. It is the most accurate and neutral and avoids statements which are disputed. The end of the cold war is still heavily debated and a matter of speculation, based on a lot of mind reading. You can even say it without the last part, as long as you say "western diplomats claim that Gorbachev offered major concessions" - With the Soviet military buildup came large budget deficits; as a result, western diplomats claim that Gorbachev offered major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe, however this claim is rejected by Gorbachev who dismissed the suggestion that Reagan had intimidated him or the Soviet Union, or forced them to make concessions. --Miyokan (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The diplomats are not claiming it, they are stating it. When I see the word "claim" being used, I think of someone saying "they say it's true, but it's really not". It's a weasel word used to pretend that you are not taking sides, but indeed by using it you are. The paragraph is also repetitive toward the end, giving more weight to the "Gorbachev didn't offer concessions" clan. Again, I reiterate what the NYT said: "an arms agreement would end a long period of frustration in foreign policy, marked by [Gorbachev's] failure to halt 'Star Wars', to induce the United States to stop testing nuclear weapons or to end his country's entanglement in Afghanistan....Western diplomats here said today, by breaking the logjam in arms control, he may revive prospects of further arms agreements, including his ultimate arms control ambition, an agreement limiting the 'Star Wars' program. Thus, diplomats said, Mr. Gorbachev's announcement represented a serious concession.....The major concession lies in Mr. Gorbachev's willingness to sign a separate pact eliminating medium-range missiles in Europe. He had insisted since October that such an agreement must be part of a package that would include deep reductions in intercontinental missiles and strict limits on Mr. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative."

Which USSR military buildup are you reffering to? First you said there wasn't one after Reagan's buildup (which I've now found is indeed true), and then you said above, "I said that the USSR didn't build up its military in response to Reagan's buildup." Well then when did it?

I'd like to hear what the other Russian, User:Biophys, has to say about all this. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I think this article as a whole is very well written. Second, I would remove the following segments from this paragraph as questionable per other reliable sources (although I do not insist on anything):

By the early 1980s, Moscow had built up a military that had surpassed that of the United States.[145] Previously, the United States had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but with Soviet technological advances in the 1980s, the gap between the two nations was narrowed.[145] With the Soviet military buildup came large budget deficits; as a result, Gorbachev offered major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe.[146] The Reagan Administration also tried to persuade Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, resulting in a drop of oil prices;[147] this contributed to the large Soviet budget deficits.[147]

Finally, this segment should be written better, but it takes some time. If anyone can propose some better text per discussion above, please do. Just study the sources like this book by Gaidar, please. I would not cite Gorbachev, but rather people who wrote books about Reagan and Gorbachev, since secondary sources are better.Biophys (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is not quite relevant, but the plan of perestroika to misled the West has been debated in the KGB long time ago. How this suppose to work? For example, a state-controlled company Gazprom provides a public offering of its stocks. This way Western investors provide funds that can be used for development of Russian military. Such sales of stocks were not possible during Soviet times/Cold War, but only after the "perestroika" (see article Anatoliy Golitsyn). But this idea did not work well. Russian Army is in a worse condition now than it was in the Soviet times, because the Gazprom money are simply pocketed by Mr. Putin, Medvedev and other Russian oligarchs.Biophys (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Biophys, the following segments should be removed as questionable per other reliable sources - By the early 1980s, Moscow had built up a military that had surpassed that of the United States.[145] Previously, the United States had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but with Soviet technological advances in the 1980s, the gap between the two nations was narrowed.[145] With the Soviet military buildup came large budget deficits; as a result, Gorbachev offered major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe.[146] The Reagan Administration also tried to persuade Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, resulting in a drop of oil prices;[147] this contributed to the large Soviet budget deficits.

You again quoted the New York Times material and I'll again say this: That is the opinion of the western diplomats, contradicted by Gorbachev and statements from Soviet diplomats, who did not say that they were concessions. The statement by the western diplomats is no more reliable than that of Gorbachev, they are both biased. Just as you say that "of course Gorbachev would say that he was not pressured", of course the western diplomats would say that it was a major concession.

As a side note, and there you can see where Biophys is quite special, in that he believes Putin and Medvedev are pocketing Russian army funds and are secret billionaires. The Russian Army is in worse shape than in Soviet times because the Russian economy collapsed and GDP shrank by 50% and the economy was restructured so the burden of the military on the economy was reduced, military spending decreased 10 fold and the military went through a long and wrenching decline. In recent years it has begun to recover.--Miyokan (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, ease up a bit on addressing the other editors, and focus solely on the edits, please. Miyokan. Taking potshots at others makes them want to take potshots back, and nothing gets done.

I think for me, the larger issue looms: how much of this discussion is suited to this article, and how much would be better off someplace like the discussion page for the Cold War or fall of communism in Russia articles. This article is supposed to focus solely on the man, and the Cold War and Soviet Union articles are likely to be patrolled by folk on either side of the issue that are initmately aware of the subject. The people patrolling this page are either pro- or anti-Reagan editors, as well as those interested in the US presidency, and there mayvery wel be an Amero-centric point of view present here that might be absent in the aforementioned articles.

I would propose that this discussion be moved to the Cold War article discussion page and use the solutions/edits provided there to determine the phrasing for the Cold War statements here.

Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Main part of this discussion was about the role of Reagan in the Soviet Union dissolution and specific statements made in this article. That should stay here. Yes, we need a separate article Fall of Communism in Russia. So far we only have Decommunization, 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, articles in Category:1991 in the Soviet Union and History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991).Biophys (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I just helped you find your next big article win, Biophys! :D

Seriously, you should do that. About the Reagan thing, yes, i am not saying that we don't discuss his matters here. Its just that this conversation is wandering fairly far afield in that we are now trying to figure out what was going on in another subject's head, half a world away almost thirty years after the fact. The connection to Reagan is growing tenuous. I am suggesting that the larger bulk of this conversation take place elsewhere, and the peripheral value of Reagan's contribution be communicated and utilized here. Arguing back and forth in a snowball fight of citations just tells us that the claims are far from disputed, and far from clear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[arbitrary break for editing ease]

Well you are one hell of a mediator, Arcayne, and always seem to calm everyone down :) I don't mind if this discussion is moved to another article talk page, because it's not going to hurt. I do think Arcayne is correct in saying that while all viewpoints are welcome, there is primarily an Amero-centric view (haha - me) because Ronald Reagan was an American.

About the proposed changes - yes, the discussion is beginning to stray from the subject matter, but we cannot abandon the issue altogether. Regarding Biophys and Myokin's proposals for the paragraph, how about something such as:

By the late 1970s, Moscow had built up a military that had surpassed that of the United States. Previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but the gap had been narrowed. In turn, under President Reagan, the United States built up it's military to surpass that of the USSR; the Communist state did not further build up its military due to economic concerns. [citation: Barnathan, Joyce (June 21, 2004). "The Cowboy who Roped in Russia". Business Week. Retrieved 2008-03-17.] The Reagan Administration also persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, resulting in a drop of oil prices; this contributed to the large Soviet budget deficits.

[section continues as it was and picks up where it would ordinarily read 'When Gorbachev visited Washington, D.C....']

Prior to Gorbachev visiting Washington, D.C. for the third summit in 1987, the Soviet Leader announced his willingness to go further with arms agreements. [citation: Keller, Bill (March 2, 1987). "Gorbachev Offer 2: Other Arms Hints". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-17.] The timing of the announcment led Western diplomats to state that Gorbachev was offering major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe, however Gorbachev denied ever doing so. He and Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at the White House (they finalized it a year later), which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.

I do find the concessions contention to be relevant to Ronald Reagan's role in the Cold War, and thereby feel that it does deserve some mention. Here, I have provided both sides arguments (those of the West and of Gorby himself); the only thing I do not have is a citation for Gorby stating that he did not offer concessions. The above only shows citations that will be added. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the following instead of your first segment:

Everything here can be supported by sources, neutral, and encyclopedic.Biophys (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I want to include Reagan's military buildup because the article is about Ronald Reagan. I'm agreeing with you: Gorbachev did offer concessions as far as I'm concerned, but my views have absolutely no weight here and Myokin has objected. I hope that by including both side's arguments, he will agree to the proposed text. Biophys, I do think that that first part of your paragraph is more descriptive then mine, and better. I think a combination of them, such as the following, would work for the first paragraph:

By the early 1980s, Moscow had built up a military arsenal and army surpassing that of the United States.[145] Previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but the gap had been narrowed. In turn, under President Reagan, the United States built up it's military to surpass that of the USSR; the Communist state did not further build up its military; [citation: Barnathan, Joyce (June 21, 2004). "The Cowboy who Roped in Russia". Business Week. Retrieved 2008-03-17.] the enormous military expences, in combination with colectivized agriculture and innefficient planned manufacturing, were a heavy burden for the Soviet economy. At the same time, the Reagan Administration persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, which resulted in a three times drop of oil prices in 1985; oil was the main source of Soviet revenues. These factors gradually brought the Soviet economy to a state of collapse during Gorbachev's tenure [ref to book by Gaidar] [147] and forced the Soviet leadership to negotiate a significant reduction of conventional and nuclear weapons.[146]

The only things needed are citations for the last sentence and for everything about oil, which I presume are in your book by Gaidar. Biophys, I think you would be a major asset to the Soviet Union article and subarticles with that book. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea of the paragraph was that Soviet internal problems, the arms race, and the policies of the Reagan administration forced Soviet leadership to change their policies and negotiate arms reduction. So, I am not sure why do you need this segment:

"Previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but the gap had been narrowed. In turn, under President Reagan, the United States built up it's military to surpass that of the USSR; the Communist state did not further build up its military". Yes, Reagan had increased US military, as described in other parts of this article. Why do we need it here?

Yes, this is all in the book by Yegor Gaidar that I cited above. This is a reliable secondary source that cites inside a lot of primary sources, as usual. Biophys (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As about Soviet Union-related articles, I made only a few, because I have met too fierce oppositon of other Russian wikipedians. For example, I just edited article Russian presidential election, 2008 - the diff. Now see what happens.Biophys (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We have to remember that the article is about Ronald Reagan and he should be our primary focus. Everything that he did to cripple communism needs to be displayed, and this provides for extra background. Yes it is mentioned before, but only in relation to the US economy in the "Reaganomics and the economy" section; it is not mentioned in the "Cold War" section. Now that you bring that up, the section would indeed be benefitted by a sentence or two on Reagan's buildup, and then only a minor mention here in context to what happened in the cold war. I think that is probably the way to go. So, assuming there is a mention in the "Cold War" section, how about:

By the early 1980s, Moscow had built up a military arsenal and army surpassing that of the United States.[145] Previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but the gap had been narrowed. After President Reagan's military buildup, the Communist state did not further build up its military; [citation: Barnathan, Joyce (June 21, 2004). "The Cowboy who Roped in Russia". Business Week. Retrieved 2008-03-17.] the enormous military expences, in combination with colectivized agriculture and innefficient planned manufacturing, were a heavy burden for the Soviet economy. At the same time, the Reagan Administration persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, which resulted in a three times drop of oil prices in 1985; oil was the main source of Soviet revenues. These factors gradually brought the Soviet economy to a state of collapse during Gorbachev's tenure [ref to book by Gaidar] [147] and forced the Soviet leadership to negotiate a significant reduction of conventional and nuclear weapons.[146]

--Happyme22 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think statement "the Communist state did not further build up its military" is wrong because Gorby developed huge Soviet program of biological weapons in 1985-1991 while signing all these agreements with US.Biophys (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think we are all seeing some good movement on these issues, and I have to say that I am overjoyed that the content of the arguments is consistently about the interpretation of citations and not about each other.

Allow me to try something, with your assistance. First, what points are we agreed upon?

1.

2.

3.

4.

What still remains to be ironed out?

1.

2.

3.

4.

If we can stay on point (maintaining the focus solely upon Reagan's effect on the Cold War or lack thereof), we might be able to provide something for the good folk over at the Cold War article or several Russian articles that they can use or expand upon. In retrospect, i guess that understanding the extent/lack of extent of Reagan's efforts to beat the Soviets is going to take us - if not outside the field then to the boundary of it - is important, so long as we do not for a moment forget who the article is about. Not Reagan the Cold Warrior, nor Reagan the President. It is about Reagan the man who, as President did some things that differed from some other Presidents. Let's not forget that he was a guy who put on his trousers one leg at a time.

And thank you for the compliment about negotiation, Biophys. From an editor of your ability, I consider it high praise indeed. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're actually okay when it comes to content; Myokin wanted Gorbachev saying that he didn't offer concessions, which is in the proposed text; Biophys wanted the inclusion of oil's impact on the end of the Cold war, and it is; I wanted equality on the concessions contention and Reagan buildup, which we now have; you were the mediator of peace, Arcayne; I think everyone has what they originally wanted, and we are just hammering out the final details, mainly regarding placement. I'm awaiting Biophy's reply, and hopefully some acknowledgment from Myokin, then we can request unprotection and insert it. Happyme22 (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your revision has many serious problems:

Remove After President Reagan's military buildup, the Communist state did not further build up its military - misleading. This implies that the Soviet Union stopped building up its military. It is enough to say Reagan dramatically increased military spending. And even with Reagan's military buildup the Soviet Union probably still had a stronger military, the military budget was huge, but this is irrelevant.

Perhaps After President Reagan's military buildup, the Communist state did not further dramatically build up its military? We are trying to show that the USSR's economy was weak and they couldn't build up their military, as demonstatred in my comments below. Happyme22 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove the enormous military expences, in combination with colectivized agriculture and innefficient planned manufacturing, were a heavy burden for the Soviet economy. This is an article on Reagan, not the Soviet Union, and we have already established that Reagan's military buildup did not affect that USSR because it was not coaxed into Reagan's new arms race. The Saudi Arabia oil prices thing is already mentioned.

We are giving insight as to why Ronald Reagan pursued the strategies that he did, and the repercussions from them. Why did RR do what he did? Here's why. There is not need to remove this, and Biophys has cited his content well. Happyme22 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove These factors gradually brought the Soviet economy to a state of collapse during Gorbachev's tenure - there was no economic collapse during the Soviet Union. Sure, there were serious problems, but the economy never collapsed. The economy was stagnant, growing by 1-2% during its last years, it only contracted in its last year, and only sightly (only 1-2%), and this was because of wide reforms including privatisation and market and trade liberalization were being undertaken, it didn't do this by itself. The Russian economy collapsed after the Soviet Union dissolved, not before.

I agree at second glance that is not compeltely true. It should be rephrased These factors gradually brought the Soviet economy to a poor and stagnant state during Gorbachev's tenure. Happyme22 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove the "poor", and this should be put into context that the Soviet Union was after all, the second largest economy in the world - While the Soviet economy was the second largest in the world, these factors gradually brought it to a stagnant state during Gorbachev's tenure

Now I think we are starting to find common ground; I will remove "poor", however I think noting that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world is straying too far from the subject and section at hand: Ronald Reagan. Happyme22 (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove and forced the Soviet leadership to negotiate a significant reduction of conventional and nuclear weapons - as I've explained, there is no proof that the Soviet Union was forced to do this, this is a very biased, Amero-centric statement. That is the opinion of the western diplomats, contradicted by Gorbachev and statements from Soviet diplomats, who did not say that they were concessions. The statement by the western diplomats is no more reliable than that of Gorbachev, they are both biased. Just as you say that "of course Gorbachev would say that he was not pressured", of course the western diplomats would say that it was a major concession.--Miyokan (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Biophys has cited his statements. Period. I'm not going to argue with a citation from a book by a Russian diplomat who was an insider. I have purposely added, in the proposal for the second paragraph above, your viewpoint for balance: that Gorby did not offer concession. I still do not have a citation, however. Happyme22 (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I had no problem with this version, it is a vast improvement - The timing of the announcment led Western diplomats to state that Gorbachev was offering major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe, however Gorbachev denied ever doing so. He and Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at the White House (they finalized it a year later), which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.--Miyokan (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

All these claims should not be removed since they were made in a reliable secondary scientific source - the book by Gaidar. If more sources are needed to justify these statements, I can find more - no problem. Arcayne and Happyme, if you find consensus with each other - I will agree with your decision. As about others - I do not know. Biophys (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Further problem: oil was the main source of Soviet revenues - no, it wasn't. Oil was the main source of export revenues.--Miyokan (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Biophys has cited his content. Happyme22 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly Biophys is misrepresenting sources, there is NO WAY oil accounted for the main source of revenues, the Soviet Union was not the United Arab Emirates, the size of the Soviet economy was $2.6 trillion (according to CIA), exports were only valued at $100 billion , and not all of that is oil. Today, Russia's economy is $1.3 trillion (in nominal terms) and its exports are about $300 (according to CIA World Factbook), yet oil exports account for only 5.7% of GDP.--Miyokan (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of the numbers by Miyokan is obviously WP:SYN. That is why we need reliable secondary scholarly sources (like this book by Gaidar) rather than primary sources or "sources" produced by various intelligence agencies (whatever KGB or CIA). We can safely tell it was "one of main revenue sources" or "main export revenue source", as described in book by Gaidar.Biophys (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose this version, which is essentially Happy's original version:

By the late 1970s, Moscow had built up a military that had surpassed that of the United States. Previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but the gap had been narrowed. Reagan dramatically increased military spending. [citation: Barnathan, Joyce. "The Cowboy who Roped in Russia", Business Week, June 21, 2004. Retrieved on 2008-03-17. ] The Reagan Administration also persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, resulting in a drop of oil prices; this contributed to the large Soviet budget deficits. Prior to Gorbachev visiting Washington, D.C. for the third summit in 1987, the Soviet Leader announced his willingness to go further with arms agreements. [citation: Keller, Bill. "Gorbachev Offer 2: Other Arms Hints", The New York Times, March 2, 1987. Retrieved on 2008-03-17. ] The timing of the announcment led Western diplomats to state that Gorbachev was offering major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe, however Gorbachev denied ever doing so. He and Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at the White House (they finalized it a year later), which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.--Miyokan (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We have developed a much better new version (see Happyme above). If Happyme and Arcayne agree, you remain in minority, and we have a new consensus version here.Biophys (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at the two versions for comparison:

Version #1:

By the early 1980s, Moscow had built up a military arsenal and army surpassing that of the United States.[145] Previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but the gap had been narrowed. After President Reagan's military buildup, the Communist state did not further build up its military; [citation: Barnathan, Joyce. "The Cowboy who Roped in Russia", Business Week, June 21, 2004. Retrieved on March 17, 2008. ] the enormous military expences, in combination with colectivized agriculture and innefficient planned manufacturing, were a heavy burden for the Soviet economy. At the same time, the Reagan Administration persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, which resulted in a three times drop of oil prices in 1985; oil was the main source of Soviet revenues. These factors gradually brought the Soviet economy to a state of collapse during Gorbachev's tenure [ref to book by Gaidar] [147] and forced the Soviet leadership to negotiate a significant reduction of conventional and nuclear weapons.[146]

Version #2:

"By the late 1970s, Moscow had built up a military that had surpassed that of the United States. Previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but the gap had been narrowed. Reagan dramatically increased military spending. [citation: Barnathan, Joyce. "The Cowboy who Roped in Russia", Business Week, June 21, 2004. Retrieved on 2008-03-17. ] The Reagan Administration also persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, resulting in a drop of oil prices; this contributed to the large Soviet budget deficits. Prior to Gorbachev visiting Washington, D.C. for the third summit in 1987, the Soviet Leader announced his willingness to go further with arms agreements. [citation: Keller, Bill. "Gorbachev Offer 2: Other Arms Hints", The New York Times, March 2, 1987. Retrieved on 2008-03-17. ] The timing of the announcment led Western diplomats to state that Gorbachev was offering major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe, however Gorbachev denied ever doing so. He and Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at the White House (they finalized it a year later), which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why aren't there any citations from Pravda, which had an English version up until the closing of the news organ in '91 or '92? I think getting some English-language versions of citations (so as to be easily verifiable) would provide more balance; aside from one Russian being cited (who was on the outs with the gov't), the artile doesn't currently have any.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How about yet another combination of the two:

By the early 1980s, Moscow had built up a military arsenal and army surpassing that of the United States.[145] Previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but the gap had been narrowed. After President Reagan's military buildup, the Communist state did not further dramatically build up its military; [citation: Barnathan, Joyce (June 21, 2004). "The Cowboy who Roped in Russia". Business Week. Retrieved 2008-03-17.] the enormous military expenses, in combination with colectivized agriculture and innefficient planned manufacturing, were a heavy burden for the Soviet economy. At the same time, the Reagan Administration persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, which resulted in a three times drop of oil prices in 1985; oil was the main source of Soviet revenues. These factors gradually brought the Soviet economy to a stagnant state during Gorbachev's tenure [ref to book by Gaidar] [147] and forced the Soviet leadership to negotiate a significant reduction of conventional and nuclear weapons.[146]

This is all cited content, taken from all recommendations above; I like it most because it includes Reagan and his admin's background with this segment of the Cold War. It is also backed up with cites; I have changed some minor things as recommended by Myokin above. The thing about Gorby not offering concessions will be included in another paragraph, shown above (I did that for Myokin - it still needs a citation, however). I think this is our best version. The only question that I have is this: was oil the source of Soviet revenues or Soviet export revenues? Happyme22 (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are the exact page number citations from Biophys (copied from his user talk page):

• • 1. Yegor Gaidar Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia, Brookings Institution Press (October 17, 2007), ISBN 0-815-73114-0, Chapters 4.7 and 4.8. Cite pages 190-205 in Russian edition (ISBN 5-8243-0759-8). This is about all economic and political statements.

• • 2. Peter Schweizer Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, 1994 (ISBN 0-87113-567-1). This is about agreement of Reagan with Saudis. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That version is better, we're getting there. Just 2 things; change oil was the main source of Soviet revenues. to oil was the main source of Soviet export revenues, as Biophys agreed above.

and forced the Soviet leadership to negotiate a significant reduction of conventional and nuclear weapons - change it back to your original NPOV version The timing of the announcment led Western diplomats to state that Gorbachev was offering major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe, however Gorbachev denied ever doing so. - this is a neutral version, giving both sourced sides.--Miyokan (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok so it is export revenues. That can easily be changed. As for the second sentence, it will be included in the second paragraph, shown somewhere up above. I can remove it altogether from this first paragraph:

By the early 1980s, Moscow had built up a military arsenal and army surpassing that of the United States.[145] Previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons to essentially frighten the Soviets, but the gap had been narrowed. After President Reagan's military buildup, the Communist state did not further dramatically build up its military; [citation: Barnathan, Joyce (June 21, 2004). "The Cowboy who Roped in Russia". Business Week. Retrieved 2008-03-17.] the enormous military expenses, in combination with colectivized agriculture and innefficient planned manufacturing, were a heavy burden for the Soviet economy. At the same time, the Reagan Administration persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, which resulted in a three times drop of oil prices in 1985; oil was the main source of Soviet export revenues. These factors gradually brought the Soviet economy to a stagnant state during Gorbachev's tenure.[ref to book by Gaidar][147]

And here is the second, which will be inserted where it currently begins, "When Gorbachev visited Washington, D.C....."

Prior to Gorbachev visiting Washington, D.C. for the third summit in 1987, the Soviet Leader announced his willingness to go further with arms agreements. [citation: Keller, Bill (March 2, 1987). "Gorbachev Offer 2: Other Arms Hints". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-17.] The timing of the announcment led Western diplomats to state that Gorbachev was offering major concessions to the United States on the levels of conventional forces, nuclear weapons, and policy in Eastern Europe, however Gorbachev denied ever doing so. He and Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at the White House (they finalized it a year later), which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons.

I think we have a winner (or two). Is everyone good with everything now? Happyme22 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll weigh in on it after everyone else, but a small point I have is the use of the colloquial phrase "go further". Is there another term that might be less subject to trendy language (remember, at one point in time 'can you dig it?' used to be understood by everyone). How about "his intention to pursue significant (or substantial) arms agreements" (parentheses mine, suggesting an alternate term). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I dig it. :) Happyme22 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, unless there are any more urgent comments dealing with this, I'm going to request unprotection and insert it. Happyme22 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of the colloquialism (which I mentioned earlier), if everyone else is good with the version, I'm okay with it. Speak up, or forever hold your peace. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reagan and African-Americans

For all the hoopla that seems to exist regarding how black Americans felt about Reagan, none of it is in the article. (See [8] among others in this search: [9]). I also stumbled upon it in a book while researching Harold Washington. Is there any substance to the African-American position about what Reagan did (which, at its essence, seems merely to have been a further deconstruction of anything that resembled the New Deal) or is that appropriate for another article? —Rob (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've talked about it in Cultural and political image of Ronald Reagan, but that article still needs expansion. Feel free to add more in there, but remember to keep it NPOV; I do check on it and add more to it every few days. Happyme22 (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is not to say that he doubts the neutrality of your work, Lpanglerob. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How far we've come

I can't resist, take a look at the first entry of this article from 2001. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Heated" and "believed"

Regarding this edit, the word "heated" to me sounds like two angry guys shouting back and forth to each other in bar, when one shoves the other and fists start flying. Of course that is a dramatization, but it reveals the underlying point. Reagan's role in the Cold War is not "heatedly debated", but it is being continuously debated, with scholars and historians reviewing documents from the era to make further conclusions. As far as I know, there isn't a lot of shouting going on....

As for the use of "believed", you changed the sentence to read: "That Reagan had some role in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet Union is collectively agreed, but the extent of this role is heatedly debated, with some claiming that Reagan's defense policies, hard line rhetoric against the Soviet Union and Communism, as well as summits with General Secretary Gorbachev that played a significant part in ending the War."

"Some claimed" makes it sound like a small minority, which it is surely not. And like I said in the above discussion with Myokin and Biophys, "claimed" is a weasel word. "Many believe" is a better way to go, because it is true and adequately displays the views of the people that believe that, just as this edit adequately displays the views of the other side. Thus it is neutral and I changed it to read: "That Reagan had some role in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet Union is collectively agreed, but the extent of this role is continuously debated, with many believing that Reagan's defense policies, hard line rhetoric against the Soviet Union and Communism, as well as summits with General Secretary Gorbachev played a significant part in ending the War."

Furthermore, my edit corrected grammar/wording mistakes. Happyme22 (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy asked me to look at that edit; I'm just going to remove it for further discussion because 1) I have no idea what the edit summary is trying to say (if you have to type that much, it's probably best discussed on talk), and the edit introduced grammar and punctuation errors that need to be properly sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on there; this edit said remove category, but it did a whole lot more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said on my bot's talk page, I have no idea what happened, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't the bot. It's only programmed to do certain things with categories, certainly not the rest of what happened in the diff. --Kbdank71 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, got caught up in something else for a bit). I agree. perhaps 'heated' is the wrong word to use. Perhaps 'contentious' (the same word is used to describe the debate in the Legacy/Cold War section) is a better word. continuous means it never ends, sort of like a circle jerk, and I don't think that's what we are trying to communicate. There are folk who think that Reagan essentially ended the Cold War all By His Lonesome, whilst others feel that he was Asleep At The Wheel. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. We should aim fr language that aims for objective neutrality.

As well, I replaced 'many believing' with 'some claim' as belief sounds a great deal more absolutist than a claim. This choice allows us to remain neutral, since the statement "I believe in Santa Claus" implies a greater conviction than "Some claim that there is a Santa Claus". The second doesn't discount the possibility of Santa Claus, but it makes no exceptional claims to that effect, either.Not that anyone here is trying to weasel, but the end result of subtle weaseling is there nonetheless.

Also, the statement: "It is also argued that Reagan had little or no effect on the end of the Cold War" was changed by me to "That Reagan had little or no effect in ending the Cold War is argued with equal weight" - this improves neutrality, placing the arguments that Reagan had no effect om equal footing with those arguments that Reagan 'roped in' Russia. And that is the way it should be. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you've joined the bandwagon against "heated", but I'm not exactly thrilled with "contentious" because it is used right before. Perhaps we just eliminate it from the sentence, as that would take care of this wording problem and I think the idea is pretty well established in the "[Reagan's role] has spurred contentious and opinionated debate" phrase.

Also, I'm not saying that there was anything wrong with the "equal weight" edit, because it is certainly true. However, since that side is now has it's argument well established, it is necessary that the other side gets it's as well. And here, I believe, is where the problem lies. You stated that the equal weight edit "improves neutrality, placing the arguments that Reagan had no effect on equal footing with those arguments that Reagan 'roped in' Russia. And that is the way it should be." I am total agreement, but I see nothing that assuredly displays the side that Reagan played a moderate-to-substantial role. Of course, the answer to that would be "That Reagan had some role in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet Union is collectively agreed, with many believing that Reagan's defense policies, hard line rhetoric against the Soviet Union and Communism, as well as summits with General Secretary Gorbachev played a significant part in ending the War." --Happyme22 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that "many" is subjective and in the absence of info to the contrary, it could lead people to think it's the majority opinion - which I feel we hae established isn't the case. Maybe use "some" instead? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary because there is an absence of an "amount" of the contrary opinion. Thus there is not any conclusive evidence that one side is more believed than the other. Happyme22 (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: if I say I am going to dinner with many people versus as opposed to some people, which dinner table do you think is going to have more place settings? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) How about an outside opinion? I've dropped SandyGeorgia a line. Happyme22 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I came by for a look, but I'm pretty swamped with work; would you all mind showing me the two proposals side by side, so I don't have to crawl through all the diffs? Are we discussing many/some, or heated/believed? What is the text in question, and its sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have hammered out above that:

• "heated" is not the correct word to use;
• the phrase (bolded) "That Reagan had some role in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet Union is collectively agreed, but the extent of this role is continuously debated,[190]...." can be removed because it's largely redundant and a similar idea can be found in the sentence directly before it: "The significance of Reagan's role in ending the Cold War has spurred contentious and opinionated debate.";

Our remaining disagreement is using the word "many" vs. "some" when talking about those that believe that Reagan had a moderate-to-substantial role in the ending the cold war (In the sentence: "That Reagan had some role in contributing to the downfall of the Soviet Union is collectively agreed, with many/some believing that Reagan's defense policies, hard line rhetoric against the Soviet Union and Communism, as well as summits with General Secretary Gorbachev played a significant part in ending the War.[190][191]") Arcayne favors "some" because he feels that "many" sounds like a majority opinion. Naturally, I'm for "many" because there is an absent "amount" of the contrary opinion. Thus there is not any conclusive evidence (shown in this Wikipedia article) that one side is more believed than the other (neutrality); "some" reduces the believability of the text and makes it sound like a small number. This argument deserves equal weight as the opposing argument, which reads: "That Reagan had little or no effect in ending the Cold War is argued with equal weight; that communism's internal weakness had become apparent, and the Soviet Union would have collapsed in the end regardless of who was in power." Since it is argued with "equal" weight, if "many" people feel one way, than "many" people can feel this way as well (and it is "equal", as described in the text itself). Happyme22 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Which, to my reckoning is why both sides represented should say some consider instead of many or many believe. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's reducing the actual amount; there are millions of people that feel one way, and probably millions that feel the other. I'd say that's many. Happyme22 (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But as we cannot cite "millions" and have only noted "some", it might be more middle of the road to say such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reagan and Blogs

A Blog dedicated to Ronald Reagan and his impact on the Republican Party today can be found at [10] (Willbstar (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

And it would be okay, but we don't use blogs. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I just checked it out, and as much as my Republican-ness wants me to say "yes post it!", I cannot, because it is indeed a blog, thus violating Wikipedia policy. Happyme22 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good wikipedian. Good boy! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Persecjution of R. Reagan

Ronald Reagan was persecuted and wikepidia should say every date because i know that it has the information but they are too lazy to put it in the paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.206.223 (talk • contribs)

Um, what are you talking about? Gwernol 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

He is saying we are part of that wicked global conspiracy to make Ronald Reagan look like a poo-flinging feltch monkey. Oh, and we are lazy about it, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Iran-Contra Deposition

Reagan gave a taped deposition during Iran-Contra. Does anyone know where a link to that deposition might be found? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to a NYT article regarding it; his testimony is largely supported by the Tower Commission Report (it's coincidental that you would bring this up, because these past few days I have been reviewing the Tower Commission Report and other Iran-Contra related materials). Happyme22 (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but I was wondering about the actual videotaped deposition of Reagan. Is there a court transcript of it? I am rather interested, because someone recently told me that Reagan winked during the deposition, and I wanted to confirm that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Term and AIDS

There are no sources for Reagan's supposed criticism over the AIDS epidemic. However, there is apparently a source for the numbers the article reports. However, the source speaks nothing to the Reagan controversy or even anything about Reagan for that matter (i.e. this is probably a case of OR via WP:SYN). Further, the numbers that are reported on this article are not reported in the source referenced. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have found a new source, and will write a new paragraph accordingly. I have written a new paragraph using a San Francisco Chronicle source. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted one of the three references to the article you posted. The second ref was in the middle of sentence, so I removed it, leaving the reference after the end of that sentence. That is, the one reference adequately covers the entire sentence. In fact, I believe that one reference would adequately reference the entire paragraph. If anyone has any doubts, they can follow that reference. Needless to say, we don't need two references to the same source in one, short sentence. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reagan and the Southern Strategy

Edits I made on Reagan's 1976 and 1980 presidential campaigns on the Southern Strategy were completely removed by Happyme22.

The Southern Strategy was a key part of Reagan's campaign. It should be mentioned in the main article. Reagan's 1980 campaign kickoff is not a small detail, but an important event that set the tone for the campaign. This should be discussed in the main article. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made further edits to try and shorten this section. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I did mention it in the article. A portion of the 1980 presidential campaign section used to read "His campaign was not without controversy as Reagan faced allegations of racism after an August speech he gave in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the scene of the June 21, 1964 murder of three civil rights workers.[62]" The current revision is placing too much undue weight on this aspect of Reagan's campaign, especially by devoting one out of three paragraphs to this issue. Happyme22 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are really two issues here: the 1976 campaign and the 1980 campaign.

If you take a look at the previous version there was no mention of any of this in the section on 1976. We may need to work on wording this section so it flows better with my edits, but this is important information that was not there before.

As for 1980, the previous version did not mention the Southern Strategy (in fairness "allegations of racism" linked to it). This is seen as a huge part of Reagan's campaign strategy and victory. As such, I do not think that giving it and the event which most symbolized it a paragraph is undue weight. To the article's credit, it did discuss the event which in an article heavily edited by Reagan fans like yourself, is a testament to how important the event was.

The article, however, left out two major things. It (1) did not indicate that it was how he kicked off his campaign and (2) it failed to provide a broader context (the Southern Strategy) for the campaign event. As Wikipedia likes to avoid controversy or criticism sections it seems like avoiding the words "controversy" and "allegations" in this instance is a good idea. It gets into he said she said and is far less factual than the description I provided. The description I provided is well-sourced description of the event. It states the facts of the situation and then provides the context in which it was seen by all Americans, black or white, liberal or conservative (as my sources indicate).

I think this makes a convincing case that my edits do not place undue weight on the situation. As you did not object to the content of my edits I assume you have no objection to the content of my edits?Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no, I do disagree with some wording of the content, etc. and the sources that you provided. Let's take it one line at a time, from the 1980 presidential campaign section:

• Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi best known at the time for the brutal murder of three civil rights workers who had been trying to register African-Americans to vote during the civil rights movement[63][64].

Perhaps: "Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the location of a 1964 murder of three African-Americans admist the civil rights movement." That gets rid of extra, unncessary detail regarding the murder itself, while still presenting where Reagan announced and why it was a famous location.

A couple of things. One of the civil rights workers named Andrew Goodman was not black, but Jewish. Aside from this, your wording completely ignores why they were killed. It makes it sound as if their murders just happened to happen during the civil rights movement. They were brutally murdered for registering black people to vote. That is the context which I think deserves mention in the article. Finally, your phrasing makes it sound as if it was just kind of sort of the location of a crime, but makes no indication that this is what it is known for. It's as if I wrote that Clinton kicked her campaign off in New York, site of x number of murders. This was all Philadelphia, Mississippi was known for. He could have chosen to kick off his campaign anywhere, he chose to kick it off there. This is reflected in my phrasing, and it is completely missing from yours.Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reagan's declaration "I believe in states' rights," in a white supremacist town where the murders of the civil rights activists were still protected by the local community[65], was widely seen as code that he would be the candidate for white segregationalists[66][67][68].

This is the part that I have the biggest problem with. It first repeats something already stated: the fact that Reagan supported state's rights. And using it in the context of racism is not appropriate for this page, for it is merely speculated (see more below).

As for the repetition, we could move the summary of his campaign issues below his kickoff in the article, such that it read something like: "In addition to states' rights, Reagan campaigned on..." you get the gist. So I don't think the repetition will not be a problem.

As for what states' rights meant in this context, there is really no speculation. Come on, what the fuck was he doing in Philadelphia, Mississippi? When you say that "using it it in the context of racism is not appropriate for this page" I'm confused as to what you mean by that. Reagan is the one who used it in a racist context! It is unmistakable.Wikipediatoperfection (talk)

Secondly, we cannot overtly accuse an entire town of being "white supremacists".

Herbert calls it "vicious white-supremacist stronghold," would you prefer that wording?Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Now let's move on to the sourcing for "candidate for white segregationists": the first is an NPR article, which is the only source that I think we should use. Second, we have an opinion piece which reads in part: "Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at the fair. Whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans — they all knew. The news media knew. The race haters and the people appalled by racial hatred knew. And Reagan knew. He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about “states’ rights” to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you. And Reagan meant it.... Throughout his career, Reagan was wrong, insensitive and mean-spirited on civil rights and other issues important to black people. There is no way for the scribes of today to clean up that dismal record." - Hardly NPOV! Just because it is from the NYT doesn't mean that it is reliable. Third, we have my buddy Paul Krugman's column titled "The Conscience of a Liberal" - must I say more? I would stick with the NPR source, which says, "To many it sounded like code for announcing himself as the candidate for white segregationists." They key words there are "to many", which indicates "not to all", meaning that it is not fact and should not be treated as such.

Alright, a couple of things. The wording I used "was widely seen as code that he would be the candidate for white segregationalists" is close to the NPR article which is the source we agree on. My phrasing says the same thing, but works phrasing wise within the context of the larger sentence. It does not say that everyone saw it that way. And I agree, not everyone got it or understood the code.

We can find different sources, but do you object to the factual accuracy of the articles as they relate to this particular issue, or to there overall commentary on Reagan as an anti-civil rights racist? I'll look into different sources but please do not remove them yet. Certainly as long as the Heritage Foundation remains a source for anything in this article. You don't like Krugman, I think the Heritage Foundation is a right wing propaganda machine that likes to make things up and use faulty reasoning.Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps: "With Reagan's announcement in a town where the murders of the activists were still protected by the local community, questions arose over his views on racism." Here, we are avoiding accusations of any type directed toward anyone (including the town, the local community, and Reagan).

This is the kind of whitewashing that Herbert is talking about. "questions arose over his views on racism" If you want to get into this kind of he said she said wording we might as well say, "many people point to this campaign kickoff as an example of Reagan's racist statements, actions, and policy." Because his critics are not "questioning his views on racism" they are saying that this, and a lot of other things that he has said and done, were racist. This makes no statement as to whether he actually believed what he was saying or agreed with what his administration was doing, but that for political purposes he did it and it was racist. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• This was part of the Southern Strategy initiated by Nixon and followed by Reagan in his 1976 bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

None of the sources mention the phrase "Southern strategy", so the phrase should not occur in the text. It can be wikilinked in the article to the southern startegy article using other words (ex: [[Nancy Reagan|Ronald Reagan's wife]]).

Krugman writes "So there’s a campaign on to exonerate Ronald Reagan from the charge that he deliberately made use of Nixon’s Southern strategy." Herbert writes "Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon." The NPR article does not explicitly use the term, but that is what it is describing and the other articles show that this is the context. When it says "Ronald Reagan was key to the South's transition to Republican politics." that is basically what it is alluding to. Again we can get more sources, but this was part of the Southern Strategy.Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not fully convinced on the undue weight part either, but I'll leave that issue until we get this hammered out. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go back through and respond line by line, but I want to clarify if you have any objections to the 1976 additions.Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you have another crack at rewording. I think I have aptly defended the way it is phrased and/or found major problems in the way you phrased the revision. I know you will disagree with at least a small portion ;) of what I've written so you can respond in the subthreads.Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it might also be worthwhile to put your parts together so we can see how it looks in comparison to what I wrote:

Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the location of a 1964 murder of three African-Americans admist the civil rights movement. With Reagan's announcement in a town where the murders of the activists were still protected by the local community, questions arose over his views on racism.

This tells you very little about what happened, it is extremely vague, is factually inaccurate as I pointed out above, and almost sounds as if it were making fun of Reagan. "questions arose over his views on racism" is a comically bad euphemism for "a lot of people thought what he did was extremely racist."

Now contrast that with what I wrote (with the change of "white supremacist town" to "viscous white supremacist stronghold" as requested. Hell we can remove viscous as that pretty much comes with "white supremacist stronghold":

Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi best known at the time for the brutal murder of three civil rights workers who had been trying to register African-Americans to vote during the civil rights movement. Reagan's declaration "I believe in states' rights," in a white supremacist stronghold where the murders of the civil rights activists were still protected by the local community, was widely seen as code that he would be the candidate for white segregationalists.This was part of the Southern Strategy initiated by Nixon and followed by Reagan in his 1976 bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

This tells you what happened. It is factually accurate. It does not use any comically bad euphemisms. And it does not get into the labeling of Reagan as a racist. It says what he did as part of a larger political strategy. It lets the facts speak for themselves, which is what Wikipedia is all about.Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problem with Southern Strategy paragraph

This violates NPOV. It should reflect both sides of the story, not just Paul Krugman's version, which rewrites history. See Steve Hayward's analysis[11], which, unlike Krugman's, actually looks at what people thought when Reagan said it. "States' rights" was a legitimate issue of federalism raised by liberals including Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt. Unless you're accusing Babbitt of engaging in a Southern strategy, you should be less one-sided in this paragraph. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above. Happyme22 and I agreed that we should use different sourcing, but that interpretation of the event was not based on Krugman's piece but on multiple pieces including the NPR piece that we agree on as a source. If you want the paragraph can certainly expand on the conservative view of the situation, but Steve Hayward is just that, an extreme right-wing conservative. The article you link to is in the National Review and Hayward is a "resident scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute, the very definition of crazy revisionist historians and home of war criminals like John Yoo. I think we should add this conservative point of view to the article to balance it out, but there is a very big difference between taking a position for states rights (like Babbitt), and launching your campaign in a place known for its white supremacy and the brutal murder of civil rights workers, and then saying "I believe in states' rights." Babbit, I'm going to guess, did not have a history of saying other racist things or an anti-civil rights record. Context matters and that is why this is an issue.Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Heyward worked in the Reagan administration and is quoting the New York Times and Bruce Babbitt. You cite nothing to refute Heyward's analysis except your personal opinion, which suggests an original research violation, WP:OR. Reagan isn't a racist, either, and your ad hominem and libelous attacks on people who have nothing to do with this article suggests you have a conflict of interest that is preventing you from editing neutrally, and perhaps you should be working on the encyclopedia on a page where your politics aren't interfering with improving the encyclopedia. At a minimum:

• If the quote is to be included, the entire context should be included to indicate that Reagan was talking about legitimate issues of federalism and the power of the federal government.
• The New York Times should be accurately quoted to indicate that they did not view the speech as racist.
• It's fair to include accusations that some viewed the speech as racist, but this should be balanced by noting that Reagan was endorsed by several leading civil-rights leaders.

Of course, expanding the paragraph to be neutral would demonstrate the violation of WP:WEIGHT: the Philadelphia speech was a minor part of Reagan's career, not even in the top 100 of significant events. The place where this longer discussion belongs is in the 1980 presidential campaign article. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As Happyme22 and I have discussed before, no one is neutral. We try to edit neutrally, but no one is neutral. Happyme22 is one of the main editors of this article, and he will freely admit that he deeply admires Reagan and everything for which he stood. And I will freely admit that I despise Reagan and everything he stood for. If you think that the editors of Wikipedia should be devoid of personal opinions, you won't have anymore editors. What we should try and do is edit objectively, but that does not mean that we do not edit from different perspectives. I think he did a lot of racist things. You don't. We have to work together to edit from there. Wikipedia articles on controversial figures are at there best when two editors who passionately disagree have edited the article and can agree on the edits.

• Heyward's interpretation is contradicted by all of the sources I cite in my edits. It is not my "original research." You say that Heyward was in the Reagan administration as if that makes him objective, when in fact that makes him the definition of biased.

• Heyward's (biased) piece does not say that the New York Times did not view what he said as racist, but that "'Most of those at the rally,' the New York Times reported, 'apparently regarded the statement as having been made in [the] context [of states' rights].'" And of course they did not view what he said as racist. Who says that the candidate they support is a racist? Asking anyone's supporters whether they are a racist is a pretty bad way to figure the question out.

• You have cleverly crafted a catch-22 in which more is needed for objectivity, but that this extra text would create undue influence. Nice try, but this was a significant part of his election campaign strategy, it is part of the broader Southern Strategy, it belongs in the article.

• "If the quote is to be included, the entire context should be included to indicate that Reagan was talking about legitimate issues of federalism and the power of the federal government." I think we can include your perspective that he was discussing the legitimate issue of federalism, but Heyward's larger quote of Reagan does not make him sound any better, so I would include this in the text rather than use the entire quote which would just get us into an analysis of how the whole quote is coded. And that would really expand the length. If we can get it down to size with the full quote I would be open to that too, but I think it is going to add too much. We'll see.

• What "leading civil-rights leaders" endorsed Reagan? Is this like the, there are scientists who question evolution and global warming game? Sure, you may be able to come up with a few obscure names, but the overwhelming majority, especially the leading civil-rights leaders, opposed Reagan. As Hayward quoted Coretta Scott King, "I am scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party."

I can see how my version does not include the perspective that he was discussing a legitimate issue, I will revise my edits to reflect that and like I said above in response to Happyme22, we all need better sources.Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to respond more thoroughly to this issue a little later, but I would like to state that Wikipediatoperfection was not exactly correct in saying that I love Reagan and everything that he stood for; I in fact think that Iran Contra was a huge mistake and Reagan should not have done what he did, and I disagreed with him on gun control. Just for the record.... :) Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And I, unlike most progressives, think Reagan had incredible rhetorical talent and genuinely think that he was "The Great Communicator." I also like his nuclear abolitionism, even if I think Star Wars was crazy. :) Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ralph David Abernathy, Martin Luther King's successor as head of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and the Rev. Hosea Williams, another prominent cleric from the civil rights movement, endorsed Reagan. You'd know this if you'd read objective sources. There's a real POV-pushing agenda that is problematic with this paragraph. Again, I wouldn't dispute putting a neutral version in the 1980 presidential campaign article, but it doesn't belong in the Reagan article. It's one speech and a handful of leftists making tendentious arguments deliberately misrepresenting two words in an effort to portray legitimate right-wing thought as racist.

Hayward isn't the only person who says this, he was just the most readily available. Plenty of others.

• David Brooks in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/opinion/09brooks.html
• Bruce Bartlett. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/30/reagan_neshoba_and_the_politic/
• David Sanders in the Arkansas News: http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/07/02/DavidJSanders/336807.html
• liberal Kevin Drum, http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_06/004116.php
• professor David Bernstein, http://www.volokh.com/posts/1200709160.shtml

If we were to go to books, instead of op-ed columns, we find other neutral accounts debunking the smear.

• Mississippi Politics
• Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power

Also, it's inaccurate to state the speech was in Philadelphia. It wasn't (though some contemporary press accounts reported that it was); it was at the Neshoba County state fair near Philadelphia. Reagan spoke there simply because it was the largest political event in the state, and Andrew Young tried to invest it with racist meaning.

Finally, Michael Dukakis gave a similar speech in Philadelphia, MS, without mentioning the three murdered civil rights workers. Was he racist? Gabriel Duvall (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I hit save page and it told me someone else had changed, so here is what I changed, I'll take a look at what you wrote in a second: Alright here is the original to give us some perspective: Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi best known at the time for the brutal murder of three civil rights workers who had been trying to register African-Americans to vote during the civil rights movement. Reagan's declaration "I believe in states' rights," in a white supremacist stronghold where the murders of the civil rights activists were still protected by the local community, was widely seen as code that he would be the candidate for white segregationalists. This was part of the Southern Strategy initiated by Nixon and followed by Reagan in his 1976 bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

Here are my new edits, with source info in bold: Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi best known at the time for the brutal murder of three civil rights workers who had been trying to register African-Americans to vote during the civil rights movement.

Here I have cut out Herbert as a source as I know you both object to using him as a source. I think the NPR article pretty much indicates that this is what Philadelphia, Mississippi was and is known for, but I have also added a Washington Post article (not editorial, but article on the 21st century prosecution of one of the murders) to make this clear.

Reagan's declaration "I believe in states' rights," in a white supremacist stronghold where the murders of the civil rights activists were still protected by the local community,

I debated whether to remove Herbert as one of the sources for this. I think he should stay in that his article provides the wording for the article. The other sources corroborate the situation/description of the town. The Mississippi Burning Trial gives tells how many in the town participated and were charged and convicted in the conspiracy, including the Deputy sheriff. It tells how they obstructed justice in the trail. It tells how those who were convicted were sentenced "On December 29, Judge Cox imposed sentences. Roberts and Bowers got ten years, Posey and Price got six years, and the other three convicted defendants got four. Cox said of his sentences, "They killed one nigger, one Jew, and a white man-- I gave them all what I thought they deserved." The Washington Post article details how no one had been charged and convicted in 2005 (Killen has sense been convicted). The History News Network article provides the backdrop for the area (and large parts of the state) as segregationists/white supremacist. All of this combines as the source.

was widely seen as code that he would be the candidate for white segregationalists.

In this case I removed Herbert because I do not think he is necessary to make the case, it is not his wording.. I also removed Krugman. The NPR article, which is the source we have agreed on, provides the basis for the wording. I also came across a Washington Post editorial which essentially said the same thing, but perhaps more diplomatically, calling the event "bitter symbolism for black Americans (though surely not just for black Americans)." Symbolism alluding to the coded message talked about in the NPR article. Here is the link to that: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39345-2004Jun13.html

Reagan supporters argue that Reagan was addressing a legitimate issue of federal encroachment on states' rights in a Federalist system of government. Critics point to the arch-segregationists at the event, and argue that it was part of the Southern Strategy initiated by Nixon and followed by Reagan in his 1976 bid for the Republican presidential nomination..

I have talked about all of the sources used in this passage except for Heyward who I hope you have no objections to. I did use Krugman as a source for the final part because he is what it says a critic. This is the only way we can use Heyward or Krugman. In all of these passages we can work on the sourcing, but I think now has legit sourcing. Here is without breaks

Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi best known at the time for the brutal murder of three civil rights workers who had been trying to register African-Americans to vote during the civil rights movement. Reagan's declaration "I believe in states' rights," in a white supremacist stronghold where the murders of the civil rights activists were still protected by the local community, was widely seen as code that he would be the candidate for white segregationalists. Reagan supporters argue that Reagan was addressing a legitimate issue of federal encroachment on states' rights in a Federalist system of government. Critics point to the arch-segregationists at the event, and argue that it was part of the Southern Strategy initiated by Nixon and followed by Reagan in his 1976 bid for the Republican presidential nomination.. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Ralph Abernathy and Hosea Williams Wikipedia pages by 1984 they felt betrayed by Reagan and went to the Democrats because of his abysmal record on civil rights. So, ok, you're right, in 1980 he had a couple of prominent civil rights leaders whom abandoned him by 1984. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. I think what I said still holds.

I will look carefully at the articles you link to. Already I can tell you that if you object to Krugman, I object to Brooks (and the History News Network article discusses what is wrong with it). The Washington Monthly one is interesting, but I think your characterization of it is inaccurate. What it seems to say is that Reagan did not plan to kickoff his campaign there, but that his campaign did think of the racial symbolism of the place. It seems to say that the speech was on the surface about states' rights in a non-race context, but that the baggage of the word was unavoidable within the context.

As for the part on Dukakis, I wish he would have talked about it. But the difference is Dukakis did not talk about it because he was a coward who didn't want to piss anyone off. Reagan talked about states' rights there either because he wanted to send a symbolic message, or because he did not care if he sent that message. His campaign was clearly conscious of what the location meant and he chose to talk about states' rights anyway. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I have to say so far is that that proposition is way too long and unfit for this article because of the paragraph's length. I still feel this issue should be taken up on another page, perhaps United States presidential election, 1980 because this article is meant to generalize events. It's also getting too much into the "defenders think..." and "critics feel..." sort of writing, which I'm not particularly fond of. Furthermore, I don't think that Gabriel Duval's points about black people defending him should be completely thrown out because they later might not have supported him. Happyme22 (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on shortening it. It is hard not to give it a critics/defenders feel given some people think what he did was racist and others think he did not do anything wrong. If you have a way to make it sound different I'm all ears. I'll think about it.

Duvall did not cite Abernathy and Williams as commenting on this situation, but just as general supporters. We were discussing his support from civil rights activists in general, which was thin if somewhat nonexistent for Reagan. He was arguing that Reagan in fact had the support of many prominent civil rights leaders, I was pointing out just how thin that support was. It was more of side tangent than actually about this incident.Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Air traffic controllers' strike

Again my edits mere completely deleted by Happyme22 with no discussion.

I understand your desire to keep the article concise, but it lacks important information. For the labor movement, this event is seen as a major turning point which undermined unions, undermined wages, and increased inequality. If you would like I can work with you to condense this section, but this is important information which should stay in the main article. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked you didn't have to discuss everything that you revert...

On second thought, I suppose your revision was beneficial and can stay because it adds information in a largely neutral manner. Sorry about the revert. Happyme22 (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we are in agreement on this. I tried to incorporate both sides into the addition in a fair manner.Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wtp proposal still severely problematic

This is not a chat page and Wtp wastes a lot space expressing grievances that have nothing to do with making the article comply with Wikipedia standards. This would be a lot easier if we focus on the NPOV standard and less on trying to argue why one's POV is correct. It's possible to reach an agreement on the former. You're clearly not going to come to my side on the latter, and I'm going to stick with the truth, myself, so no point in debating the latter.

Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi best known at the time for the brutal murder of three civil rights workers who had been trying to register African-Americans to vote during the civil rights movement

1. Factually false. Reagan launched his campaign after the Republican Convention at the Kenosha County State Fair, which was not in Philadelphia.

2. Misleading, by falsely implying that Reagan chose to speak there because three civil rights workers had been murdered there, when in fact it reflected a worry that Mississippi, which voted for Carter in 1976, would do so again in 1980, and was done at Trent Lott's suggestion.

3. Misleading, by failing to mention the context that Reagan was also scheduled to speak at the Urban Institute League. Advisors were worried that the speech in front of a largely white crowd would be misrepresented (as indeed it was), and decided it was better to do Kenosha-then-Urban League rather than the other way around.

Reagan's declaration "I believe in states' rights,"

4. Violates NPOV by putting a particular spin on the speech. That wasn't the sentence, and it wasn't the thrust of the speech. Quote the whole paragraph (to let readers decide for themselves), or refer to the controversy, but don't take sides on the controversy.

in a white supremacist stronghold where the murders of the civil rights activists were still protected by the local community

5. Factually false. Many of the murderers were convicted years before Reagan spoke.

6. Misleading. Again, Reagan spoke at the state fair because it was the biggest political event in MS; but the text falsely implies a direct attempt to appeal to white supremacists.

7. Violates NPOV: you're taking the left-wing view as true. Say Andrew Young alleged this, not that Wikipedia endorses it.

was widely seen as code that he would be the candidate for white segregationalists

8. Factually false. The contemporaneous NY Times, New Republic, and Washington Post contradicts this.

9. "Widely" is weasel-word and violates NPOV. Say Andrew Young alleged this, not that Wikipedia endorses it.

10. Lacks other POVs: Abernathy et al. clearly didn't think Reagan was the candidate of white segregationists ("segregationalist" isn't a word)

Reagan supporters argue that Reagan was addressing a legitimate issue of federal encroachment on states' rights in a Federalist system of government

11. Note the difference between the weasel-wording of your point of view, and the ghettoization to "Reagan supporters" of the point of view that you disagree with.

12. Misleading. Several observers who aren't Reagan supporters take this point of view, including contemporaneous liberal journalists.

13. Again, a lot easier to use Reagan's actual words, and let Wikipedia readers decide for themselves.

Critics point to the arch-segregationists at the event, and argue that it was part of the Southern Strategy initiated by Nixon and followed by Reagan in his 1976 bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

14. The sentence doesn't make much sense, but if that's how you want to push your point of view...

Other issues:

15. Omits contemporaneous press reports from liberal Washington Post and liberal New Republic criticizing those who falsely characterized Reagan as racist.

16. Omits what Reagan actually said:

What we have to do is bring back the recognition that the people of this country can solve its problems. I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in state's rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.

17. Omits that this position is no different than what the bipartisan National Governors Association (led by Bruce Babbitt) said.

18. WP:WEIGHT and NPOV violation: multiple references alleging Reagan's support of federalism was racist, but no mention of the Sagebrush Rebellion movement that Reagan was actually a part of.

19. WP:WEIGHT violation: this controversy was a minor issue in the 1980 election, and an even more minor issue in a biography of Reagan.

Those are my 19 issues with the proposed paragraph. - Gabriel Duvall (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have citations to back up each of your assertions, Gabriel? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see my 1:42 29 April comment, with multiple cites. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I trouble you to cite each of the 19 points? I think it might be more useful to actually cite each of the points you make, instead of expecting us to do the extrapolating. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Steve Hayward: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hayward121902.asp
• David Brooks in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/opinion/09brooks.html
• Bruce Bartlett. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/30/reagan_neshoba_and_the_politic/
• David Sanders in the Arkansas News: http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/07/02/DavidJSanders/336807.html
• liberal Kevin Drum, http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_06/004116.php
• professor David Bernstein, http://www.volokh.com/posts/1200709160.shtml
• Mississippi Politics
• Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power

Again, all one needs to do is look at an honest encyclopedia biography of Reagan on this issue. It doesn't belong in this article at all, and that's just simple WP:WEIGHT. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

judiciary section: more weight and npov problems

We don't need the entire Ted Kennedy slander of Bork, especially when there isn't even a mention of Douglas Ginsburg, Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, or Edwin Meese. Reagan's substantial contributions to the judiciary aren't even mentioned, but the section focuses almost entirely on a failure where he was politically outmaneuvered. Also missing: we should have at least a sentence about how the Reagan Justice Department (following, coincidentally enough, Bork's writings) revolutionized thinking in antitrust enforcement to focus on maximizing consumer benefit. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeping it neutral

1. . Wtp, when adding text, please follow style guidelines: you're regularly incorrectly adding footnotes inside the punctuation, and are being sloppy with grammar and spelling. It's hurting the article.
   
2. . More controversially, perhaps, it's really problematic that your edits are POV-pushing inaccuracies (e.g., [12]). (It's not true, for example, that "Reagan made it more difficult to unionize.") Work towards consensus before making future changes. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you might want to read the essay on calling a spade a spade. It's rather uncivil to characterize the edits of another. If the other editor is focusing on a particular POV, we are all smart enough to figure it out without you saying so. Focus on the edits, not the editor.

Towards that end, I have changed the title of the section to something less combative and confrontational. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

a note on npov

If there is a legitimate academic debate about whether Y or not-Y is true, it is not NPOV-compliant to say "Reagan's X is considered important because it caused Y. Some scholars say not-Y." The reason I accuse Wtp of POV-pushing is because many of his edits are in this format, yet somehow it's always his opinion that is represented as truth. Odds are that most of these debates belong in sub-articles, rather than this article, but if they must be there, then better to say "There is disagreement over whether X resulted in Y" with cites to both sides.

This is relevant for the "Reagan made it more difficult for labor to unionize" claim WtP added (which is not supported by his cite, which only notes that it is a claim of a single left-wing professor), and is highly controversial in the academy. For example, see Robert J. LaLonde & Bernard D. Meltzer, Hard Times for Unions: Another Look at the Significance of Employer Illegalities, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 953 (1991), which disputes the claim that decreasing US unionization had anything to do with NLRB enforcement policies, given that European unions were declining at the same or faster rates. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

New Guy question

Um, I don't know how to properly post things on here. Regardless, the statement "The net effect of all Reagan-era tax bills was a 1% decrease in government revenues" is not properly supported by its corresponding link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.33.0.154 (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong, User:125; the article is semi-protected from editing by anonymous accounts, so as to prevent random vandalism. This tends to catch new folk or anons editing in good faith. Therefore, you couldn't have edited, so you didn't make a mistake.

Addressing the content of your question, you need to offer reliable citations (references from other sources) that note that decrease in governmental revenues. We cannot take your word for it:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, that is, not whether we think it is true. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." WP:V

I hope that helps. If no one else has said so thus far, welcome to Wikipedia. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, you didn't respond to what he said. He said the text in the article isn't accurate. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hero worship

This highly sanitized article mostly amounts to a lot of hero worship because it fails to deal with the large body of literature that provides a critical point of view. I have accordingly places the NPOV and Unbalanced tags and will be working to introduce such critical material in a scholarly manner. CyberAnth (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)