Talk:Reagan Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

End of the Cold War[edit]

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

Very misleading statement[edit]

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

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

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

Added Terrorism category[edit]

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

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

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------

THIS CATEGORY WAS DELETED SO CAN IT BE REVERTED ???

AfricaEditor's recent edits[edit]

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

Criticism Section[edit]

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

Legacy Section[edit]

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

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

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

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

Dr. Jack Wheeler[edit]

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

Revert[edit]

Why were my edits reverted? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. The article is about American foreign policy, so American English should be used (i.e. placing periods between U and S (as in U.S.)
  2. The description of the Contas as a resistance movement is perfectly acceptable. They were also a covert guerilla group but they resisted the left-wing government. Why change that?
  3. I very much dislike switching "anti-communist" and "communist" to "right-wing" and "left wing", respectively. Those are political terms and though they may apply in certain aspects, our descriptions should focus on the broader ideology. Reagan most likely would not have supported them if they had not been anti-communist.[1][2]
I've reworked it incorporating both your ideas and mine. Happyme22 (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realise periods were used like this in US English; does this also apply to the UK and USSR in articles where US English is used? The best description of the Contras would be "proxy army". "Resistance" seems a euphemism to me. Not all of those governments were communist; what they did have in common was that they were left-wing. Reagan opposed many governments that weren't communist. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it applies to the words "UK" and "USSR" in U.S. English articles. The Reagan Doctrine, however, applied to countering communist movements by providing overt and covert assistance to groups such as the Contras. I think some more discussion needs to occur before we go around changing every mention of "anti-communist" to "right-wing" and "communist" to "left-wing," particularly in this edit. Happyme22 (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest, Lapsed Pacific, that before changing the article further, swapping phrases, etc., we discuss the naming here at the talk page. Happyme22 (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Asimov's criticism[edit]

The secondary source is a book by Asimov named The Roving Mind, page 20-24. Publisher: Prometheus Books Place of Publication: Amherst, NY Publication Year: 1997. The weblinks show this four pages published in the "American Statesman". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTMGO (talkcontribs) 22:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Founding fathers and human rights[edit]

In the section "Reagan administration advocates" this sentence is included: Reagan labeled the contras "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers," which was controversial because the contras had shown a disregard for human rights.

What is so controversial abourt it? Many of the the founding fathers also showed disregard for human rights by supporting slavery. --Nis Hoff (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There were multiple contra groups with different approaches to their opposition to the Sandinistas. It was a mistake by both sides to broad brush them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.40.173 (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Founding Fathers & Human Rights highly Controversial ? *Cough* SLAVERY *Cough*

To the best of knowledge Basic Human Right is Freedom . Slavery is a negation to that statement

Or is the Author's intent directed towards Human Rights of White People ? . All the geographic areas which were affected by Reagan Directive are colored people

So a clarification would be worthwhile.When the author speaks of Human Rights in Conjunction with Founding Fathers is Race an important factor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.223.134 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Chavez Blowback[edit]

Part of why Hugo Chavez gained so much prestige in Latin America was that he used the legacy of the downsides of the Reagan Doctrine to help foster Anti-Americanism, couldn't this be considered "Blow back" also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.14.180 (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The material on Cambodia (in this article) needs to be re-written[edit]

You've got historical fiction presented as if it were historical fact on Cambodia here. Admittedly, plenty of journalists during the Regan era published the same type of ramblings, but... All of this is even contradicted by the basic facts on the CGDK found on Wikipedia (i.e., not particularly lucid nor well-researched!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Government_of_Democratic_Kampuchea U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge (as a client-army) pre-dates Ronald Reagan (although some of Reagan's critics might want to blame him for the policy, few actually do so) ... and the "coalition" that included the Khmer Rouge was created as a joint effort by the U.S. and China so that they could have a less-infamous name for the army they were jointly supporting (primarily, but not exclusively) from the Thai side of the border. You may well ask, "Precisely when, in what year, and under which U.S. President was that policy declared, and that coalition created?" Good question. Cf. http://www.iias.nl/article/american-wars-french-borders-thailand%E2%80%99s-acrimonious-adjacency-cambodia-part-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.32.233.111 (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Biased intro[edit]

It currently says in the intoduction:

"The doctrine was designed to serve the dual purposes of diminishing Soviet influence in these regions, while also potentially opening the door for capitalism (and sometimes liberal democracy) in nations that were largely being governed by Soviet-supported socialist governments."

That may have been the *stated* purpose, but it's wrong and biased to say that the Reagan doctrine was designed to do that. It pretended to aim for that, but in reality, the Reagan doctrine often damaged and destroyed democratic institutions, especially where democracy stood in the way of exploitative US business interests. The "Soviet-supported socialist government" label was often just an unwarranted smear that was applied to democratically elected governments in order to drum up support for overthrowing legitimately elected representatives and replacing them with less democratic ones who however supported of US business interests better – i.e. at the expense of the welfare of the local population. 31.16.113.231 (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicaragua[edit]

I feel that the extensive use of block quotes is inappropriate. If we insert large quotes from some sources (ie Glozov, or the NYT, or Bovard) we are essentially giving them more weight than other sources, and none of the quotes are from definitive works on the subject (because none such exist). If there are no objections, I plan to rewrite the block quotes into the main content like all the other sources. If you do have objections, please discuss them here, before I make any changes. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to cut back those quotes and make them more concise. I also wonder if Glozov, who is a polemicist, not a journalist or historian, should be quoted at all. I took out the NY Times "man on the street" quote too. Chisme (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Reagan Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reagan Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reagan Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Reagan Doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)