Talk:Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070510151200/http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/rd/17741.htm to http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/rd/17741.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131115003033/http://frontline-org-za.win03.glodns.net/articles/reagan.htm to http://frontline-org-za.win03.glodns.net/articles/reagan.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205045538/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37088 to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37088

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326140900/http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf to http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205163909/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/55750.html to http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/55750.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009082531/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher%2CHRW%2C%2CNIC%2C467fca491e%2C0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher%2CHRW%2C%2CNIC%2C467fca491e%2C0.html
 * Added tag to http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=20155
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012151415/http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/ungomap/background.html to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/ungomap/background.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109024359/http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/10/27/we_arm_the_world.php to http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/10/27/we_arm_the_world.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CUSCIS%2C%2CSLV%2C%2C3ae6a6a68%2C0.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102124120/http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/r38.htm to http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/r38.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513133310/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa067es.html to http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa067es.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Lack of understanding of foreign policy discussions
I propose adding this section:
 * US National Security Council member Richard Pipes described Reagan at National Security Council meetings as seeming "really lost, out of his depth, uncomfortable." Reagan's incomprehension of foreign policy discussions resulted in a "passive management style [that] placed a tremendous burden on us. Until we got used to it, we felt uneasy implementing recommendations without a clear decision....One morning...[National Security Advisor] Frank moaned..., 'My God, we didn't sign on to run this country!'" Similarly, James Baker, who served as White House chief of staff and as US Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, portrayed Reagan's foreign policy team as "a witches' brew of intrigue...and separate agendas."
 * I'm not certain this is useful material. Even if it were completely reliable (and I think it isn't) it has more to do with the Reagan administration's style of functioning rather than his foreign policy. There's a good bit of more substantial criticism of his policy in scholarly literature; if you wish to make the article more balanced, I'd start with the work of Greg Grandin, for instance. Vanamonde (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the issue: to what extent was Reagan's foreign policy conceived and set in place by Reagan? An article that purports to sketch Reagan's foreign policy would be incomplete without some perspective on whether it was in fact *Reagan's* policy. Perhaps additional explication in the article would be helpful to flesh this out.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Historians are all agreed that Reagan sent the basic parameters of foreign-policy. He paid little attention to details, and could not follow complex discussions of technical matters. But he did know he wanted to roll back Communism, and build up and use American economic, diplomatic, and military strength to that end. For example, Sterling J. Kernek & ‎Kenneth W. Thompson (1993) argue: "Reagan had to find a position that would enable him to continue with his military buildup and the maintenance of a firm line toward the Soviets, but one that would also reassure both European and American opinion that he was effectively going to maintain the peace. Thus we got that very important speech of 16 January 1984, in which Reagan set the tone for his second term by talking about three guiding principles: realism, strength, and dialogue." Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, Rjensen, and the fact that Reagan "paid little attention to details, and could not follow complex discussions of technical matters" should be provided in the article. That's exactly my point, as well as that staffers made key strategic decisions on behalf of the US, even though that was not their understanding of the job when they signed up and that's not what the American people expected someone they never heard of, like Carlucci or Powell, to do. I'll give an example. One of the major headings in the article is Reagan Administration policy in El Salvadore (I could have used just about any other such section as an example). The Reagan Administration ramped up dramatically US military aid to the Salvadoran junta's war against the FLMN and the campesino villages that supported them, spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Did Reagan likely know that Salvadoran military death squads were being armed by these US funds? Was Reagan even likely aware of the term "Salvadoran death squad?" in the context of the rounding up and torturing of non-combatants? I don't expect this article to answer in detail such specific questions of Reagan's knowledge, but the article should provide readers with some information about the extent to which Reagan understood the parameters of foreign policy discussions, and the extent to which Reagan, as opposed to others, made such policy decisions on behalf of the US govt. --NYCJosh (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Citizendium text
"Citizendium" is not "dodgy" -- it was run by the Larry Sanger cofounder of Wikipedia. see We aren't Citizendium for its strengths. It's now defunct and Wiki policy is to include some of its text. see WikiProject Citizendium Porting where it recommends "extract useful information from the Citizendium article and merge it into the Wikipedia article." I did that and revised and updated old materials with new RS. (I also wrote much of this Citizendium article back around 2007). As for "hagiography" that's a useless subjective complaint regarding material based on multiple reliable sources. In fact there are multiple criticisms of RR that refutes that throwaway line. (eg He paid very little attention to details and elaborate briefings. Iran–Contra seriously damaged Reagan's reputation Reagan  relied on an inner circle of advisers who were not foreign policy experts, including his wife. Haig was arrogant and unable to get along with the other top aides. Weinberger did not coordinate well with the foreign policy leadership. Reagan trusted Poindexter too much  etc) Rjensen (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PS the "strange iran contra affair " is standard terminology...that's how the RSs actually describe it. eg 1) The Gulf War: Its Origins, History and Consequences (2016) states "In the West, the strange Iran–Contra affair attracted most attention for the light it shone on the workings of the American administration, where a lieutenant-colonel in the White House basement could make and carry through a policy of his own ." 2) American Presidents Year by Year (2015) p 693 = "Point man for the United States in the strange Iran-Contra Affair was a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps, Oliver North." 3) The Rift Between America and Old Europe (2015) = "finally culminated in the strange Iran-Contra conspiracy investigated and exposed in the Walsh...."  4) and for journalism at the time U.S. News & World Report  (1987) = " the many lies told as the strange Iran-Contra schemes began to unravel? "  Rjensen (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not enough for the material to be reliably cited; it needs to conform to the source, and it needs to be presented neutrally, and when the inclusion of certain material is challenged, the person who included it needs to reach consensus for it. We need to hammer out the wording here, because I was unhappy with your choice of terminology. "Indeed the one of them John Poindexter was trusted too much" is over-heavy use of Wikipedia's voice. That bit also states in Wikipedia's voice that Reagan was unaware, whereas our article on the matter, cited to solid sources, suggests there's controversy over this. "remarkable credentials"; again, heavy editorializing. " His most detailed analysis came on June 8, 1982, to the British Parliament, stunning the Soviets and allies alike."; the sources you have used say nothing of the kind. I could go on. The point is that making small tweaks and reinstating the whole 6kb of contested content isn't acceptable. Please discuss it here first. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "challenge" seems to be the operative word here. You have not challenged any major points. Instead you want to see RS for the phrasing used in the text.  OK.  What we have are paraphrases of RS -- and I think we can agree to include the following cites:  A) Pondexter "trusted too much": see 1a "In Poindexter's case, Reagan trusted a subordinate who... lacked the more elusive quality of sound political judgment"     also 2a) Ronald Reagan in Private: A Memoir of My Years in the White House by Kuhn (2004) = "clearly, he had trusted Poindexter too much, and he had gone too far."   B) Haig's remarkable credentials" = B1 Irving Lewis Horowitz, Persuasions and Prejudices (2016) p  "No other individual could claim such credentials as White House chief of staff in the Nixon administration or supreme allied Commander of NATO."  B2:  Jeff Gee Pillars of Success p 13.(2006)  " many are familiar with General Haig's reputation as a paragon of statesmanship ...and the consummate diplomacy of a master negotiator at the highest levels of the public and private sectors"  C1) Parliament 1982: John Lewis Gaddis Strategies of Containment: (2005) p 356 = "No American president had ever before talked like this, and the effects were profoundly unsettling in Moscow."   C2: Robert C. Rowland; John M. Jones, have a whole book on the speech. Reagan at Westminster: Foreshadowing the End of the Cold War (2010) p 15:   his “prophetic speech to British members of Parliament at the Palace of Westminster...is now considered to be among his most significant speeches."  Also same book p 89] after the talk Thatcher compared it to Lincoln’s comment at Gettysburg. "Thatcher saw that Reagan’s speech "was the start of something larger and that the effort to complete the 'unfinished work' would resonate in the world."  Rjensen (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are still not acknowledging that you need to obtain consensus for content that has been challenged, which is concerning. Yes, of course I want RS for the phrasing used in the text, because the phrasing you used was not NPOV compliant, and was not supported by the sources you used; in other words, it was fundamentally not policy-compliant. Those equivalencies might be fine if you were writing your academic own paper; they are not fine if you're writing an encyclopedia, which demands a higher level of fidelity to sources. The examples I gave are not the only instances of problematic phrasing: "Reagan stunned the world with a totally new idea", for instance, is just as bad. Please provide RS for all of the phrasing you use. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No I do not need your approval. I think you violated the BOLD rule by your wholesale reverting a long sourced section with a poor explanation of less that one sentence, which now seems to be forgotten.  It was a drive-by erasure before you had looked at the material cited.   The rule is WP:BRD Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one.  In any case   you have 3 specific complaints and I fixed each one.  If you disagree then you need to defend your edits with RS --I have cited multiple RS in each case and you have sited zero RS.  Rjensen (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You are obligated to seek consensus for contested material. Also, of the three sources I checked, none supported all of the phrasing you used them for; the content you added was not well-sourced. If you think that's not a serious problem, you shouldn't be editing in this area. Until you can demonstrate that all of the content you wish to add is explicitly supported by the sources, it fails WP:NOR, and I will remove it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WIKI states WP:EDITCONSENSUS "most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. Often, a simple rewording will satisfy all editors' concerns." OK we can do this. You have identified 3 issues -- text does not match the cites. you say the paraphrasing or summary could be improved. OK  Let's take each case A-B-C that you listed and tell me what summary or paraphrase would be OK.  Rjensen (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A) "Indeed the one of them John Poindexter was trusted too much" is over-heavy use of

Wikipedia's voice." How about this: According to Robert M. Collins,  "In Poindexter's case, Reagan trusted a subordinate who... lacked the more elusive quality of sound political judgment"  [cite: Robert M. Collins (2009). Transforming America: Politics and Culture During the Reagan Years. Columbia UP. p. 231.   that should solve the problem of matching the source. Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's okay, but we don't need to quote quite so much: I'd suggest "In the case of John Poindexter, Reagan chose a subordinate who, according to Robert M. Collins, did not possess "sound political judgment"." Vanamonde (Talk) 22:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK on Poindexter. what about Haig? Rjensen (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What about Haig? You're not using him as a source. What I objected to above was how the sources are being used (and let's be clear, it's not just three sources; that I found issues with all of the three I did check suggests all of it needs to be checked. Whether that's because citizendium is unreliable, or for some other reason, we can get into later). Please share what you want to say and with what sources, as you did above. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)