Talk:Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration/Archive 1

The Latin America section
...reads exceedingly one-sided. The characterization of Reagan (and the US in general) as a guerrilla- and dictator-sponsoring criminal is evident. The section needs to undergo some heavy editing or even a redo.--AndresTM (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The result was merge into Foreign policy of the Reagan administration, as there were no objections. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I propose that Foreign Interventions of the Reagan Administration be merged with this article, as I have worked extensively on the FA Ronald Reagan article and see that the two have very much in common. The other page focuses mainly on everything but the Cold War, and this page focuses solely on the Cold War. You'll see that I added a short paragraph reagarding the operation in Grenada on this page before checking the other one; much is repeated on both pages as well, such as the Iran-Iraq War section(s). It would be much easier to combine all forgein "parts" of the Reagan admin. into one article, as well as have a domestic policy article (which I plan on creating). Anyway, the two are very similar in that they cover the foreign policy of the Reagan administration, this one focussing on the Cold War and the other on military action taken. Combining them, thus reviewing everything written in both articles (which will significantly decrease the POV), would create a much more central topic. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.158.218 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Solid information replaced with propaganda for dubious reasons
ALL my contributions were overwritten by some new guy on the grounds of NOPV? Has any editor read his revisions? It's like it came straight from Langley.--Horhey420 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment is unsigned. The editor in question is advised to cease reverting material en masse.  His contributions include sources such as Edward S. Herman, who qualify as fringe under Wikipedia policy, as well as absurdly lengthy editorials and links that take up whole paragraphs.  Every source I've used is more credible, from The Civil War in Nicaragua to the UN truth commission on El Salvador.  Moreover, he seems to believe that Guatemala recieved US assistance at a time when the country was under a US arms embargo imposed on human rights grounds.  My edits for that section are based entirely on other Wikipedia articles on Guatemala's history that are more neutral.  Moreover, he cannot justify such total deletions.  The text is utterly incoherent, and uses blatantly biased terminology like "state-terror apparatus."  I devoted several paragraphs to alleged contra atrocities.  If he feels more sources are needed, then he will have to incorporate them into my version of the article, and allow each to be scrutinized and properly cited, and he will have to accept the existence of other opinions besides his own.  Finally, his personal attacks are uncalled for, and I've made hundreds of edits on countless articles over a period of multiple years.  These personal attacks, and the extreme bias of his language, makes me frankly doubt if he is capable of being constructive on this topic.  I hope I'm wrong.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that I repeatedly tried to salvage some of his text, but so much of it was so poorly written and so poorly sourced that I felt, as did another editor, that the entire section needed an overhaul.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted his edits. Now, if he would like to add any number of sources--without resorting to mass deletions of content he doesn't like--he should do so.  However, he should learn how to source things properly.  Most of his citations look like this:
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=1NDaha23lSAC&pg=PA249&dq=The+underlying+U.S.+goal+is+maintaining+the+basic+societal+orders+of+particular+Latin+American+countries+approximately+as+they+are-ensuring+that+the+economics+are+not+drastically+rearranged+and+that+the+power+relations+of+the+various+social+sectors+are+not+turned+upside+down.+The+impulse+is+to+promote+democratic+change,+but+the+underlying+objective+is+to+maintain+the+basic+order+of+what,+historically+at+least,+are+quite+undemocratic+societies.+The+United+States+mitigates+this+tension+by+promoting+very+limited,+controlled+forms+of+democratic+change.+The+deep+fear+in+the+United+States+government+of+populist-based+change+in+Latin+America-with+all+its+implications+for+upsetting+established+economic+and+political+orders+and+heading+off+in+a+leftist+direction-+leads+to+an+emphasis+on+incremental+change+from+the+top+down.&hl=en&ei=x7ViTOLwM4WBlAfnl_iSCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20underlying%20U.S.%20goal%20is%20maintaining%20the%20basic%20societal%20orders%20of%20particular%20Latin%20American%20countries%20approximately%20as%20they%20are-ensuring%20that%20the%20economics%20are%20not%20drastically%20rearranged%20and%20that%20the%20power%20relations%20of%20the%20various%20social%20sectors%20are%20not%20turned%20upside%20down.%20The%20impulse%20is%20to%20promote%20democratic%20change%2C%20but%20the%20underlying%20objective%20is%20to%20maintain%20the%20basic%20order%20of%20what%2C%20historically%20at%20least%2C%20are%20quite%20undemocratic%20societies.%20The%20United%20States%20mitigates%20this%20tension%20by%20promoting%20very%20limited%2C%20controlled%20forms%20of%20democratic%20change.%20The%20deep%20fear%20in%20the%20United%20States%20government%20of%20populist-based%20change%20in%20Latin%20America-with%20all%20its%20implications%20for%20upsetting%20established%20economic%20and%20political%20orders%20and%20heading%20off%20in%20a%20leftist%20direction-%20leads%20to%20an%20emphasis%20on%20incremental%20change%20from%20the%20top%20down.&f=false "In the Name of Democracy: U.S. Policy Toward Latin America in the Reagan Years" By Thomas Carothers, 1993
 * Finally, this edit is a good example of his problems. The sources he removed were as follows:  Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1982; Washington Post, February 24, July 13, 1980; New York Times, November 20, 26, December 12, 1983; New York Times, June 24, 1984; Washington Post, June 27, 1984; Time Magazine, "Supply Line for a Junta," March 16, 1981;  "Amnesty Law Biggest Obstacle to Human Rights, Say Activists" by Raúl Gutiérrez, Inter Press Service News Agency, May 19, 2007, ect.  But he thinks Chomsky's The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism is more mainstream?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And you're thinking of NPOV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You do not remove all my work. This is wrong. Almost everything you added is false and outrageous. The fact that you take issue with calling it a "state-terror apparatus" is enough to know where you're coming from. Wtf do you call them? COPS ON THE BEAT? Nicaragua prospered after the war? This is ridiculous. Nicaragua became the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere next to Haiti. You are wrong. And it's a link to Google books so of course it's long. You're nitpicking because you dont like what it says.--Horhey420 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what I would personally call them. "State-terror apparatus" is not a neutral term.  Feel free to add any sources that dispute those already in the article.  But don't use opinionated language like that.  HRW is an excellent source for a rebuttal of the Reagan position.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Your version presents an administration who acted out of purely altruistic motives, concerned primarily with spreading democracy and fighting to protect human rights. This is an administration who praised the most extreme of the Guatemalan Himmlers, Rios Montt as:

"a man of great personal integrity" who was "totally dedicated to democracy," and dismissed charges of atrocities in Guatemala as a "bum rap."

As Reagan spoke, Rios Montt's troops were preparing to march on a village called Las Dos Erres for a counterinsurgency operation that was to include the rape of young women, smashing of infants' heads and the interment of more than 160 civilians -- some while still alive -- in the village well. http://www.hrw.org/news/2003/11/07/party-mass-murder

The reason I didnt stick with my previous responses is because I really dont want to care about this right now. Im busy doing other things but I will end it with this.. This is what I really have a problem with. It's when people present a narrative which is largely based on what political figures say or do publicly instead of what they actually say or do internally which is what really matters. Much of the official narrative of history today is based on the former and what you presented here is an extreme case. North Korea couldnt have done it better.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've said, HRW would be a good source to add to support your opinion. I don't comment on Reagan's motivation in the article.  If you want my opinion, then I see no reason to doubt his sincerity.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that Horhey420 signed the first post.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, of course you dont. These polices are much larger than just Reagan and they continue to this day. Had nothing to do with Cold War and both parties implement them. --Horhey420 (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I added more critical material on Guatemala.  This discussion should end, unless you want to make proposals for additional content to add to the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I spent about a month adding information. Take your pick. I dont have time right now.--Horhey420 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of your sources are garbage. And you misrepresent the credible ones. I'll turn the entire section on it's head when I come back. What a joke.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen. If you cannot be neutral, start your own website.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we might actually get a 100% balanced page if you continue to work with me here.--Horhey420 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits
For the most part, Horhey, you did a better than expected job. You still should avoid mentioning other presidents on this page, and there were a few grammar issues. But I can compromise here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Of all things, why you remove the La Prensa closure stuff?--Horhey420 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned Carter also.--Horhey420 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The following is OR and synthesis:

"The reports of political prisoners in Nicaragua were by La Prensa, a CIA/National Endowement for Democracy sponsored opposition newspaper which openly identified with the Contras and frequently called for the overthrow of the Government. On June 26, 1986, the Sandinista government temporarily suspended the publication of La Prensa citing an oped in the Washington Post by La Prensa editor Jaime Chamorro which sought to rebut the arguments of members of Congress who were opposed to the $100 milion in Contra aid. Chamorro also claimed that there were 10,000 political prisoners in Nicaragua but these assertions were dismissed by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Vice President Ramirez informed Human Rights Watch that the decision to suspend La Prensa's publication could be reversed under the condition that the paper clearly dissociate itself from the United States policy supporting the Contras.[36][37]"
 * This violates Wikipedia policy for several reasons. There is no citation for Chamorro's claims or any rebuttal.  His comments are unrelated to the election and did not appear in La Presna.  The tone suggests that the choice of censorship was justifiable.  Finally, the fact that the opposition recieved some funding from the US is irrelevant, and the implication that La Presna had no genuine beliefs is unsupportable.  In fact, Horhey wrote this in such a way to suggest that La Presna is the only source for Sandinista atrocities, but there are dozens of sources.  "One major critic of the government, La Presna, was accused of a conflict of interest for recieving US funding" might be acceptable--but only if you can find a reliable source that specifically criticizes this alleged conflict of interest.  Merely finding a source for NED funding proves nothing in itself.  But I'm not sure how relevant it is to Reagan's foreign policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

'''Chamorro's claims are in the Human Rights Watch article. Ya know. The one provided? Most of your citations dont even have LINKS and youre saying this? Wikipedia standards?'''--Horhey420 (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is what happenns when I paraphrase.--Horhey420 (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's as if the Japanese fascists were funding CNN during World War II. What if CNN were calling for the overthrow of the United States government as the Japanese were attacking Pearl Harbor? It's just unimaginable that it would be tolerated in the United States. La Prensa surely has their own beliefs. I'll change the wording around.--Horhey420 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ommission of CIA/NED funding to La Prensa is off the table.--Horhey420 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not more than one sentence is acceptable, and the source must specifically criticize the alleged conflict of interest.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is not the point.--Horhey420 (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just learned something new. The CIA had TAKEN OVER La Prensa to run anti-Sandinista propaganda operations. Wait for it.--Horhey420 (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Forget it. Too obscure for me. I'll look elsewhere some other time.--Horhey420 (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Im gonna have to dig up my Iraq files too.--Horhey420 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could make an article titled "Criticism of La Presna". Please remember that "obscure" sources may be of dubious veracity.  What does Iraq have to do with this article?  Unless you are talking about Reagan's "tilt" towards Iraq, your comment is inappropriate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to relax and stop trying to harrass people with the rules behind your computer. There is an Iraq section so how about you just assume that's what I was talking about? I already said it was too obscure for me AND YOU STILL PREACH THE RULES. You dont care about the rules. That's just a tool you abuse. You try to make this place like the dungeon under the USSR.--Horhey420 (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to fail to engage in relevant, on-topic discussion. You continue to indulge in personal attacks.  Your edits will not stand.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you previously brought up the Iraq war in the middle of a discussion about Indonesia on Jrtayloriv's TP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I just told you I was going to reword it and add it back and you removed it again? Then you change the words from "senior administration officials" to "dissenting US officials" even though the article says "SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS". I DIDNT EVEN INCLUDE THE CIA FUNDING INFO! CENSORSHIP! HARRASSMENT!--Horhey420 (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit is innacurate. The words must be changed to "senior administration officials."--Horhey420 (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious?
 * You clearly didn't reword it well enough. You took none of my concerns about length and sourcing into consideration.  I couldn't tell the difference.  This article shouldn't dwell as much as it does on issues unrelated to Reagan's foreign policy.  You should discuss things first, particularly given the contentious nature of our relationship, and leave an edit summary.  You've been warned numerous times by countless editors to include summaries and stop engaging in revert wars.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your wording is bias. You attach words like "claimed" to info you dont like and then state the info you do like as fact. Not "reportedly" or "asserted". Just that it did happen. Period. How about I remove your stuff because I dont like the wording?--Horhey420 (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

One of these days you're going to run into a non right wing administrator.--Horhey420 (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that any of the admins we've dealt with are right-wingers. Your allegations don't stick.  You once attempted to add the word "allegedly" so many times to the Sandinstas article that it bordered on farce.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Horhey just added the bold text seen above. He's writing all over the page in an incoherent fashion.  It's curious that he would scream at me over an alleged failure to provide links.  Since I use sctual history books, it is true that I use fewer links.  However, academic histories are generally more reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you make your information verifiable or it will be removed as you have removed my information which can be verified with a click and little reading. I paraphrase and then you remove without even verifying the content provided. That is POV and censorship. You are factually violating Wikipedia rules while not applying the same standards to yourself that you're applying to me.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you openly threatening an edit war? I've let almost all your recent edits stand.  I'm appeasing you as much as possible.  You'll have to be more specific about what problems you have with my edits.  All I gather from your comments is that you think you can intimidate me with threats.  I've been humoring you for my own amusement, but this talk page has become a circus with your ranting.  Very little of what you say is relevant, on-topic, and appropriate discussion of article content.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You removed my verifiable content on the grounds that the information was not cited when it is in the citation provided. That is why I cant paraphrise because of people like you. And then you complain that I use too many quotes. Your contributions will be removed unless you can verify what you added to the page. You should have no problem with that since you expect far more from me and dont even bother to look to see if the information is supported by the provided citation. You just reflexively remove the content.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything I added to the page is "verified", usually with far better sources than what you tend to use. In fact, I added large amounts of criticism of US policy.  I asked you to explain what needed verification.  I can't just keep asking you.  If you refuse to explain yourself, then you are threatening mass deletions without discussion.  You will banned for this behavior.  I suspect that if you had a legitimate point, you would have made it.  We're arguing over nothing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Banned for doing what you do all day, every day? And then you try to bait me with your question "Are you openly threatening an edit war?" No, I dont want to remove anything. You're the one setting the standards and you still have the upper hand because I will actually check to see (or care) if your source supports your information.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is what Im talking about or some of it...

Chamorro Cardenal, Jaime (1988). La Prensa, A Republic of Paper. Freedom House. p. 23. 38.^ a b c Williams, Philip J. “Elections and democratization in Nicaragua: the 1990 elections in perspective.” Journal of Interamerican Studies 32, 4:13-34 (winter 1990). p16 39.^ Cornelius, Wayne A. “The Nicaraguan elections of 1984: a reassessment of their domestic and international significance.” Drake, Paul W. and Eduardo Silva. 1986. Elections and democratization in Latin America, 1980-85. La Jolla: Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, Institute of the Americas, University of California, San Diego. Pp. 62. 40.^ Martin Kriele, “Power and Human Rights in Nicaragua,” German Comments, April 1986, pp56-7,63-7, a chapter excerpted from his Nicaragua: Das blutende Herz Amerikas (Piper, 1986). See also Robert S. Leiken, “The Nicaraguan Tangle,” New York Review of Books, December 5, 1985 and “The Nicaraguan Tangle: Another Exchange,” New York Review of Books, June 26, 1986; Alfred G. Cuzan, Letter, Commentary, December 1985 and “The Latin American Studies Association vs. the United States,” Academic Questions, Summer 1994. 41.^ a b John Norton Moore, The Secret War in Central America (University Publications of America, 1987) p143n94 (2,000 killings); Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction, 1993), p193 (3,000 disappearances); Insight on the News, July 26, 1999 (14,000 atrocities). 42.^ The Catholic Institute for International Relations (1987). "Right to Survive: Human Rights in Nicaragua" (print). The Catholic Institute for International Relations. 43.^ Grandin, Greg. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt & Company 2007, 89 44.^ Grandin, Greg. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt & Company 2007, 90 45.^ Gareau, Frederick H. (2004). State Terrorism and the United States. London: Zed Books. pp. 16 & 166. ISBN 1-84277-535-9. 46.^ Blum, William (2003). Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II. Noida, India: Zed Books. p. 290. ISBN 1-84277-369-0. 47.^ "Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration". The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0406c.asp. Retrieved 2006-07-30. 48.^ Nieto, Clara (2003). Masters of War: Latin America and United States Aggression from the Cuban Revolution Through the Clinton Years. New York: Seven Stories Press. pp. 343–345. ISBN 1-58322-545-5. 49.^ Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, Nicaragua v. United States of America – Merits, ICJ, June 27, 1986, Factual Appendix, paras. 15-8, 22-5. See also Sandinista admissions in Miami Herald, July 18, 1999. 50.^ Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction, 1993), pp116-8. 51.^ Humberto Belli, Breaking Faith (Puebla Institute, 1985), pp124, 126-8. 52.^ Robert S. Leiken, Why Nicaragua Vanished (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), pp148-9, 159. See also Robert P. Hager, “The Origins of the Contra War in Nicaragua,” Terrorism and Political Violence, Spring 1998.

What are people supposed to do with this? Cant be verified unless you go buy or check out the book.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Could anyone imagine if my sources were like this???--Horhey420 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that books aren't allowed on Wikipedia? Note that citations 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49 are all condemnations of US policy.  I wish you used valid sources, but you don't read history books and previously admitted that you know little about many of the articles you edit.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Now you're making stuff up. I said "I admit Im no expert on Indonesia, but I know quite a bit. The Middle East and Latin America, that's different. Gotta go to the store."

Ive read plenty of history books. Many of my sources are from history books, only they can be verified. What are you trying to accomplish by saying this?--Horhey420 (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You just got caught. It is now revealed that you reflexively remove content you dont like for dishonest reasons- reasons that you do not apply to yourself.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're talking to yourself, and you don't make sense. Do you think this is an online forum?  I'm not responding to you until you make a meaningful point.  If you try any further edit warring, I'll revert it.  Your behavior is outrageous.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think an administrator may need to see this.--Horhey420 (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, just like the last time you contacted an administrator. This is the TP of the article.  Your threats don't belong here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You should contribute to the Contra page. Just forget about all this.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? Why do you want me to contribute to the Contra page?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Add whatever you want. Just dont remove my content. If you want to change something of mine discuss it with me and we'll work it out.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC
 * Wow, it's as though you have turned over a new leaf. But I still don't know why you want me to edit the Contras page, and for now I've had quite enough of you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont know why you dont get it. Removal of content is no good. Improvement and adding = good. As long as the information is credible. That's what matters. Im trying to get a long with you because you're apparently protected here. You can do what you want, pretty much.--Horhey420 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

End of the Cold War
The article has two somewhat contradictory sentences. The Controversy section starts with "Reagan escalated the Cold War with the Soviet Union...". But End of the Cold War begins with "Reagan spent much of his presidency time trying to stop the cold war." The first statement is accurate. The second one is ambiguous. Both Lincoln and his Democratic opponents in the 1864 election wanted to end the Civil War. Lincoln wanted to do so by winning, The Democrats' platform called for a negotiated settlement. So what does it mean to say Reagan wanted to "stop the cold war"? For now, I've marked the sentence with a "citation needed." But I think it would be more accurate to say Reagan relaxed his hard line somewhat after Gorbachev became the Soviet Premier.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would make the change now, but I don't have a citation handy. I'm sure some of the existing sources would do, but I don't have copies of some of the books. I'm not sure if we need a citation, since this is just a restatement of what follows.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nicaragua
The article contains this sentence, with a reference: Many civil liberties were curtailed or canceled such as the freedom to organize demonstrations, the inviolability of the home, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and, the freedom to strike. But when I read the reference, it gives a much more nuanced description of the situaion in Nicaragua: ''Extended States of Emergency legally decreed since 1982 by a country under extreme external aggression suspended some civil liberties (such as freedom to strike, speak, publish, organize demonstrations, habeas corpus, etc.). There were incidents of Sandinista police harrassment of opposition political activities, personnel, and rallies. Yet basic rights (to life, food, shelter, etc.) have continued, and most civil liberties were observed for most people. ...Nicaragua even under the Sandinista State of Emergency was not a tropical Gulag...'' Aside from the nuanced view, I'm also struck by the date of the decree, 1982, which was after the start of the Contra war. But the article suggests the State of Emergency Decree was the reason President Reagan launched the contra war, when in fact, it was the Sandinistas' response to the contra war. Also, the same source points out the worst violations of human rights were carried out by the Contras. This needs to be rewritten.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

On Further reading, the article suggests that US action began in 1983 with the creation of UCLAs, when (according to the same source above) it actually began in 1981, before the State of Emergency.—75.4.241.108 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be assuming that the contras were originally created by the US. I'd add that mass executions started within weeks of the Sandinista take-over.  I think there is substantial criticism of US policy in the section, but if you would like to alter the text about the SOE, feel free to propose changes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. And the source I quote above mentions those mass executions, but again, with more nuance. Here's what it says (keeping in mind that the figures quoted by your source were estimates). "America's Watch has documented close to 400 cases of killings and disappearances in total since 1981... But what is absolutely remarkable in Latin America, is that not only were most such police (and army) officials disciplined, but some 600 were imprisoned for misconduct ranging from drunken deportment through arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, to assault, rape, and murder... Amnesty International and America's Watch reports ... have repeatedly concluded that there was no Sandinista governmental policy of extra-judicial executions nor disappearances." The source goes on to say that, since the corrupt Somoza era judges and police officials had either fled or were in prison, the new government had to appoint new, inexperienced officials. In spite of this, the newly reconstituted courts "operated with various legal safeguards remarkable for Latin American States under such severe insurrections... the formal court system maintained the independence of the judiciary, operated under the formal rule of law..." This is not a picture of a totalitarian society.
 * You seem to be assuming the contras were a home-grown rebellion, which is what the Reagan administration always claimed. If you could provide evidence, I'd like to see it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be inferring that from the article you linked to. The source I quoted has this to say: "...the U.S. administration openly admitted...that since 1981 it had been organizing, recruiting, training (originally by Argentinian death-squad colonels!), supplying, and directing counter-revolutionary terrorists ... in a low intensity warfare operation to unseat the Sandinista Nicaraguan government."
 * The picture this all paints, then, is one of the Sandinistas trying successfully to bring order, justice, and rule of law to a country recovering from tyranny on the right and insurrection on the left. The Reagan administration attempted to destabilize this government by funding terrorists. The Sandinistas responded by declaring a State of Emergency. This State of Emergency was then used by the Reagan administration to rationalize their covert war. That's what the article should say.—75.4.241.108 (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article should not say that--because it is an opinion, even if its the truth. However, if you would like to add direct quotes rebutting Reagan's policy, please feel free to do so.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "it is an opinion, even if its the truth." Huh? If it's the truth, and it's supported by the references, why shouldn't the article say so? I'm trying to accurately describe the administration's foreign policy toward Nicaragua. It was certainly a controversial policy, and the controversy should be described accurately, with the viewpoints of both sides represented fairly, but I haven't even reached that point yet — we first have to describe the policy accurately.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh....the goal of Wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. The picture I painted is certainly verifiable.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by that. If you want to add "The Reagan administration deliberately encouraged and provoked human rights violations by the Sandinistas", that is not neutral or verifiable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, I didn't say that, and I wouldn't unless I could quote some properly positioned official in the Reagan administration to support my claim. (I don't have such a quote right now, but it's not out of the question.)—MiguelMunoz (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what exactly do you want to add? Feel free to make any suitable adjustments.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to add anything. I want to rewrite what's already there. This discussion has been very useful. I'm working on something right now, but I'm not ready to submit it.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This section had become lengthy to the point where multiple sources were making the same point. When this was removed, including an entirely irrelevant section on Sandinista perception of the Contras, why was it reverted? moreover, when you followup with an independent source that says that elections were free and fair, what possible objection can you have to the "Sandinistas won the election"? That is a documented fact, even if they were not fair. And why are references from Chomsky being purged, and why are other references from different sources being purged due to opposition to Chomsky? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.171.215 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I carried out a series of edits that essentially re-ordered some of the content, and removed one source that opposed Reagan as well as one that supported him. The other removal was of content entirely irrelevant to this page, which I said I would (and did) insert in the Sandinistas page. Moreover, you just removed several references on the basis of an unjustified objection to Chomsky. Please explain.Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the one making the edit; you have to justify it. Anything I deleted was collateral damage. You have to explain what you deleted. As I recall, I was just about to let your edit slide when I noticed POV language about "highly brutal repression" and such.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I DID justify the removal; the three sources removed were repeating exactly what was said in previous ones. Repetition does not add anything new. The reworking that followed simply collected related parts together rather than splitting them up like the previous version. As for what you call POV language: I never used the phrase "highly brutal repression". The word "brutal" was used a couple of times; if you actually read the sources cited there, you would see that the Contra tactics included "widespread murder, torture, rape, extortion, and destruction of public infrastructure." This phrase cannot be repeated each time; ergo, it is shortened to "brutal" which, given that it's coming from the source, seems absolutely justified. Moreover, a condemnation of the Contras is not necessarily supporting the government; you will notice that the stuff I removed supported and opposed Reagan in basically equal parts. In a similar fashion, "repressive" is used to mean "governments that denied civil liberties, interned marge numbers of people without trial, used torture and rape as means of ascertaining the cooperation of the populace, etc" which once again comes from the source. It is abbreviation used in pretty much any description of military/dictatorial governments; I cannot see why you object. Moreover, you seem to have issues with a couple of words; why does that justify paragraphs worth of "collateral damage"?Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Remember, you're the one deleting 2,000 bytes of content, not me. Chomsky's not a notable expert on the history of Nicaragua--period. It's perfectly obvious that your changes to the tone and language of the text are intended to promote a Chomskyite POV, like when you arbitrarily edit out the word "democratic" from the long list of Latin American countries in which Reagan supported democratic transitions. You are removing sources you don't like, and replacing them with sources you do like, citing length as justification for the deletions. When trimming text, you may need to discuss the matter and reach consensus if your changes have been objected to--but you have edit warred instead. Please understand, I don't think FrontPageMagazine belongs here anymore than Chomsky does, but I was hoping you could propose reasonable compromises here. Since you haven't, I guess I'll attempt to create a more neutral version unilaterally.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be skirting what I am saying entirely. I make a bunch of edits that add three or four sources. You have an issue (why, I can't understand) about one of them. Then just remove that one! why do you have to decide that because I used Chomsky as a source, none of the other sources are verifiable? moreover, if I have two sources for the same statement, and only one of them is Chomsky, then what precisely is your problem? and why are you linking the removal of extra material with the use of chomsky? put the material back, if you're so attached to it. It really doesn't have bearing on the additions I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's an exact quote: "His support for the contras in Nicaragua was controversial, due to the poor human rights record of the rebels, and the brutality of their scorched earth tactics." What does the bit in bold actually add to this section?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to add or delete any more sources, explain why here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What that sentence achieves is the summarizing of "widespread murder, torture, rape, extortion, and destruction of public infrastructure as a means of disrupting the governmental mechanisms of the Sandinistas, and to ensure that the rural population cooperated with the rebellion." and the paragraphs that follow from the source. I do not see why exactly I have to justify the addition of material from sources well known enough that they are a part of history syllabi in multiple well known universities through the US. I you have issues with the deletions, I am willing to work with that; I just re-instated the blockquote as well as the word "democratic". The use of the phrase "scorched earth" is very specific and important, as it is a known military tactic. "Brutal" I am willing to remove; but it IS from the source. Why do you insist on calling historical sources POV, when you insist on maintaining the quote from the interview? that's a single person speaking, you can hardly get more POV than that. Moreover, it discusses the nature of the government very specifically, and so would be more appropriate to the Sandinistas page. Regardless, I'm willing to leave it as part of a compromise. As for the re-organization, I feel it is logical to collect information about direct US involvement in one place. Once again, you have still not explained your opposition to the non-chomsky academic sources. They provide information that was not there previously, and are rigorous, well known, verifiable references. what is there to justify?Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I moderated further the language you objected to. One thing I won't change, though, is the removal of the Sandinistas "claiming" victory in the elections. What is under dispute is the fairness of the campaign process, and whether intimidation was used, etc. This Sandinistas still won it, whether or not it was disputed. There was no question about the results, no recount, etc. Saying they "claimed" victory is like saying Bush "claimed" victory in 2000. The MEANS he used were questionable; but he still won. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear arms
This was removed from the article for being unsourced :"According to several scholars and biographers, including Paul Lettow (Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), John Lewis Gaddis (The Cold War: A New History), and Richard Reeves (President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination), Reagan quietly worked to make the world safer from the threat of nuclear war, which he also stated in his autobiography "An American Life." Reagan had morally opposed nuclear weapons since 1945 and sincerely feared the biblical Armageddon. He wrote in his autobiography that he believed John Kennedy's MAD policy (mutually assured destruction) to be wrong. He even proposed to Gorbachev that, if a missile shield could be built, that all nukes be eliminated and the missile shield technology shared." Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed it, because there was no response to the "unsourced" tag for two years. What are you getting at? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090701053013/http://www.anc.org.za:80/ancdocs/history/embargo/rknight840403.htm to http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/embargo/rknight840403.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110610233150/http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1988/february/Sa13957.htm to http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1988/february/Sa13957.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Angola and FrontLine Fellowship source
Surely this is the worst website to ever be sourced on wikipedia? site claims vikings use to spread Christianity and its being covered up. Its like sourcing the onion, radical religious sites shouldn't be sourced for history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.75.25 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Angola and FrontLine Fellowship source
Surely this is the worst website to ever be sourced on wikipedia? site claims vikings use to spread Christianity and its being covered up. Its like sourcing the onion, radical religious sites shouldn't be sourced for history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.75.25 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)