User talk:Happyme22/Sandbox

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article743306.ece

Reasonable v Heated
Hap, can you explain how it isn't heated? You have one segment that feels that Reagan wore a cape with a big red 'S' on it and virtually stopped the Cold War single-handedly. Then there is the polar opposite who point at Iran-Contra and the other, numerous scandals as proof positive that the guy was not manning the Great Ship America. Both sides are fully possessed of the surety that their point of view is accurate, and the midle ground sees a lot of friction over this, even almost twenty years later. To say the debate is heated is fairly accurate. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When I think of "heated" I think of people shouting back and forth to each other and arguments constantly occurring; or two football coaches shouting each other down after a big game. That is not the case here. There is reasonable debate over Reagan's influence in the end of the cold war, bottom line. I see nothing that is "heated"; that even seems to be poor vocabulary in this instance. "Resonable debate" is much more encyclopedic. Happyme22 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My Contribution
From what I said before, I tend to think that this topic is 98 percent opinion. It would be quite impossible, imo, to actually quantify and definitively say exactly how much of an effect a single person has on a complicated event. I suppose it is similar to discussing Constantine's role and his policies on Christians with the Fall of Rome. In fact, there were many factors that contributed to it, but it is undeniable that the allowance and propagation of Christianity played some part in the fall.

So, if I were to contribute to the Sandbox revision, I would argue that the first sentence should say something more like this: The significance of Reagan's role in ending the Cold War has spurned contentious and opinionated debate. I don't think it is necessary to say what proponents and/or opponents argued, since the words "proponents" and "opponents" imply what they believed. Personally, I would add next, ''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. It was Reagan's policies of peace through strength, 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. He stood out among post-World War II presidents as being one with a view that the Soviet Union ...''

As for the rest of the paragraphs, I'd be willing to try something on them as well, but I wonder what type of response I will get for my suggestion here first.

Also, Communism, in reference to the Soviet Union, should always be capitalized, as communism is an economic/political theory, but Communism refers to both the principles of the Communist Party and the government rule of the Soviet Union. Stanselmdoc (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I like most of what your above ideas said, and will change the paragraph accordingly. As for the second paragraph, it is POV but it is the POV of Reagan's fellow leaders at the time of Cold War. Happyme22 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)