Changes

: We welcome well-supported facts here.  We don't censor alternative views.  But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due.  If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given.  It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit.  He obviously does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: We welcome well-supported facts here.  We don't censor alternative views.  But an entry is going to give credit to conservatives or Christianity or American where credit is due.  If you want to insert a liberal view that attempts to deny credit to Reagan for the fall of communism, then it should be well-supported and near the end, after the credit is fully given.  It can't be inserted in a manner suggesting that the issue is unresolved, or that we have no way of knowing whether Reagan deserves credit.  He obviously does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well, no.  It isn't obvious that Reagan deserves credit.  One hypothesis is that Reagans presence in the White House played a significant role in the eventual fall of the Soviet Union.  But you would have to test that against a counter hypothesis that the Soviet Union would have ended roughly at the same time and in the same manner if Reagan had not been president.  Of course we can't revert history and control for that factor so any argument regarding causation is tenuous at best.  However, there is a whole body of research looking at multiple explanations for the end of the Cold War and most of this research looks at mult-causal explanations.  Social scientists generally are wary of monocausal explanations and especially monocausal explanations that single out any one individual.  It is for this reason that the Reagan hypothesis is largely rejected--it has little to do with Reagan himself, but mostly to do with the complex nature of large-scale political processes.  That isn't to say that Reagan and his policies weren't an important variable, it is just not certain whether he holds the most explanatory power.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, no.  It isn't obvious that Reagan deserves credit.  One hypothesis is that Reagans presence in the White House played a significant role in the eventual fall of the Soviet Union.  But you would have to test that against a counter hypothesis that the Soviet Union would have ended roughly at the same time and in the same manner if Reagan had not been president.  Of course we can't revert history and control for that factor so any argument regarding causation is tenuous at best.  However, there is a whole body of research looking at multiple explanations for the end of the Cold War and most of this research looks at mult-causal explanations.  Social scientists generally are wary of monocausal explanations and especially monocausal explanations that single out any one individual.  It is for this reason that the Reagan hypothesis is largely rejected--it has little to do with Reagan himself, but mostly to do with the complex nature of large-scale political processes.  That isn't to say that Reagan and his policies weren't an important variable, it is just not certain whether he holds the most explanatory power.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)