Battle of Caving Banks

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance). History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article reads like a college term paper; does not have an encyclopedic tone to it. While writing, the editor should remember to structure the statements in a manner s/he 'd expect to read a similar article in an encyclopedia. Mercy11 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article actually covers historiography rather than history, so a specialized style is called for. Rjensen (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia style is defined by the wp:MoS. I haven't seeing anything there providing for a specialized style to Reagan or his Era articles. Your argument won't be defensible. Mercy11 (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article follows wp:MoS exactly. As for "college term paper"-- this was certainly not one of those. (And for that matter Wiki does not forbid the college term paper style in the first place). Can you specify a sentence that does not seem encyclopedic? Rjensen (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, I have indicated that the tone in this article immediately struck me as being off-mark, and I presented my concerns. You are the initiator as well as the main contributor to the article so do with it whatever you want: I am not going to continue going back and forth with you on the matter. In any event, from the hits the article is getting and the number of editors in its monitor list, it's obvious my time is not well invested here. Mercy11 (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Popular Culture section really belong here? It has for more to do with the Cold War than with Reagan or his policies. I think there's probably content that could work here, but I don't think Tom Clancy really qualifies.David A Spitzley (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes it does qualify --Reagan is a major topic in all Cold War histories. Clancy's first book The Hunt for Red October appeared at a very "cold" moment in 1984. the text is based on a scholarly source: Walter L. Hixson, "'Red Storm Rising': Tom Clancy novels and the cult of national security," Diplomatic History, Fall 1993, Vol. 17 Issue 4, pp 599-613.

Wikipedia articles on "Periods in United States history" seems to list the Reagan Era as the last (and thus current) era. Most other eras listed are stated as lasting between 10 to 20 years with some lasting shorter and none longer (except for a catch-all "Colonial Period" for the pre-US times). To claim that a Reagan Era is still ongoing after nearly 40 years seems very inconsistent and judged by a different standard. Now; I do not doubt that Reaganian thought still influences the United States to this day, particularly economically. But that alone is not enough to be considered not to have moved on. Civil rights were won and have not been lost again - and race is still an issue, most recently with police shootings - but that does not mean we are still in the Civil Rights Era. And WW2 has not restarted, but that does not mean we are still in the Post-War Era as defined here.

Apart from the economic side of things, there was no great shift in thinking on how the US was placed in the world from the "Civil Rights Era" to the "Reagan Era". The US still saw itself as a defender of freedom and opposed to communism. That is quite unlike the "End of History" period of the 90's where there was a general sense that "Freedom had prevailed [permanently]" or the post 9/11 "War on Terror" where US voters shifted from being generally quite skeptical of government power to a greater willingness to give the state leeway in taking actions deemed necessary to prevent future terror attacks.

It is also quite obvious that there has been a substantial shift away from the social conservatism of the 1980's. Single parenthood, divorce, same-sex marriage and attitudes towards LGBT people has changed dramatically; especially in the years between 2000 and today. Expressly religious arguments will not win voters over the way they did.

I would also argue that the more recent election of Trump may signify a shift towards a loss of faith in the ability to "win" international trade and increased isolationism, but it is still too early to say if this will represent a permanent shift in American thinking. Introduction of tariffs on various goods (especially from China) is very different from the trade policies of Ronald Reagan.

So all in all, it seems more than a little inconsistent and (perhaps most relevant here) not well argued that we should still consider ourselves to live in the Reagan Era.Spearman (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a well-reasoned argument. We certainly aren't still in the Reagan Era of American politics, and likely haven't been for some time based on the criteria applied for transitions from other historical eras. I don't know if there's a consensus for what we'd call the current era, however. I imagine there have been a FEW eras since the ending of the Reagan era. The Clinton Impeachment, 9/11, Iraq, Obama's Election, the Tea Party, and the current Trump Era are all unique moments in American history, I'd argue. But Wikipedia isn't about opinion or about original research, it's about reporting facts. Unless there's a historical consensus that allows us to simply report and not editorialize, I think the best we can do as editors is remove the word "Present" in the era duration. Replace it with Question marks, or unknown. Pseudocleverr (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reports facts? Seems more like "alternative facts" to me. Maybe the "Nazi Era" hasn't ended yet. Americans seem to wish for it [[1]]. -- 2003:E5:1702:DA99:FCF3:7675:757B:BEE6 (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph makes it clear that RS have not reached a consensus on the ending date. Rjensen (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Reagan Era shouldn't cover today. I've changed the template in question a few times to have the Reagan Era end in 2008 (which might not be the perfect date but would at least be more in line with this article), but other editors have repeatedly changed it back. While we're on the subject of that template, I also don't agree with labeling the period from 1965–1980 as the "Civil Rights Era". It seems to me that we don't have great era names after we get past WW2. Orser67 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems outdated, I do not see a single reference from after 2016. Furthermore, isn't most of this supported by Wilentz's book which is WP:PRIMARY? - Indefensible (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Wilentz's book is PRIMARY since he had no connection to the Reagan admin I am aware of. I also see no issue with a article having no source written over the last 6 years (since it is a good way to avoid RECENTISM). However, having more (good) sources for a article isn't a bad thing.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's PRIMARY because the "Reagan era" is not the same thing as the historical Presidency of Ronald Reagan, but more of just an idea. That idea for a Reagan era which began with the actual Reagan presidency comes from historians such as Wilentz, so the subject of this article seems to me to not really be the legacy of Reagan but rather the idea of the legacy of Reagan which is created by said historian(s), so using those historian(s)'s work for sourcing is not independent. - Indefensible (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what PRIMARY means. As per WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.". Again, I don't see how Wilentz's book qualifies as a insider's POV.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try a different angle, since it's a fuzzy topic. I'm somewhat interested by American history (and in general), and I also found the Wiki article Sixth Party System which someone put a quality banner on. These 2 articles seem to be covering the exact same time period (from 1980 onwards), so they seem to be redundant, overlapping, conflicting, etc. If they are covering the same era in American history, why not combine them? Actually, they should be merged, right?

When does the "Reagan Era" and/or "Sixth Party System" end? Does it cover the administrations of Trump and/or Biden, or not? If the Reagan Era extends to Biden (as partially claimed in the article) then it should have a ref, which it currently does not (as the most recent is from 2016 as previously mentioned). If there is no clear definition of whether the Reagan Era has ended or is still continuing, then it's not an objective fact in history but rather a subjective interpretation, which again is created by the historians being referenced.

I have not read Wilentz's book yet, but I actually have read Skowronek's and I understand the general concept. The article would be stronger with additional, independent refs which support Wilentz and Skowronek's theory, without those it largely is just an explanation of their idea(s) as I wrote above. But if a topic of such broad and general significance does not have other sources, it suggests lack of... something--quality, accuracy, notability, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but you are all over the place. This started with you saying the sources are too old and Wilentz's source is PRIMARY. Now we are talking a article merger? I'd put the totality of what you want on the table.(In your next post)Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I'm questioning the quality of this article. This isn't an AfD request, but I'm saying this article could use quality improvement like in definition, scope, referencing, etc. Let's say hypothetically the Wilentz book is primary or has faulty research, how much of this article would need to be cleaned up without just relying on that single ref? It seems like a lot. For a subject which is seemingly important, the ref quality is pretty homogeneous. - Indefensible (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even for a hypothetical, yours is too much of a broad jump for me. Sean Wilentz is a award winning, highly regarded Ivy league professor. His book is unquestionably RS (and I've never heard anyone even suggest it has any faulty research). Granted there are other RSs out there.....however this article doesn't completely rely on that one reference.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add some tags, just wanted to explain my reasoning here on the talk page before doing so. It shouldn't be too hard to improve the article, there is some low-hanging fruit. For example Reagan's administration lasted 8 years and has a dedicated article, so why is only the Wilentz book (essentially 1 ref) supporting the whole section here? We should just transfer some refs over from the main article. - Indefensible (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged various sections with Template:One source, as this article relies entirely too much on the Wilentz book as discussed above. - Indefensible (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It refers in this account to Franklyn D Roosevelt’s New Deal, how it profoundly affected the country in the 4 decades‘preceding’ it. Should say following it. 82.20.140.22 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]