Talk:War profiteering: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m archiving a long-outdated thread missed by the auto-archive bot |
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talkheader |
{{Talkheader}} |
||
{{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
||
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start |
|||
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all |
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all |
||
major points are appropriately cited. --> |
major points are appropriately cited. --> |
||
| Line 18: | Line 19: | ||
|WWI-task-force= yes |
|WWI-task-force= yes |
||
|WWII-task-force= yes |
|WWII-task-force= yes |
||
}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
| Line 30: | Line 32: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|||
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Arizona/POL_150C2-III_(Spring_2017)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Npsanchez|Npsanchez]], [[User:Shainamarco|Shainamarco]], [[User:Anapandrade|Anapandrade]], [[User:Fparra247|Fparra247]], [[User:Hannaheaton|Hannaheaton]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Agarcia101|Agarcia101]], [[User:Kmbatt|Kmbatt]], [[User:NPSHamilton|NPSHamilton]], [[User:Partguypartshark|Partguypartshark]], [[User:Colleen1596|Colleen1596]], [[User:Tysauer|Tysauer]], [[User:Sarias19|Sarias19]]. |
|||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
== Major changes, tightened scope of accusation == |
== Major changes, tightened scope of accusation == |
||
What I found on this page seemed to take the ultra-literal tack that anyone who profits from a war is a war profiteer. I highly doubt that this is the common usage. It's so broad as to lose its meaning. Many people unknowingly own a piece of an arms company through mutual funds, etc., and soldiers buy sunglasses, flashlights, clothes, etc. from companies that have no idea what's happening. Even [[Silly String]] has a military use. |
What I found on this page seemed to take the ultra-literal tack that anyone who profits from a war is a war profiteer. I highly doubt that this is the common usage. It's so broad as to lose its meaning. Many people unknowingly own a piece of an arms company through mutual funds, etc., and soldiers buy sunglasses, flashlights, clothes, etc. from companies that have no idea what's happening. Even [[Silly String]] has a military use. |
||
== Dubious == |
|||
The claim that "This decision was made as a direct result of the influence of Lockheed Martin" is an extremely bold assertion, and requires some explanation. The article linked is an editorial piece that even sarcastically suggests that the decisions were "surely a coincidence," not citing any conclusive evidence or investigatory report that they weren't. Selling legislation is a high crime, one which has marked the end of political careers for people such as Maryland Delegate Cheryl Glenn; the current language states definitively that Thornberry is guilty of this crime. [[User:Bluefoxicy|John Moser]] ([[User talk:Bluefoxicy|talk]]) 23:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:08, 8 October 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War profiteering article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Major changes, tightened scope of accusation
[edit]What I found on this page seemed to take the ultra-literal tack that anyone who profits from a war is a war profiteer. I highly doubt that this is the common usage. It's so broad as to lose its meaning. Many people unknowingly own a piece of an arms company through mutual funds, etc., and soldiers buy sunglasses, flashlights, clothes, etc. from companies that have no idea what's happening. Even Silly String has a military use.
Dubious
[edit]The claim that "This decision was made as a direct result of the influence of Lockheed Martin" is an extremely bold assertion, and requires some explanation. The article linked is an editorial piece that even sarcastically suggests that the decisions were "surely a coincidence," not citing any conclusive evidence or investigatory report that they weren't. Selling legislation is a high crime, one which has marked the end of political careers for people such as Maryland Delegate Cheryl Glenn; the current language states definitively that Thornberry is guilty of this crime. John Moser (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)