Talk:War profiteering: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) |
|||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 9 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 19: | Line 20: | ||
|WWII-task-force= yes |
|WWII-task-force= yes |
||
}} |
}} |
||
}} |
|||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Arizona/POL_150C2-III_(Spring_2017) | assignments = [[User:Npsanchez|Npsanchez]], [[User:Shainamarco|Shainamarco]], [[User:Anapandrade|Anapandrade]], [[User:Fparra247|Fparra247]], [[User:Hannaheaton|Hannaheaton]] | reviewers = [[User:Agarcia101|Agarcia101]], [[User:Kmbatt|Kmbatt]], [[User:NPSHamilton|NPSHamilton]], [[User:Partguypartshark|Partguypartshark]], [[User:Colleen1596|Colleen1596]], [[User:Tysauer|Tysauer]], [[User:Sarias19|Sarias19]] }} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
| algo = old(365d) |
| algo = old(365d) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 31: | ||
| minthreadsleft = 2 |
| minthreadsleft = 2 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Auto archiving notice|=Lowercase sigmabot III|age= |units= 1 year}} |
|||
==Move== |
|||
I motion to move this to the Wiktionary, as it is a definition, not an encyclopedia entry. [[User:Lypheklub|Lypheklub]] 06:48, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|||
:I see this as a stub; one can envision a long article on the the phenomenon of war profiteering, [[User:Loren Rosen|Loren Rosen]] 06:53, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|||
i understand that the term is a loaded one, but i don't think that should prevent us from listing actual war profiteers. i think we can be earnest, truthful and literal. carlyle group, halliburton, bae, all defense contractors that actively push for war. |
|||
== Major changes, tightened scope of accusation == |
== Major changes, tightened scope of accusation == |
||
| Line 43: | Line 36: | ||
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 == |
||
I reverted the recent anon changes since they were very POV, and read in essay style. [[User:Morven|—Morven]] 06:04, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
== History section == |
|||
My deletion of two subsection of history ("Industrial Revolution” and "Military-Industrial Complex") has been contested. Lets examine both sections as currently there is nothing to tie them to the topic "War profiteering” nor are they adequately sourced. Lets examine the two sections: |
|||
Industrial Revolution: The first Paragraph is a loose summary of interchangeable parts, it doesn't mention war profiteering nor does its source (the source is not a WP:RS). The second Paragraph is a continuation of the interchangeable parts discussion that doesnt mention war profiteering (again neither do its sources). |
|||
Military-Industrial Complex: The first Paragraph is completely lacking in citation, as it stands its completely unsupported. The second Paragraph doesnt mention war profiteering but talks about a possibly related story, neither of the sources mention war profiteering. |
|||
I ask on what grounds the inclusion of these two sections as they currently stand doesnt violate [[WP:SYNTH]] given as not a single one of the sources as much as mentions war profiteering. {{re|Concus Cretus}} would you please elaborate on your edit summary “Each of these statements has a single source, so they can't fall under WP:SYNTH”? [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 05:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:These sources mention the topic of profits of war. So per [[WP:V]], they are relevant to the article's topic and therefore the current [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] is to include them. The [[WP:SYNTH]] covers content that would "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". No such conclusions are made from these multiple sources in the given article content, so no violation of [[WP:SYNTH]] is detectable and no rule-based reason for deletion has been presented so far.--[[User:Concus Cretus|Concus Cretus]] ([[User talk:Concus Cretus|talk]]) 10:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: You are mistaken, war profiteering is not making profits off war its making unreasonable profits off war or during wartime. See "War profiteering is the act of an individual or company making an unreasonable financial gain from selling goods or services during wartime.”[https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/war-profiteers] and “Definition of Profiteer: one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency”[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profiteer]. Again not a single one of these sources contains the phrase “war profiteering” or an equivalent. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: You are mistaken, there is no rule on Wikipedia or criteria for source inclusion saying that a source must contain the exact same wording as the article title to be eligible for inclusion in an article - and the presence of such a rule on Wikipedia would be impossible. For instance, many sources in the article "[[American Left]]" do not include the exact phrase "American Left" since they describe a variety of contexts of that topic. Therefore, your hypothesis about a "phrase" is baseless and irrelevant. Secondly, what is "reasonable" and what isn't is up to a wide spectrum of interpretations resulting in a variety of views and this article should indeed reflect that, rather than selectively pushing towards one side. It seems you are attempting to [[WP:CENSOR]] Wikipedia by pushing your personal [[WP:POV]] and attempting to randomly remove sources that don't reflect your opinion or worldview.--[[User:Concus Cretus|Concus Cretus]] ([[User talk:Concus Cretus|talk]]) 01:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
:::: Whats your criteria for inclusion then? Your previous argument that "These sources mention the topic of profits of war.” does not cut the mustard as it doesnt meet no common definition of war profiteering. Don’t make any claims you cant back up, [[WP:CENSOR]] is just uncalled for and rude. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 01:49, 1 August 2019 (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)