Talk:War profiteering: Difference between revisions
Tag: |
Bluefoxicy (talk | contribs) →Dubious: new section |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
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) |
|||
Revision as of 23:23, 20 February 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Npsanchez, Shainamarco, Anapandrade, Fparra247, Hannaheaton. Peer reviewers: Agarcia101, Kmbatt, NPSHamilton, Partguypartshark, Colleen1596, Tysauer, Sarias19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
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. John Moser (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)