Talk:War profiteering

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 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Agarcia101, Kmbatt, NPSHamilton, Partguypartshark, Colleen1596, Tysauer, Sarias19.

Move

I motion to move this to the Wiktionary, as it is a definition, not an encyclopedia entry. 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, 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

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.

Reversion

I reverted the recent anon changes since they were very POV, and read in essay style. —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. @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”? 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 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.--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.”[1] and “Definition of Profiteer: one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency”[2]. Again not a single one of these sources contains the phrase “war profiteering” or an equivalent. 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.--Concus Cretus (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2019 (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 any common definition of war profiteering (if you disagree with that please provide an alternative definition of “profiteer"). Don’t make any claims you cant back up, WP:CENSOR is just uncalled for and rude. Im not POV pushing, its in the first line of the lede “A war profiteer is any person or organization that makes unreasonable profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war.” This page is for war profiteering, not a general overview of the history of the military industrial complex (profits of war as you so eloquently put it). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

My or any other editor's criteria are irrelevant. Attempting to create such criteria is a violation of WP:POV and an attempt to censor Wikipedia, since Wikipedia already has its own criteria: WP:RS and WP:V.--Concus Cretus (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither WP:RS or WP:V are met by these sections (I covered that in my very first comment)! One paragraph is completely uncited! Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Both WP:RS and WP:V are met by these sections since the sections are verified by the given sources and the sources are reliable. The paragraph without a footnote quotes the 1961 Farewell Address as its source. I don't see any other unsolved issues.--Concus Cretus (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You may include such a citation to the 1961 Farewell Address but there is currently not one, just a mention of it. We are at loggerheads as you refuse to WP:LISTEN, I think we need a third opinion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

i listened to your arguments and what I see is personal opinion and an attempt to remove reliably sourced material while trying to justify the removal via shifting explanations and misunderstanding of cited policies. Disagreeing with a subjective view does not amount to not listening.--Concus Cretus (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)