Talk:War profiteering/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reversion

I reverted the recent anon changes since they were very POV, and read in essay style. —Morven 06:04, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Reversion

War profiteer is by nature a pejorative term. Please by all means help me improve my work-edit the heck out of it, but leave in the facts.

I've reverted again to a version that was NPOV. There is some good stuff removed in the process I admit, but most of what has gone is blatantly POV. I'll try to find some time to reinsert the good stuff, but meantime some serious study of Wikipedia:neutral point of view is recommended.

Creating a userid is also recommended, particularly if you're going to work on controversial pages. It costs nothing, logging in remains optional, it increases your privacy by hiding your IP, and it makes communication easier. Andrewa 17:38, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In 1342 b.c. moses started war profitering with the egyptians. He barted with king solomon that his horse can reach the capital faster then his horse in Kassouth County. The wager was 16 gypsies and 11 arrowheads of all shapes and colors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.221.90.96 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Extending Profiteering all the way down?

I want to know if employees of these companies should be called War Profiteers also; It's sort of a gray area in my mind and a good discussion may clear it up. I'm talking about the individual guys that perform regular jobs such as truck driving, cleaning, food service, administration, etc. etc. for these companies such as KBR, Bechtel, Sandi Group, First Kuwaiti, and even smaller ones such as IAP, GBG, & Fluor Daniels. To my knowledge, the amount of work which the US Government has contracted out in Iraq is unprecedented in American history, and needs a closer look. Pros: They are making grossly inflated salries, anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000 per month, to perform menial work. They are supporting the US military during wartime in a warzone, which is why they get paid high salaries; danger pay. Cons: $5,000 to $15,000 per month is hardly getting rich... If they are working for a fiscal year they move up into the lower middle class bracket. The work they do hardly falls into the particulars of the shady business that typically defines war profiteering.

What category do they fall into?

I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of calling particular groups War Profiteers. If such popular sentiment arises elsewhere, then by all means cite it, but advocating a position which is based upon intent of the perpetrator seems far from a neutral pov. Also, while the level of contracting used by the US in this war is certainly interesting, I don't think it fits into this article which should be pretty narrow in scope. Overall I think the article is pretty good how it is written, but it's hard to strike a balance between citing every time a person has ever been called a proiteer and cherry picking a handful of representative accusations which represent some views more than others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.120.27.196 (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Possible Clarification

Can a whole society be built on a war effort so that everyone becomes a war profiteer? I am thinking of Kuwait. The whole economy has prospered because of the Iraq war making it hard to distinguish between who is profiteering and who is not.

Another thing that needs clarification is the notion of profit. Is this a monetary based term or is prestige also a form of profit? Am I a war profiteer if I gain prestige from the war through my work? It would be good to leave open the question, for example, of whether journalists can sometimes find themselves profiteering from a war.

Journalists can and do profit from war. because cause it increases viewership/readership. I would stick to a more material definition, but prestige can translate into money. however, lets not get into original research. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Samihermez 16:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

modern use

profiteering is different from profiting, however, some argue that anyone who profits from war is profiteering, that is gaining money unethically. Of course it is never looked at whether or not profit margins change do to war. That is, ford made money making tanks, would they have made more money making cars? anyway, in modern usage, when it is applied to haliburton, the accusation is in part that they played a role in causing the war. anyway profiteering war or otherwise is not a clear term. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

imf world bank

can someone please mention, and expand on the role of the world bank and imf and how they benefit from war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.47.179 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti Profiteering Measures Section

I just wanted to explain why I deleted the introductory sentence of this section, which claimed that "unreasonable" profits during wartime is widely considered unethical and deeply unpopular. First of all the "unreasonable" fails to accurately incorporate the definition at the top of the article, and feels very POV. Secondly, it seems to me that this unsourced claim is mostly untrue. My sense is that people in the west are mostly unaware of/ignoring the enormous profits that big corporations make from war. The corporations making the most profit from war are either big name corporations which are widely thought of quite neutrally, like Boeing and General Dynamics, or else they are corporations most people have never heard of, like L3 communications and United Technologies. Benjaminady (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on War profiteering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630224414/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scahill25jan25,0,4485578.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions to http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scahill25jan25,0,4485578.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians, I would like to add a section on the Military-Industrial complex. This phrase was coined by President Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell Address. This alliance between military leaders and arms producing manufacturers have a shared interest in going to war and maintaining an aggressive foreign policy. Eisenhower warned the American people to be vigilant of this complex.

Bibliography:

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/what-is-the-military-industrial-complex.asp

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/big-money-behind-war-military-industrial-complex-20141473026736533.html

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns-of-military-industrial-complex

http://www.panarchy.org/statism/military.complex.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-tyranny-of-defense-inc/308342/

https://books.google.com/books/about/Unwarranted_Influence.html?id=rxZ8BPomTlMC

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2011/01/beware_the_militaryindustrial_complex.html

http://classroom.synonym.com/lockheed-martin-war-iraq-10254.html Shainamarco (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello, I like what you have. Notwithstanding, hopefully you could elaborate on how the two greatest wars since the Eisenhower administration, Vietnam and Iraq --and, by the metric, also the two greatest American fiascos in recent times-- contributed to the military-industrial complex's proliferation. I think this will probably give you a good amount of things to add to your article. Also, as far as business interest go, you can mention how there are some conspiracy theories that say President Johnson's involvement and escalation of the Vietnam War was due to the fact that his wife, Lady Bird Johnson, was born in one of the most prominent families that dealt in the military-industrial complex. All in all, my point is this: if you have a boat, you will want a body of water where to play with it. The same is said about the military-industrial complex and wars. Agarcia101 (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Extra Sources

Found a few more references that could help in the expansion of this article, including:

• A report from the House of Representatives over the proposal of a "War Profiteering Prevention Act 2007"

• Two articles discussing the relationship between oil companies and war profiteering.

• Another article on gunmakers and war profiteering

Feel like most of these will be helpful. Anapandrade (talk)

I too found a few more sources on the subject.

• The first discusses the ways in which black market operators, businesspeople, and profiteers benefit from war.

• I believe this source will help to maintain a neutral tone in discussing the subject matter. It discusses the practicality of war profiteering, mostly through an economic political scope.

• This source compares "centralized warfare of the Cold War era" to "the privatization of force". It does not focus on war profiteering in the United States, and could therefore provide insight on the subject objectively, and from a technical perspective.

Hannaheaton (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Futher Peer Review

I think there is a lot to be said here about companies such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, or many of the companies actually profiting off of combat manufacturing. This would be an interesting section to read about as a reader, seeing how there has been immense backlash against these companies in the form of rallies or movements against the profiteering of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysauer (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Further citations

Hello all there are alot of claims in this article that do not have sources connected with them so I will be finding sources from peer reviewed articles or editing sections that I cannot find claims for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npsanchez (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on War profiteering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209021804/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0223-07.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0223-07.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312111959/http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=45 to http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=45
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081129021635/http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/June2007/Grayson070619.pdf to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/June2007/Grayson070619.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 10 December 2017 (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)

You have yet to acknowledge that your definition of war profiteering as “the topic of profits of war." is inaccurate. This definition poisons your entire argument but your argument doesnt appear to exist without it. The history channel website is also not as reliable a source as you make it out to be, that paragraph may be sourced but it is does not in fact appear to be reliably sourced nor do the sources mention war profiteering or an equivalent (they don’t have to mention the exact phrase but they do have to touch on the concept, turning profits+arms into “war profiteering” is wp:synth). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

So, this is rather a complex bit. The portions about Eli Whitney and the like are okay. I'd probably avoid citing the History Channel (I would certainly find suspect anyone who produced steaming piles of bullshit like Ancient Aliens), but the rest of the sourcing for that is fine. On the other hand, the next paragraph is rather junk. It contains entirely unreferenced statements like: The Iron Triangle comes into play here due to war profiting industries who make financial contributions to elected officials, who then distribute taxpayer money towards the military budget, which is spent at the advantage of arms merchants. The military-industrial complex allows for arms-producing corporations to continue to accumulate significant profit. (that absolutely requires a highly reliable reference saying exactly that, otherwise it's OR or SYNTH), and then the next paragraph is "sourced" to the Huffington Post, which is a rather suspect source. That section would indeed need better sourcing prior to inclusion. Check scholarly sources; I am quite certain that plenty of material has been written about this subject in sources far superior to History Channel or HuffPost. So, the current referencing is subpar, but I would suspect it could be improved. Make the effort to actually do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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.

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)