Talk:Peace dividend
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Politics Mid‑importance | |||||||
|
Military history: British / European / North America / United States / Cold War | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page badly needs some citations. Who has used the term in relation to guns and butter? Who has applied the term to the end of the cold war? Names (of recognised authorities), dates and references please. Otherwise this is hearsay. Andrewa 11:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I live in Alabama, in the southern United States, and (believe it or not), the concept of Peace Dividend from the Guns vs. Butter model is actually taught in public schools. Of course, we also have a disclaimer in science class on the textbooks stating that evolution is "just a theory", so we're all pretty backwards down here; nevertheless, backwards or not, in public schools in Alabama, the concept of "peace dividend" is taught as though it is an established concept. But I'm no economist -- just putting the info out there for future readers. Eric Herboso 23:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has remained stub-like for nearly two decades. The graph from National Priorities Project that is cited qualitatively only shows spending through 2006. What's the point of a vague article like this, if there are no actual stats on decreases in percentage or dollar value of spending paired with increases in other aspects of the economy (aka evidence of a "dividend")? Martindo (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What happened as a result of this concept? What about the military drawdowns and troops brought back from deployment? What relationship did it have to base consolidations and closings? 108.51.169.236 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph discussing Noam Chomsky's opinion on the matter treats it like a scientific fact, however it offers no studies or quantitative data in its support. Everyone knows that Chomsky is one of the world's greatest critics of US policy, so it is hardly surprising that he would have this opinion. Giving it a whole paragraph on an encyclopedia is a form of legitimizing his opinion more than may be warranted.Gandalf 1892 (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically within the Noam Chomsky portion, the segment is clearly written by an English-as-a-second-language author. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but this article contains numerous typos and errors. What can't be forgiven is the author's unquestioning, biased and unsourced approval of Chomsky's opinion on US foreign policy. The article requires impartiality, and this reads like a screed copied and pasted from Pravda. 2601:283:4300:4A80:40F9:200:A07D:83E9 (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]