Talk:First Strike Ration

Public Domain
The text of this article was taken from http://nsrdec.natick.army.mil/media/fact/food/FSR.htm, which is a work of the United States government and therefore public domain. ... disco spinster   talk  01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the original source was a hardcopy flyer produced by the Natick Soldier Center which I obtained at the Pangborn Sensory Science Conference in 2003. If you look closely, you'll subtle wording differences from the page you mention above. But anyway, it is still a work of the US Govt and thus should be in the public domain. Jeh25 12:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But it isn't an encyclopedia article. I have tweaked it some, but it needs more style changes. Sumahoy 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement?
Why is this tagged as an advertisement? It's describing a non-commertial military ration, there's nobody to advertise it to. At worst it might be describing what a potential soldier should expect to be eating. I don't see any problem with neutrality here. 58.165.234.17 (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's spelled 'commercial.' Having been in the military, I can say that most CONTRACTOR WRITTEN texts do in fact read like advertisements because the military is just one big consumer, and this is one of the products it buys. I recognized the style from the subheading 'purpose.'
 * I don't think the problem is with neutrality, the problem is that it's reading like it's trying to sell you something, which is exactly what military contractors exist for. The fact that it's a .mil website is immaterial. If it were up to me, i'd slap a big on it and call it a day, because there's a possibility that the contractor itself is using this page as a reference during their presentations. JJ (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)