Talk:Industrial espionage

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Note that there was a lot of discussion on how to move an article and other discussions about the process. In my opinion it is better to close this and start fresh with a clean nomination. I'll add that WP:COMMONNAME should probably be considered and addressed in any follow on nomination. Also everyone needs to sign their comments! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Industrial espionage → Economic and industrial espionage — User:Paddingtonbaer keeps trying to cut/paste move this page. His methods aside, is there anybody who wants to comment on this move request? Yoenit (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move to new title page entitled 'Economic and industrial espionage'
This would better reflect the scope of the article because it deals with 'economic' and 'industrial' espionage. Though the two are distinct, they are also closely entwined, not justifying separate articles but meriting continuing to recognise the distinction, from the title onwards. Including economic espionage under the title industrial espionage may be inappropriate as it does not fully convey the economic incentive of espionage of this kind which is conducted for the purpose of gaining particular economic advantage, going beyond the mere inveigling of industrial secrets.

No changes will be made to the overall content of the article associated with this move.

I appreciate your questioning of the method - good call! Hope the above explains that there is a very clear rationale for this move which takes account of the article content. PaddingtonBaer 0950hrs GMT 10.12.12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddingtonbaer (talk • contribs) 10:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Restored discussion from history
Restored previous discussion - inadvertently deleted - from history for 11th December 2010 - PaddingtonBaer 19:18 GMT 10.12.14
 * I removed it again. The previous discussion was not removed, merely archived. This was done because nearly all of it was several years old and no longer relevant. Yoenit (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move to new title
Please provide a convincing argument based on the subject content as to why this page should stay named 'industiral espionage' rather than 'economic and industrial espionage' - as proposed - or I will rename the page in a few weeks.

Note to future editors If no argument based on knowledge of the content of the article is provided then please do not try to delete renamed page - thanks!
 * The page was deleted because you did a cut/paste move, not because anybody disagreed with the new title. We have a special tool called Move and you should use that if you want to change the name of a page. You should have wp:autoconfirmed status by now, and be able to move the page with Move (little downward pointing arrow next to the searchbox). Feel free to test it out, as I don't think anybody will object to this move. Yoenit (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because the discussion to rename the article "corporate espionage" has not yet even begun.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Great article! Thanks. Another example of industrial espionage was when Global Crossing sued Tyco Submarine for stealing their business plan. I think the suit was more than $1billion.Jksgvb (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No pressure for such or anyx. Do things not pressured about things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendq (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Can this be added to this article?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/us-dupont-china-verdict-idUSBREA241WC20140305 XOttawahitech (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Tiananmen square shooting and the art of Oriental espionage
Much of modern Chinese industrial advances can be traced back to two incidences. One the much planned governmental action that led to the Tiananmen square shooting. Any person with some intelligence and information on how individuals and institutions use very powerful cunning to subdue the wariness of prospective preys will know that this shooting was a very planned action. And very much part of a grand espionage endeavour.

The US swallowed the false incident as true and many of the participants, willing or unwilling, reached the very vitals of US industrial and scientific might.

The second item was not espionage and cannot be discussed here. It was the grandiose idiot-ism of England in giving Hong Kong to China. Literally giving them a platform to stand on a level of equality, which is not there in most Asian language systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.241.8 (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are talking about the Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong (1997), it was partly based on the terms of the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory (1898). Instead of the Qing dynasty simply passing the areas to the British Empire, the agreement leased them to the British "for 99 years rent-free". The agreement for the return of Hong Kong to China came with the Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984).

An underlying cause of the agreement was that the United Kingdom in the 1980s was in no condition to military defend Hong Kong in a potential conflict with China. Another was that the water and food supply Hong Kong was largely imported from China. China could easily severe the supply and starve the territory. What would you expect Margaret Thatcher to do, declare a war that she could not win? Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Industrial espionage. 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/20110203052113/http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2009/NorthropGrumman_PRC_Cyber_Paper_FINAL_Approved%20Report_16Oct2009.pdf to http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2009/NorthropGrumman_PRC_Cyber_Paper_FINAL_Approved%20Report_16Oct2009.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)