Talk:Peace dividend

Untitled

 * The discussion at Votes for deletion/Peace dividend resulted in an unanimous keep decision. The vfd subpage has now been closed down and is kept as a historical archive. Mgm|(talk) 20:05, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

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 think the problem with the version you saw was that the article was portraying the "peace dividend" as a proven concept in economics. I can find no evidence that this is the case.  It is, however, a well established political slogan.  It was used ad nauseum in the US Congress during most of the 1990s.  I'm sure it was also used in political arguments in European countries but I don't remember the specifics.  I've taken a crack at moving the tone of the article to a more neutral point of view.  I'm still not sure it's there yet.  Rossami (talk) 22:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Point taken, although I'm one of those cynics who doubt that anything is or ever will be a proven concept in economics. As soon as a model or theory is published, profit-takers exploit it, and it stops working. There's no way around this that I can see, and as a result, economics is just politics + statistics. Hiding this basic result is very much in the political and economic interests of most economists, of course. Andrewa 23:08, 30 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
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 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)

vague and totally lacks quantitative info -- delete and merge?
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)

terribly incomplete
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)

Section on Chomsky's opinion treats opinion like fact
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)

Poor grammar, lack of English competency, and unsourced opinions related as facts
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)