Draft talk:Potential dangers (military-industrial complex): Difference between revisions

Starting at the top and working my way down, I’ve started verifying claims/sources, and I’m finding a few issues that indicate the draft will need more thorough verification.

To clarify my position on Jacques Gansler as an author: He held office after those sources were published, so that obviously couldn’t compromise his reliability for this purpose. However, prior to that he spent most of his career either at the DoD or with defense contractors, so, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS he may not be sufficiently reliable for claims about how well-protected the US defense industry is.

Anyway, that’s all the time I have for the moment, so I’ll need to keep working on this later. Apfelmaische (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going through the first couple paragraphs with a fine tooth comb. I was unaware of Gansler’s employment. Knowing that now, I agree that his statements regarding industrial policy may be self-serving. Uhoj (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Taking another break, I might be done for today now, so revert/review at your leisure. Apfelmaische (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is low priority compared to content, but—since we’re re-using sources a lot, how do we feel about switching to Harvard citations? They’re clunkier to use, but take up less space, and I feel they improve legibility compared to reference pages; which I rarely see on featured articles.

Would probably be our last step before publishing. I’d be willing to do most of the work if we decide this is best.

Whichever way we go, it could entrench in the article because the general rule is not to change citation styles without a good reason. Apfelmaische (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]