Talk:UK arms export

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Trade Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Picking up the tag[edit]

@Jake Brockman: would I ask you to notice me which sentence of the article includes POV issue?Saff V. (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.: IMO, the entire article has a balance problem, I can't really pinpoint individual phrases. International arms trade is a very complex topic and the article pretty much hinges on two anti arms trade organisation, the government and a couple of articles in the liberal media. This needs more points of view. The article has a subliminal critical tone in the way how it is written. See also Arms industry as example for a more balanced approach. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: Thank you. I will try to soften the tone in some sentence that reveals the critical tones, but about affixing more points of view, as you know it needs to other user's help. I will try to expand the article but individually is a little hard and needs time. E.g we can need a section titled Sectors. I wonder if you have any idea about other sections to be added necessarily. They are the best clues for other users.Saff V. (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Jake Brockman that the POV issues with this page are very serious. Using unbalanced sourcing may also be a problem. Lede is sourced to a group called Action on Armed Violence - I linked it, but it didn't come up as a page. Was the name written wrong? Or does the group not have a page? Unusual to center the lede on an outfit not notable enough to have a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Suggestion[edit]

Apologies that this comment is not in the expected format. I'm a very casual viewer of Wikipedia. I feel this topic would be served by a list of products that the UK exports with their destinations. From what I gather this could be in the public domain, as all exports are subject to a license issued by the government. 217.38.157.134 (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Joe JJ, UK[reply]

Meaning of opening paragraph[edit]

Tumblingsky (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC) I would have edited the following sentence but, because it is ungrammatical, the author’s intended meaning is unclear.[reply]

According to the analysis by Action on Armed Violence, Military arms deals have been prepared £39bn between 2008 and 2017.

i) Why is military capitalised?

ii) what is ‘... Military arms deals have been prepared £39bn...’ supposed to mean?

Thanks

The Article is Biased[edit]

Generally, its attitude is that sale of weapons is a positive achievment. And that the more weapons exported, the greater that achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephiefaulkner (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]