Talk:Petro-aggression
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The contents of the Petro-aggression page were merged into Resource curse#Petro-aggression on 17 April 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Biased edit
This article should discuss not only aggression coming from oil-exporting, but also from oil-trading and oil-importing countries, regardless of revolution. --194.94.133.9 (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Reads like an opinion piece edit
I tagged this article as reading like a personal opinion essay based on lines like these: "Oil on its own does not cause international aggression. But the combination of oil and revolution is dangerous." These are essayistic opinions and unsourced ones at that (who gets to define danger?). I am also troubled by the list of "possible examples", which provides no explanation or context. Are we to understand that Biafra was the aggressor in that conflict? What about Indonesia? Is the editor referring to the Borneo Confrontation? The invasion of East Timor? Again, no context. Petro-aggression is an interesting concept, but as this article currently stands, it tells us almost nothing about it, or even if this is a widely-held theory or a more niche position. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Merge into Resource Curse edit
Can someone please merge this article into the Resource curse article? Or if there's an objection please state it? MurrayScience (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
