Talk:Protection racket

Someone vandalized this article. "fuck RICO"? How stupid. 68.110.28.39 16:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Some have argued that this is an accurate description of most governments, but used in this way the term would be seen as emotive." - This is a weasel sentence. Amend it, or delete it. Rintrah 07:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I removed it completely, as I can't even see what useful purpose the sentence would serve if it were amended. --BennyD 07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term has been expanded by feminists to refer to men who 'rescue' women by insisting on protecting them from dangerous strangers when it is actually the so-called protector who will turn on the woman who rejects his protection and deprives him of his excuse for violence. Ellen Goodman noted (4/14/06) that this analogy can be extended to the current U.S. executive, where preemptive violence provokes blowback that tends to affect women and children most.

This paragraph is not enlightening to someone trying to understand the concept of 'protection racket'. It seems to have been suspiciously added to serve the contributor's agenda. Rintrah 05:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, suggest moving the feminist reference as a disambiguation Fremantle74 14:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also includes the government and 9/11. Am I one of the few who hasn't recognised the widescale protection racketeering of 'the government' and 9/11 terrorists, or is this getting over-the-top? Rintrah 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

"The bad reputation gained by organised crime also stems from the tragic incidence of civilian casualties during "mob wars". This reputation was a catalyst for rebellious attitudes that arose in the late fifties and early sixties, wherein the new generation of organised crime rejected the age-old tradition of the council."

Organized crime has a bad reputation, does it? Anyway, what does this have to do with the subject? MrBlondNYC 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]