I infer that you mean the use of Wikipedia is a sign of what - low intelligence? (I checked and "critical thinking" does not generally include the use of gratuitous insults).

Look, I am trying to engage in the testing of your hypothesis. It appears to me that your hypothesis may be too absolute.
Quote
My hypothesis is quite specific, to wit:
ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS.
You could say, ECONOMICS IS often THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS; or you could say, ECONOMICS IS one of THE MAIN MOTIVATIONS FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS. I doubt that anyone would challenge that.

But shouting ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS (all caps is commonly acknowledged to be shouting in written communications) invites scrutiny.

My two examples of wars where economics does not appear to be the main motivation were offered as test subjects. I arrived at no conclusions from them. The extent of analysis they received relevant to your hypothesis was a vague opinion that they probably had some economic motivation involved, not ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR the examples, followed by unilateral dismissal. It seems to be a case of confirmation bias that you rejected them without any substantive analysis.

I still maintain that you have not presented a case study for discussion that supports your hypothesis. Overviews, quotes from speeches, etc., are valuable sources when one is formulating a hypothesis, but they do not test the hypothesis.




You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller