Talk:Addicted to War

Reads like advert; needs clean-up

As currently written this article is just a collection of blurbs taken either straight from the book's back cover or the book's website. No actual encyclopedic description of the book is given. Article needs a rewrite. Dugwiki 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it was probbly writen by the author. Should it be nominated for deletion? DRCarroll 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it sounds like an ad, "hard-hitting," is not really an adjective generally used in... well anything besides an ad. Youknowthatoneguy 22:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am recommending this be attached to WikiProject Comics, after it is no longer a blatant add of course. I've read this comic so when I get some time I will attempt to update the article. Umberranna 10:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, "it is no longer a blatant ad" by the time you wrote your comment: you might've checked the history log of the article, clean-up has been performed. So yes you may attach this to your wikiproject if you please. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Factual Inconsistencies in Addicted to War

In the book it is noted that that Board Members sitting on American media corporations also sit on American military firms with the implication that there is potentially nefarious collusion occuring to manipulate the American masses. Looking at the source for this claim, one immidiatley sees that virtually any connection could be made about sundry other corporations in the USA, including some board members sitting on Mrs. Fields Cookies also sittiing on American media corporate boards.

The author is clearly guilty of commiting several logical fallaicies and omissions using such tenuous claims. The book is nothing but a collection of historical events seen through an extremely distorted ideological lens. I agree with Dugwiki, given the nature of the current Wiki entries coupled with lack of rigor in the book, that this article needs a major rewrite.

No: here we don't discuss the subject, but the article about it in Wikipedia. I am leaving your comment in for the moment, but normally it should be removed from here. Also, please sign and date your comments (please read the user's manual) --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So, if what you say is backed up by a reliable source (someone else who has published this opinion in a reputable house), quote him/her in this article. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Atwfc.jpg

Image:Atwfc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Author's Permission to distribute their book online

I put a link to the pdf of the book on the site. The authors, on their own website, have declared that they are freely giving away the digital version. If anyone has a problem with this link, please contact me, I will make it right. Brinerustle (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)