Talk:War Corporatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps a new chapter of American history, and/or the unveiling of something bigger. This is something that needs to be brought up in greater public detail and awareness. --unsigned

Critical views of this theory would be appreciated ; as it stands, the article is decidedly one-sided. 62.1.19.88 17:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing the use of VP Cheney/Halliburton as an example would go a long way to taking the bias out of this article --unsigned

I disagree. The links between Cheney and Halliburton is an outstanding example of 'close ties of the political and industrial elites'. It is probably the first example of such a tie that comes to one's mind. It is not a violation of NPOV to include an important fact that is very relevant to the topic. 71.194.184.141 23:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Published source discussing this term?

I suspect that this term is the invention of marginal Internet junkies. Can anyone find a cite to a reliable published source that mentions this term? Otherwise, it is destined for the dustbin of history (at least on Wikipedia).--Cberlet 17:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You can start here: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22war+corporatism%22 - I count 17,300 web pages using the term. Knock yourself out in finding a reliable published source therein. You really ought to get out more. And you really ought to work on not being so annoying and smug in your remarks. It might be amusing if your ignorance on an issue was not also showing at the same time. You have made yourself look ridiculous on several talk pages. Next time just ask if there is a reliable published source. Without the underhanded insults. Insults are not allowed on Wikipedia, O smug one. --Timeshifter 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I did such a search before my post above, and what I found is that the term appears mostly to be linked to a homemade flash animation video titled "War Corporatism: The New Fascism" posted on the Internet. Many of the other cites track back to this entry on Wikipedia. This appears to be a marginal neologism. Timeshifter, your rudeness and snotty response have entered the arena of personal attacks.--Cberlet 21:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not rude. I only pointed out your rudeness. Pointing out someone else's rudeness is not rudeness. 17,300 web pages do not point back to a video and this web page. --Timeshifter 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A Google search is not a competent way to conduct research for Wikipedia, nor is claiming that a large number of Google search hits suggests that buried somewhere in the stack is a hit on a reputable published source use of the term. The polite answer would have been: "I have not found any cites to reputable published sources," or to simply not post anything. Please refrain from further personal attacks. --Cberlet 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Google is great for research. Try it sometimes, rather than insult it. Your remark about Google is laughable. The polite reply to my taking the time to provide you with a working Google shortcut would be: "thank you, I will look further for reputable published sources." Providing info is not a personal attack. Pointing out your rudeness is not a personal attack. --Timeshifter 23:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Research by Google page count is incompetent research. What matters is that you are unable to provide a reputable published source. Case closed. Anyone else have a reference to a reputable published source?--Cberlet 02:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)