Jump to content

Talk:Military–industrial complex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ttheiss4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recently added content

[edit]

Some editors recently added content to this article about animal–industrial complex and arguing in one book (from 2013, and it didn't get much wide recognition, maybe eventually in some circles) about to this two complexes are similar or the same or so. Anyway that is arguing and to be added here to this topic it needs wide recognition and notability in sources and academic circles etc. Animal industrial complex has its own article and that eventually can be added under "see also" section. 93.86.99.45 (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and add it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the military-industrial complex that gave rise to several other industrial complexes. The A-IC also traces its coining to the M-IC. All these industrial complexes are the current applications of the M-IC. That said, AIC and other industrial complexes merits discussion within the MIC article. After all, all the information are well-sourced. The discussion on the notability of A-IC can be found in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism § Improving the AIC article. So am retaining these sourced info in the article. Rasnaboy (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the inclusion. The relevant debate on notability can be found here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Veganisam article or about Vegnanism, see also link, as with the other complexes are enough. For e.g the Politico-media complex and the Prison–industrial complex. 93.86.99.45 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two topics have literally nothing to do with each other apart from a similar name. This article should not be WP:COATRACKed with completely extraneous material. Parsecboy (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should add Military time, Industrial laundry & Complex partial seizure as well. - wolf 02:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A-IC is not solely about veganism but it’s a topic very similar to the M-IC and in fact is a progeny of the M-IC, similar to prison-industrial complex, entertainment-industrial complex, pharmaceutical industrial complex, etc. These need to have a mention in the article, maybe grouped in a separate section named something like "Development of other similar complexes". If we do not have mention about other complexes, it only means we must add them, not remove the info on the A-IC. Apart from the A-IC being a progeny of the M-IC, most importantly the A-IC and M-IC are linked by the extended development of the complex named the military-animal industrial complex, an anti-war concept of the late-20th century. For example, the following words in Slater and Nocella’s book says the same thing: "The exploitation of animals, argues Colin Salter, is not necessary to military-industrial complexes, but it is a foundational and central element of the military-industrial complex as it actually exists." Bhagya sri113 (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a List of industrial complexes, maybe put a link to it in the "See also" sections of this page as well as all the other entries on the list, and leave it at that. - wolf 05:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder why we are so particular about removing a well-sourced info. Given the fact that the M-IC is the base that gave rise to so many other industrial complexes, I feel we need to have brief mentions about those other complexes, too, such as the politico-media-industrial complex, pharmaceutical-industrial complex, entertainment-industrial complex, prison-industrial complex, and so forth, rather than removing the sourced info on the military-animal-industrial complex. There is a wide scholarly coverage, wide enough to be included as an encyclopedic entry per WP:NOTE, on all these. For example, the book [1] discusses in detail about all these complexes and how they are intertwined. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Thewolfchild Thanks for creating the list. :) The current addition in the article is not simply about A-IC but how it is linked with the M-IC. Such descriptions are needed for all the related ones within the parent (M-IC) article. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, there is a link under "see also" section and to that "list of complexes", and it is already mentioned in content with other complexes and linked there in part of content according to Steven Best. That is it.93.86.99.45 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That link in "See Also" can be removed when we have it in the text (am removing those). But it's absurd to remove the sourced info just because we have a general link, especially when the info is more pertinent to the topic itself (in this case, the military-industrial complex, the avoidance of war, etc.). The concept is well-researched in the academics, so the addition is not to "promote" the concept as you think, but only to further the topic on hand, viz. the M-IC. What is needed further is the inclusion of the relationship of the M-IC with other complexes, which needs to be done with proper sources. Hope this makes sense now. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That material can be sourced does not mean it needs to be in the article; there's the issue of what WP:WEIGHT we give to different viewpoints. We should not be spreading WP:FRINGE theories, and I've seen no evidence that point you're trying to insert into this article is one that is relatively widely held. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about the "fringeness" of the concept has already been discussed in the main project page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism § Improving the AIC article). I'm not the only person wanting to add this, as you see in this discussion. We cannot reach consensus just by removing the content while the discussion is still ongoing. IMHO, the content is equally, if not more, about the M-IC itself in a counter perspective (after all, M-IC itself is a counter perspective to wars and other military actions). And that's not the only source that has this viewpoint. Even if you still think it's a "fringe" viewpoint, it has been added only in a section that discusses about other similar views/concepts, not in the lede. Wonder how you think it's of undue weight. Let me not revert this time but would want a sound reason for your opposition. Thank you. Rasnaboy (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting the concept of the AIC is fringe, which is what that discussion was about. I'm talking about the connection between the AIC and the MIC being fringe. That one book has been written that does so is not evidence that it's a decently widely accepted concept. A good rule of thumb for stuff like this is, have scholars outside the narrow field of study picked up on the idea? In other words, we as a tertiary source need to reflect what the consensus of secondary sources say, and while you may be able to find one or two sources that say this or that, if it's not a relatively widely held viewpoint, we shouldn't treat it as it is. For us to be able to do so, we'd need to see that the connection between the AIC and MIC has gotten significant traction in the broader academic population.
A perfect example: yes, you can find a small group of scientists who disagree with climate change, but we don't treat their view as equal to the vast majority of scientists who support the concept. And if that group did not have the propaganda machine that is conservative media behind it, we wouldn't talk about it at all. The August Complex fire article doesn't include a reference to Jewish space lasers, after all.
And, yes, we can reach consensus while the material is removed from the article. That is the basic point of WP:BRD. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and QUO. - wolf 16:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point well, and so with the climate example. But the addition isn't opposing the main idea to even call it a fringe but only bolstering it. Similarly, while those who disagree with climate change is opposing the mainstream view (climate change) for no reason other than propaganda (which cannot be given due weightage), the relation between M-IC and other complexes only furthers the concept of M-IC. They are not opposing the idea from a fringe position but only adding to the concept. It's not a fringe, at least not as much as you call the idea against climate change. That's a world of difference.
And I think there's a difference between saying "We cannot reach consensus just by removing the content" and saying "we cannot reach consensus while the material is removed". Rasnaboy (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand my point? It doesn't matter at all whether something is opposing a mainstream view or not. The only thing we need to consider when evaluating whether to include a viewpoint or not is how widespread it is. If there is only a tiny handful of proponents, then it is by definition a fringe viewpoint, and we shouldn't include it. WP:UNDUE addresses this point clearing, stating that:
"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."
And so far, all I've seen presented here is a single book. That isn't enough. Parsecboy (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And as further evidence, I found a single review of the book, which doesn't exactly suggest it's made a significant impact in or out of its field. Parsecboy (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. There needs to be wide acceptance and consensus in the academical community and in different fields. We don't promote someone claims, arguing or advocacy. This is not a place for that. 93.86.99.45 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there needs to be "wide acceptance" or consensus that the view is correct for us to include it, but it does need to have at least fairly significant acceptance. As an example from a field I'm active in, Clay Blair wrote a rather extensive history of the Battle of the Atlantic in the 1990s, and in it, he argued that the German U-boat menace was wildly overblown, and the Germans never had a realistic change at winning the campaign. Had every other scholar basically ignored him, so would we, as it would have been a fringe viewpoint; but since his book was fairly well-received by other historians and prompted a scholarly debate, his views are among several reflected in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

military–industrial–congressional complex

[edit]

I believe Ike's farewell address originally referred to the "military–industrial–congressional complex" (MICC), but political pressure persuaded him to remove the word congressional as it inferred the financial side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.4.39  (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source? - wolf 20:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs information about what inspired Ike to talk about it

[edit]

Clearly the issue had been weighing heavily on his mind because he used his one and only farewell address to discuss it. The article should include a history of his thinking on the matter and what specifically inspired him to talk about it. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bueller 007 A history section has been added that lays out the emergence of the military-industrial complex concept. Uhoj (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old source speaking to 'current' attitudes

[edit]

The "third era" section cites a single source from 1974 about the US economy being "now tied directly to.." and refers to attitudes "still prevalent the American public'. Can a single article from a half century ago speak to our current reality and attitudes?

Additionally, it's listed under "the third era" section, but the author's own source William J Lynn III states that the third era began after 1993. (The End of the Military-Industrial Complex How the Pentagon Is Adapting to Globalization, available on the Foreign Affairs site) 2600:6C44:39F0:8BA0:EC90:B4D4:A5D1:B76F (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm working on a re-write since this whole Three Eras framework turns out to be specific to one particular author. Uhoj (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MIC being analoguous to East india companies

[edit]

The Dutch and British East India companies have been compared to the military-industrial complex and I'm looking to get people's thoughts on this before adding it in. Although I can't find plenty of reference to this online, I found this comment from 15 years ago, a reference to this from Ray Dalio's video and a small reference in this article. Oneequalsequalsone (talk · contribs) 14:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to remove improper "globalize" tag

[edit]

That tag is asking for OR in violation of WP:NOR and is also nonneutral in violation of WP:NPOV. There is no generic term in this context independent of any particular country.

The term "military-industrial complex" is specific to the relationship between the defense contractors of the United States and the federal government of the United States. Other countries have very different relationships with their defense contractors and use different doctrines with their own names, such as the PRC's doctrine of military-civil fusion.

Any objections before I pull that nonsense from the article? Coolcaesar (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Military-industrial complex" does not only refer to the United States. You'll find lots of references to Russia's military-industrial complex, both in Russian and Western sources. There's even the Military-Industrial Commission of Russia. You'll also find lots of references to China's "military-industrial complex". Yet none of this is covered in the article, so the tag is warranted for now. – Asarlaí (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe we could remove the tag if we add a "Usage outside of US" section. But agree this is mostly a US term that folks make analogies too, not really independent of US. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be removed. Just in the U.S. in the way how described in the article as kind of special connection and influence. Dragonofthehiddenlake (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries

[edit]

Note: this edit was reverted.

Again, this "describes the relationship between a country's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy." As editor above Coolcaesar wrote "is specific to the relationship between the defense contractors of the United States and the federal government of the United States.", and I totally agree about that. Dragonofthehiddenlake (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not our own opinions. There are numerous reliable sources referring to "Russia's military-industrial complex", and the military-industrial complexes of other countries. Even your own quote says "a country's military and the defense industry", meaning any country. The references in this article itself also say it can refer to any country, and the Merriam Webster reference in the first line even includes quotes about Russia's and China's military-industrial complexes. The Encyclopedia Britannica article on military-industrial complex also talks about many countries. Have you any sources saying this term only refers to the United States? – Asarlaí (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a wide range of good sources talking about "Russia's military-industrial complex". They go back years and include Western, Russian and Chinese sources. A lot more can be found, and there are a lot on other countries too. – Asarlaí (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote is "describes the relationship between a country's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy." As editor Coolcaesar (talk · contribs) stated above: "Other countries have very different relationships with their defense contractors". And context is given in the whole lead section. You try to mix apples and oranges and do some of your own original research. This is about: "specific to the relationship between the defense contractors of the United States and the federal government of the United States.", "where the relationship is most prevalent due to close links among defense contractors, the Pentagon, and politicians."
Many countries have arms industry, and it can be called anyhow (military industry, military industrial complex, war industry, weapons industry...). But the military industrial complex in this sense and scope, influence of defense contractors, lobbying, interests, media and literature coverage of that is specific for the US. The arms industry of Russia can be called anyhow, and they can call it how they want, but this is about: "seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy".
Dragonofthehiddenlake (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the very sources you're quoting and the very sources used in the article say that this isn't a US-only term. I've given you numerous references showing that this term is also used for other countries. Have you any sources saying this term only refers to the United States? Other editors comments aren't sources. – Asarlaí (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I checked all sources that you listed are just about the Russian arms industry, nothing more nothing less. This is a different topic, it has different scope and context, and this article is well sourced. So you should stop and should avoid original research things as this is not a website for that. Dragonofthehiddenlake (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know Wikipedia policy, I've been an editor for 18 years. You've been editing for two months. This isn't original research. The sources repeatedly use the term "Russian military-industrial complex" etc, not just "arms industry". Again, have you any sources saying this term only refers to the United States? – Asarlaí (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again. Many countries have arms industry, and it can be called anyhow (military industry, military industrial complex, war industry, weapons industry...). But the military industrial complex in this sense and scope, influence of defense contractors, lobbying, interests, media and literature coverage of that is specific for the US. Did you checked the article, context and scope, or you just want to push your own research... Could be that the term "Russian military-industrial complex" is used in some headlines mostly in connection about their defence industry and production of weapons, but that is out of context of this article. Dragonofthehiddenlake (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term is not used only for the United States and is not used only in the very narrow meaning that you speak of. I provided numerous sources showing it has been used about other countries for decades, so that should at least be mentioned. Some of the sources already in the article note that it's not a US-specific term. If you want the article to be solely about the US, you can request it be re-named "United States military-industrial complex" or something similar. Also note that by repeatedly undoing edits you'll be in breach of 3RR. – Asarlaí (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this source for example the Russian arms industry is called defense industrial complex.
All your sources that you listed use that phrase just to describe their (Russian) arms/defense industry in name just, and that you can mantion at the Arms industry of Russia not here as it is out of context of this article. This is a different topic what describes the US political context about links of defense contractors and politicians, and a vested interest which influences public policy. Dragonofthehiddenlake (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my sources show that the phrase is not used only in the narrow meaning you speak of. For example, the Britannica article says "Some features of the military-industrial complex vary depending on whether a country’s economy is more or less market-oriented" and "it remains a potent political force in both the United States and Russia, as well as throughout the world".
Furthermore, large parts of this article are only about the US arms industry, with no mention of "influencing public policy", for example the "Current applications" section. There's also a whole section on other kinds of industrial complexes. Yet you keep deleting any mention of any other country having a military-industrial complex. – Asarlaí (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try again one more time. Arms industry of any country can be called weapon industry, military-industrial complex, war industry, defense industry, defense-industrial complex, especially in some headlines of news articles, but in the context of this article the expression "military-industrial complex" is specific to the relationship between the defense contractors of the United States and the federal government of the United States, influence of defense contractors, lobbying, vested interest, donations to the members of Congress, and media and literature coverage of it is totally specific for the US at least since that Eisenhower's farewell address. Other countries have very different relationships with their defense contractors. The arms industry of any country that is highly developed is an important industrial sector. It has weight, but mostly if not always, everywhere is totally different relation between political power and contractors than how it is in the US. The arms industry of Russia article is there as I wrote already. Only if you can find a variety of quality and reliable sources who clearly state that the arms industry of Russia is the same as the military industrial complex in the US in the context of this article, influence on executive and legislative powers, lobbing and everything that I mentioned, then it would have some sense to be noted in this article. Everything else is just original research, this website is not a place for that and we can't do that here. Dragonofthehiddenlake (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You acknowledge that the term is used more broadly, so why won't you let that broader usage be mentioned even briefly in the article? If you want this article to be limited to one country and one narrow meaning, despite numerous sources showing that it's used more broadly, then you should request it be re-named Military-industrial complex (United States) or United States military-industrial complex. – Asarlaí (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since that Eisenhower's speech, and huge coverage of that term for decades, it is pretty clear fact what that expression means, and that there is a special relationship between the US federal government and the US defense contractors, lobbying, vast interests, influence on public policy. Other countries have that relationship very different than the US.
About to rename it, I don't know, maybe that Military-industrial complex (United States). I am new here and never renamed any article and this one is for ages like this, it is a kind of very serious thing for me. Dragonofthehiddenlake (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality disputed

[edit]

@C.J. Griffin What are the specific biased or partisan political opinions presently in the article? What suggestions do you have for changing the lead or the rest of the article to present the subject in a more neutral and encyclopedic manner? Which high-quality, reliable secondary sources do you recommend to support such changes? Uhoj (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the previous version, which I would argue should be restored in its entirety, this version is an absolute mess, especially the lead, which muddies the waters on what the MIC is and also is chock full of decades old citations, which is inappropriate for how the lead of an article should be constructed. C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@C.J. Griffin Military-industrial complex is a rhetorical term, as many sources attest. The previous version advocated for a particular flavor of this theory uncritically, and thus was itself non-neutral. The new lead muddies the waters because the meaning is indeed rather muddy. Sources simply do not agree on what the term means.
The citations are decades old because those are the scholarly references that are available. I dredged up every book I kind find on the subject, and this is what came up. That reflects the bursts of scholarly interest during Vietnam and at the end of the Cold War, and the relative lack of interest since then. I would be delighted to learn of newer high-quality references.
As for the lead being chock full of citations, I agree that it would be more readable to have fewer, but expected this edit to be controversial and so put them in there to explain where exactly everything is coming from. Is there an alternative method of formatting that would improve legibility while preserving the chain of evidence? Uhoj (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@C.J. Griffin A new section detailing the dangers and costs of the military-industrial complex has been added and these dangers are now described as "extreme" in the second sentence of the lead. Uhoj (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @C.J. Griffin. I restored the previous version. For drastic changes of content it is needed consensus first and that looked as clear pov mess. This is not a personal blog. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Volodia.woldemar What about the new version caused you to make this revert? It is readily verifiable to a variety of high-quality secondary sources. The information is presented fairly and proportionally to describe a dispute, but not engage in it. Deleting this version is a violation of WP:PRESERVE and WP:POVDELETION. If you have ideas for improving it by adding information, please do that instead. Editor consensus does not supersede NPOV and is not required before making changes WP:BOLD.
The new version addresses shortcomings brought up by others on this Talk page and public thanks were received. Uhoj (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concur with C.J. Griffin and Volodia.woldemar on this one. The version with Uhoj's edits was in clear violation of WP:NPOV in so many ways I lost count. It read like a harsh polemic, not a neutral summary of the subject. The previous version also had neutrality issues, but was a much more neutral summary of the subject.
The version with Uhoj's edits appeared to average at least one critical error per sentence. Major errors include: (1) frequent confusion of its with it's; (2) excessive use of contractions which are grossly inappropriate in formal written English; (3) swerving too abruptly for no apparent reason from one tangent to the next without adequate transitions; and (4) assuming the truth of the thesis before it has been proven (begging the question). Just to name a few. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolcaesar What specific neutrality issues are you concerned about? What thesis is the truth being assumed of? It hews pretty close to a variety of high-quality scholarly sources as shown by the extensive citations. That is part of why the transitions are not yet as smooth as they could be.
Lack of transitions, informal language, and grammatical errors are an invitation for improvement rather than deletion per WP:PRESERVE. Uhoj (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think to everything is nicely explained by editor Coolcaesar. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the challenged version were marked up in hard copy with a red marker pen during a face-to-face office hours session with a graduate student instructor, the session would take over an hour. Every page of the hard copy would be covered in notations on every line. I don't have the time to teach a college freshman English course to a stranger. I strongly suggest enrolling in a community college course, or a MOOC provider like Coursera.
A wholesale revert was necessary and Uhoj's version is unsalvageable. The most egregious violation of NPOV is that the overarching theme of Uhoj's edits from start to finish is that the military-industrial complex is inherently bad. History majors are rigorously trained to avoid the teleological errors of Whig history, especially the error of judging historical actors with the benefit of knowing how the story ends. They are trained to always examine counterfactual scenarios and to give actors the benefit of the doubt (i.e., that they were acting in good faith without complete information), unless we already know for certain that a particular actor was acting in bad faith at the time. (To be clear, I majored as history in an undergraduate in a top-ranked history department so prominent that it has its own WP article, and the current department chair was one of my recommenders for my law school applications and is also the subject of a WP article.)
In this context, a NPOV approach means being sensitive to the alternative: that many people lived in countries that were unable to sustain military-industrial complexes and became pawns of the superpowers during the Cold War. In other words: Has the MIC done awful things? Certainly. But one can argue that not having one could be even worse. The correct NPOV approach would have been to present the subject much more neutrally and limit the POV nonsense to a Criticism section. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolcaesar Conclusory statements are insufficient. Please clearly articulate specific objections grounded in verifiable information. The short description is a good place to start since it sums up the article. In what way does Pejorative in American politics misrepresent the totality of realiable sources? What would a better summation be?
Over the years this Talk page has pointed out at least three issues. First, the article lacked a global perspective which the new version addresses in Other countries. Second, it lacked historical perspective pre-1961 which the new version focuses on in History of the theory. And finally it pointed out verifiability issues with the Eras section which were rectified in the rewrite.
Your academic credentials give me hope that you'll be able to provide constructive criticism to improve this article. Maybe something could be added from a jurisprudential angle?
You seem to have a particular meaning in mind for military-industrial complex. A key part of the new version is pointing out that different people ascribe wildly different meanings. I even suspect there is a new 21st century meaning associated with the hyphenated version of the phrase and closer to a neutral synonym for defense industrial base, but this is not mentioned because I have not yet been able to fully verify this. Please consider the implications of the vague meaning on how the article must be written. Uhoj (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you really can't see the POV issues, because they're kind of obvious.
Here is the most egregious example of at least 40 critical errors (I lost count after that): "While the existence of a military-industrial complex is controversial,[citations] the threats to liberty posed by such an entity are extreme and thus worthy of consideration". This sentence is horribly POV because it assumes the existence of the threat, which then signals to most intelligent readers that the writer is a partisan and not a honest broker (in the diplomatic sense).
A more neutral approach would either (1) not include that in the lead and save it for a Criticism section or (2) attribute that argument to a specific scholar who contends that the MIC is a threat to liberty, or (3) if there are multiple schools of thought, make that clear and then make it clear you are merely summarizing the voice of one school.
That took me three minutes to type. 3 x 40 = 120 minutes = 2 hours. I'm sorry, but I don't have that kind of time to teach close reading to a stranger. Furthermore, I have zero interest in getting into a debate on a subject that was for me always a rather remote and boring tangent from my primary interest in the history of American science and technology (insofar as it bears on the development of agencies like DARPA).
Right now, my primary WP priority is researching the history of English primary and secondary education in the 20th century in order to push back against the morons who keep sneaking the worst flaws of British English into the WP Manual of Style. Over two years, I have been able to find very few sources on the history of English primary and secondary education after 1940, especially the evolution of the teaching of English grammar and composition (in contrast to the ample materials on the evolution of such education in the United States). This reinforces my suspicions as to why modern British English is not an example to be followed. English educators are so deeply ashamed of the decline of their language, their country, and their educational system that no one wants to waste their life documenting its decline. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolcaesar The sentence to which you object was added in response to the initial concerns expressed by C.J. Griffin as explained above in this thread. I agree with your criticism of my hasty patch job and will cut that sentence from the lead, sticking instead with the matter-of-fact statement that existence is controversial, as in the initial version. It was a failed attempt at triangulating the source of C.J. Griffin's NPOV concerns and I should have handled it differently given the lack of specifics.
That's interesting to hear about your main interest. As you can tell I'm unqualified to write about grammar, but am glad someone is doing it. Presently reading The Pickwick Papers and enjoying it. My only exposure to British education is The Trojan Horse Affair, but don't recall anything in there about the teaching of English.
I feel your pain on finding sources for linguistic subject matter. I spent a year gathering the sources for this rewrite, but still came up empty on contemporary usage of the term. It seems to be taken for granted now. Kind of like the decline of English education.
I would certainly appreciate having you expertly polish the grammar and composition of this article. But, I understand if you don't have time. Uhoj (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolcaesar I went through and purged contractions per your recommendation. I'm not seeing any remaining confusion between it's and its, but if you spot some please let me know. Uhoj (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that wasn't much of an improvement. Your text is beyond salvage.
When you have that many citations in the lead for different parts of each sentence, it triggers massive WP:SYNTH red flags. It raises the question of whether you're writing OR in violation of WP:NOR. That's what I would expect five paragraphs into an article under the first heading, not in the lead paragraph.
When you dump that many gnarly complex ideas rippling in all directions in the lead paragraph like false consciousness and conspiracy theory, it's a massive red flag. Right now, what you have is an unfocused and impenetrable wall of text (and I'm a lawyer, I read impenetrable texts for a living). Most educated people have it pounded into them by good teachers at ten or eleven years old that an intro should introduce themes and then a competent writer delivers on that promise by exploring those themes in subsequent paragraphs. You introduce all these crazy ideas, then we never see them again. That's just terrible writing. If you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, it explains how a lead section should be written as a concise overview of the topic and "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". That's not what happened here.
The correct approach is to do exactly what the article was doing before: start first with the context that most people vaguely know the concept was popularized in, then gently go beyond that and slowly unpeel this onion one layer at a time.
That's just two more issues out of dozens. You cannot fix this. I strongly recommend reading the Wikipedia:Manual of Style front page and all the subsections for Content and Formatting. You need to start over from scratch with a outline, write to that outline, then write an intro based on that. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK I get that the lead is bad. Why has the rest been cut? Uhoj (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military–industrial_complex&oldid=1302702836"