Talk:Military–industrial complex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:, Associated task forces: ...
Close

Spending concerns merge proposal

Are there any objections to merging in Spending concerns? Uhoj (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Apfelmaische would you like to do the honors of merging in the part you wrote? Uhoj (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Sure. I started a new subsection for spending concerns, and added the bit I wrote. Apfelmaische (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Remove old source speaking to 'current' attitudes

Are there any objections to the following change? The reason is given in an archived comment on this talk page.

−
The U.S. domestic economy is now tied to the success of the MIC which has led to concerns of repression as Cold War-era attitudes are still prevalent among the American public.
+

Uhoj (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Remove it. An WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim with only one citation—a source from 1974—which is clearly being misrepresented. Apfelmaische (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Guérin

Are there any objections to the following change? The reason is that neither Guérin nor his book are mentioned anywhere in Pursell. Furthermore, other overviews of this subject don't mention Guérin either.

−
A thesis similar to the military–industrial complex was originally expressed by [[Daniel Guérin]], in his 1936 book ''Fascism and Big Business'', about the [[fascism|fascist]] government ties to heavy industry. It can be defined as, "an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs."
+

Uhoj (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This is a source WP:INTEGRITY problem, I think. Looking at this 2008 diff, Pursell was only being used as a source for a definition of MIC, which looks valid to me. The first sentence, about Guérin, has always been unsourced. It read like misinformation in 2008 when it was first added.
Anyway, the definition is redundant now, and the Guérin claim is WP:OR. I agree, delete. Apfelmaische (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Unused "sources"

Are there any objections to removing the first 10 items from Sources? The reason is that these aren't actually being used as sources. Uhoj (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks like they're left over from before Wikipedia started requiring inline citations, around 2007-ish. I'd only delete the redundant ones, like the Farewell Address, and move the notable ones (authors with articles) to 'Further reading'.
A related note: Since 'Further reading' has over 10 entries, it should be turned into a standalone list, like Military–industrial complex bibliography. See WP:BIB. I'm thinking about tackling that project. Apfelmaische (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
How about removing DeGroot 1996 because it's anachronistic/unreliable in this context? It uses military-industrial complex in the context of a 1914 statement, which is odd given that 1914 predates the first known use of the concept. DeGroot's source is unclear, but the closest I've found provides very little support for military-industrial complex.
I support the idea of creating a standalone list. I don't think I've run across another article with a Further reading section as long as this one. Here's a source that establishes notability. Uhoj (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, DeGroot 1996 probably isn't relevant enough. We should only list sources if they're explicitly about the MIC, or if they're prominent in other sources or bibliographies explicitly about the MIC. Apfelmaische (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The term is most often used

Are there any objections to the following change? The reason is that neither source supports the statement. SIPRI Yearbook 2008 doesn't even mention "industrial complex".

−
The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the [[United States Armed Forces|armed forces of the United States]], where the relationship is most prevalent due to close links among defense contractors, the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]], and politicians.
+
The concept of a military-industrial complex is unique to the United States, or at least use of the term with reference to other countries entails significant ambiguity as to the meaning.<ref name="cooling-cooling" />{{rp|p=4|q=Therefore, it may be semantically improper, if not impossible, to utilize the term MIC when analyzing other than the American experience.}}

Uhoj (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI