Talk:Military–industrial complex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military–industrial complex article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connotations
Per WP:BRD, I considered reverting this edit by Uhoj. However, I thought some of it might be salvage-able. I changed the language with this edit note:
- Revised language to show these *opinions* are not shared by all scholars. I would revert per WP:BRD, but hope we can instead improve the text to be more balanced....
The problem I have with this language--which Uhoj has tried to put in numerous times--is that it tends to overly undermine the legitimate criticism of the observations of Ike and scholars of the subject by labeling it a "conspiracy theory" which in itself is a heavily loaded pejorative to dismiss anything so-labelled. If it were nothing but an unproven "conspiracy theory", scholars would not devote such time to talking about. So this section unduly casts an unfairly negative bias on use of the term, and even with my correction, it still needs to be revised to reflect mainstream scholarship of the term. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Are there sources that say it's not a pejorative or that it doesn't imply the existence of a conspiracy?
- Are there sources that support the "many scholars ... some scholars" wording? Uhoj (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think David Tornheim's point is more about due weight. Looking at the most-cited scholarly sources, the majority, if not all, of them seem to treat the MIC as a real phenomenon and not as a conspiracy theory or purely rhetorical construct. One in particular stands out to me, summarized here: "In general, the military-industrial complex is not best understood as a conspiracy, but as a subtle interplay of interests and perceptions." My gut tells me this represents the scholarly consensus. I still think the article should discuss rhetoric, we just have to be careful about attribution. Who uses it as a pejorative, and why is this notable? If the phrase is used in fringe contexts, we should give them only as much weight as they warrant. Apfelmaische (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Correct. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe we should go through it one sentence at a time since it's contentious. I've considered due weight, looked at the Lens results, and am familiar with Rosen. Let's come back to these when we actually get to the topic of conspiracy theory.
- You say we should answer the question of who uses it as a pejorative. I support adding that if a source can be found, but that's distinct from whether sources agree that it's a pejorative.
Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice ... Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested ... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
— WP:NPOV
- Presently, we lack a source that contests, or describes as controversial, the view that military-industrial complex is a pejorative in common usage. Thus, it should be stated as a fact until such a source is found, or until the cited sources are shown to be unreliable. Uhoj (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- I wanted to explain why I reverted: basically, saying we need a source that says MIC is not a pejorative or that there is a controversy about it being a pejorative is an incorrect way of looking at the situation. What we have is many scholars who discuss MIC and only some who describe it as a pejorative. We would need this viewpoint - that the term is hands down pejorative as opposed to 'can be used as a pejorative' to be widespread in the scholarship. We can't just take a few sources and claim that it applies to all relevant MIC scholars, therefore, adding "some scholars" better aligns with WP:V. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- "can be used as a pejorative" is not what any of the cited sources say. I have no idea where you got that supposed quote. What they actually say is "most consistent and abiding feature" and "almost always". If you believe that the text of WP:NPOV is an "incorrect way of looking at the situation" you should change the policy. Regardless, there's a guideline for your preferred type of wording:
Uhoj (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)some people say ... many scholars state ... views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies.
- Why did you revert to your preferred version, knowing full well that the three other editors engaged in this conversation disagree with that language? You should self-revert. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- OOPs, I accidentally reverted the change as vandalism. I did not mean to revert nor tag as vandalism - I just installed Twinkle today so it's new. I would self-revert but since I requested Uhoj self-revert, I'm not sure what to do.... PositivelyUncertain (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is there anything else we should discuss prior to moving this to dispute resolution? Uhoj (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not that I can think of PositivelyUncertain (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm willing to try one more time for a compromise. I think we can all agree on the following points:
- 1. There's scholarly consensus that the MIC is a real phenomenon and not a conspiracy theory.
- 2. A minority of WP:RS consider the phrase MIC a pejorative. The majority of RS do not explicitly rule this out.
- 3. Similar to 2, a minority of RS consider the phrase to imply the existence of a conspiracy.
- We shouldn't expect any source to say "MIC is not a pejorative phrase" just as we shouldn't expect any source to say "the moon is not green." Due to the low proportion of sources that explicitly consider MIC pejorative, or as implying conspiracy, a phrase like "some scholars consider MIC a pejorative" is appropriate WP:WIKIVOICE in my opinion. I do not consider this MOS:WEASEL since attribution is clearly given, in the form of inline citations. Apfelmaische (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
We shouldn't expect any source to say "MIC is not a pejorative phrase" just as we shouldn't expect any source to say "the moon is not green."
- Exactly.
- I think "some" scholars is more appropriate. I believe Uhoj has *only* come up with 3 sources/scholars that say it. I do acknowledge that some or all three do come up early in searches of MIC. There is a huge amount of scholarship in this field. So if there were say 100 papers on this and only 3 mention it, then that would be only 3% which is trivial. "Many" is too much IMHO. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Why did you revert to your preferred version, knowing full well that the three other editors engaged in this conversation disagree with that language? You should self-revert. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- I wanted to explain why I reverted: basically, saying we need a source that says MIC is not a pejorative or that there is a controversy about it being a pejorative is an incorrect way of looking at the situation. What we have is many scholars who discuss MIC and only some who describe it as a pejorative. We would need this viewpoint - that the term is hands down pejorative as opposed to 'can be used as a pejorative' to be widespread in the scholarship. We can't just take a few sources and claim that it applies to all relevant MIC scholars, therefore, adding "some scholars" better aligns with WP:V. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think David Tornheim's point is more about due weight. Looking at the most-cited scholarly sources, the majority, if not all, of them seem to treat the MIC as a real phenomenon and not as a conspiracy theory or purely rhetorical construct. One in particular stands out to me, summarized here: "In general, the military-industrial complex is not best understood as a conspiracy, but as a subtle interplay of interests and perceptions." My gut tells me this represents the scholarly consensus. I still think the article should discuss rhetoric, we just have to be careful about attribution. Who uses it as a pejorative, and why is this notable? If the phrase is used in fringe contexts, we should give them only as much weight as they warrant. Apfelmaische (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that I would be open to "MIC is a pejorative phrase" in plain wikivoice if the source was hard evidence like statistical corpus analysis, rather than just the opinions of three reliable scholars. I'm not aware of such a source.
- I'm open to direct attribution of the most notable scholar(s), such as "Some scholars, including James Ledbetter, consider MIC to be a pejorative phrase." I'll boldly make this change now, feel free to revert if there's not agreement. Apfelmaische (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Military–industrial_complex#Connotations
- I don't understand why this is being moved to Dispute resolution. Can't we just rely on the usual process of finding consensus?--David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Most sources treat the "military-industrial complex" as a real thing rather than a conspiracy theory. But the MIC is a big part of many conspiracy theories, and those theories treat it as much more powerful than it probably is - i.e. they often accuse it of starting wars for profit. So there's the 'real' MIC and the 'conspiracy theorist' MIC. – Asarlaí (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- At this point, per WP:DUE, I think we should move the section below the history of the actual MIC. This way the reader is not given an early impression that the concept is a conspiracy theory, made up, or purely rhetorical. This would satisfy my remaining concerns. Apfelmaische (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to go out on a limb, and remove the WP:POV maintenance template now. Uhoj, I understand you may still wish to argue your position and I'm still willing to participate in dispute resolution if so. However I think WP:NOTUNANIMOUS is good advice here. David Tornheim or PositivelyUncertain, if you still have concerns, please revert and discuss, or better yet, WP:FIXIT. Thank you, all. Apfelmaische (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- That's fine. I wanted to make sure it was clear that there was no consensus for the text that was WP:BOLDly and lodging my concerns that way rather than completely reverting. Now that you all have been talking about it, I'll trust you have addressed some of the concerns I raised. I simply don't have that much time to attend to this article right now. As long as Uhoj is honoring consensus and listening to other editors rather than overly pushing his/her version, then I'm feeling more comfortable curtailing my involvement for now. But if there are problems like we saw before, feel free to ping me, or if you just want another opinion.
- If any large chuck of text--especially well sourced text that has been in the article for a long time--is deleted (or proposed to be deleted or replaced), I *do* want to be informed. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Only a fraction of sources discuss the connotations of our subject, just as only a fraction of the geology literature discusses the sphericity of Earth. Of those that do, the connotations are universally described as pejorative. More quality sources exist for this, and the sources are in closer agreement, than for any other aspect of the subject except that Eisenhower used the term. Hence Roland saying as much.
The argument that we should not expect to find a source saying that it's non-pejorative, even if that's true, is apparently faulty. Here's an example for state capitalism that explicitly says the term can be used non-pejoratively.[1]
The argument that it's impossible to call military-industrial complex a pejorative because sources exist that simply use the term is likewise faulty. Consider chattering classes. Sources exist that use the term without saying that it's derogatory.[2][3][4] The existence of these sources doesn't prevent us from saying that it is in fact derogatory.
I'll propose a compromise in article space that attempts to be specific about the context in which it's a pejorative, who uses it that way and that indicates non-pejorative critical usage while staying true to the sources.
But “Military-Industrial Complex” is not just a value-neutral synonym for defense sector. More often than not, it is a pejorative term, meant to imply that the modern defense sector, at least as it has developed in the United States since 1945, is a dangerous monster that benefits special interests while harming the public good.[5]
The military-industrial complex of which he spoke has deep historical roots and largely pejorative connotations.[6]
From the 1960s through the 1990s, the term “military-industrial complex” signified both a model and critique of U.S. government lawmaking. Because the descriptive and normative theories are so closely linked, the term is almost always used pejoratively.[7]
Early on, it was observed that the term was used as a rhetorical tool in defending starkly contrasting political positions, and that it was often used pejoratively.[8]
The term "military-industrial complex" is usually a pejorative. Beginning from this negative base, some historians studying military-business relations have defined their task as the discovery of the roots of the complex.[9]
As a direct result of this warning, the term is now almost always used pejoratively[10]
It is possible to identify common actors, common institutions and common behaviours across various deep states, but just as the term ‘military industrial complex’ came to take on a deeply pejorative and caricaturised form, the same is true for the ‘deep state’.[11]
A common thread throughout the literature is that the term “military-industrial complex” is almost always used in a pejorative manner, either with reference to some form of conspiracy or corruption, or as a way of advancing other concerns—be that around large defence budgets, the influence of the military in politics, or the distortion of the economy via the defence industry.[12]
Eisenhower’s term military-industrial complex, however, gradually took on connotations far removed from his original meaning, which was limited to the military and defense firms imposing excessive defense budgets. The “New Left” of the 1960s rather began conceptualizing the “military-industrial complex” as a shadowy cabal of corporate and military elites seeking to suborn democracy for their own ends. ... The left wing’s interpretation of the military-industrial complex concept thus became increasingly expansive and far more sinister than in Eisenhower’s original formulation.[13]
Then, suddenly, the pejorative concept of MIC morphed in public acceptance to a defense industrial base or DIB.[14]
Most use the phrase as a pejorative and indict the military-industrial complex with wasteful spending, distorting the American economy, accumulating government resources in the face of pressing social problems, suppressing American democracy, and provoking international conflicts for the sake of profit.[15]
Though "military-industrial complex" always feels like a pejorative term, David Brown's piece strikes a positive note; it's written in that delicately faux-neutral fashion that presumes the institutions in question are swell, and that ladies in them sweller still.[16]
For this reason there is justification for the public's general hostility toward the "military-industrial complex" and the pejorative way in which this designation is used.[17]
Furthermore, whereas ‘the term “military-industrial complex” is almost always used as a pejorative, this thesis strives for neutrality in examining the proposition that the private sector’s involvement within CT Strategy might now properly be considered as a necessary element of UK national security strategy.[18]
In the United States the term "military-industrial complex," increasingly used in a pejorative sense, has come into vogue to describe the people and institutions engaged in the broad spectrum of national security activities[19]
This phenomenon is not inappropriately referred to as the military-industrial complex, or more simply and less pejoratively, the defense sector of American society.[20]
The concept "military-industrial complex," as many authors have pointed out, carries a weighted and polemical meaning in the 1980s.[21]
But it is true that the literature of the military-industrial complex, which self-consciously situates the Eisenhower speech at its origins, is linked almost without exception to a revisionist critique of American politics and society. It is, in a phrase, an intensely ideological body of work.[22]
Uhoj (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hello editors Uhoj, David Tornheim, Apfelmaische, PositivelyUncertain. I have some concerns. That whole section is made about the US political context and that must be clearly noted at the beginning of that section. Maybe even that whole section could be merged in the section concerning the United States as there is one section about Russia now in the article. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. The recent changes by Uhoj are unacceptable and defy the consensus. I reverted. I really don't understand why Uhoj believes s/he can keep forcing these changes in, when the opposition to them has been repeatedly stated. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Are there any objections to adding Draft:Potential_dangers_(military-industrial_complex)? Uhoj (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello editors Uhoj, David Tornheim, Apfelmaische, PositivelyUncertain. It was hard to find this. That is a problem with so many changes at once and many different issues at the same time. Yes, there is concerns, apart it is part of previously challenged content, it is WP:UNDUE, and even if it is not there is one section about Russia now, so if some is useful have to go to the U.S. section as that section concern it. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I agree with you this was buried. No one said it was okay to add all that material, although it is acceptable to WP:BOLDly try. It is equally acceptable to revert it per WP:BRD.
- I support that revert until we find consensus. I suggest that each portion Uhoj would like to add be discussed in a separate section and consensus be found before such a massive addition the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- David Tornheim, Uhoj Yes, I don't have much time to check all of that right now, but if there is anything useful from Draft:Potential_dangers_(military-industrial_complex) it can be added to the United States section, either as a subsection or under an existing subsection about connotations in U.S. politics.Volodia.woldemar (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I do think certain concepts such as excessive military spending are appropriate, but going into a long essay about what was or wasn't good for the USSR is not necessary. Basically, some of the material could be added if it was far more brief. 23:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC) --David Tornheim (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with that, and yes it should be far more brief. As I wrote before, in the appropriate sections, what concern the United States it can be added to the United States section, either as a subsection or under an existing subsection about connotations in U.S. politics. Likewise, material concerning Russia should be added in the appropriate section that covers Russia. In general, that is a more balanced way about undue weight issues. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- I do think certain concepts such as excessive military spending are appropriate, but going into a long essay about what was or wasn't good for the USSR is not necessary. Basically, some of the material could be added if it was far more brief. 23:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC) --David Tornheim (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim You say this was added boldly and that the proposal was buried. That is rather misleading. The addition was discussed at DRN and at the draft talk page. You were notified of the draft more than a month ago. You were then invited to edit the draft. Finally, the proposal was also made on this page and I then waited another 11 days before making the change.
- You say "no one said it was okay to add all that material." This is a WP:FIXED argument, which carries no weight.
- You say it is a long essay about the USSR. I see one paragraph mentioning the USSR. Which specific paragraphs do you believe are about the USSR? Uhoj (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- David Tornheim, Uhoj Yes, I don't have much time to check all of that right now, but if there is anything useful from Draft:Potential_dangers_(military-industrial_complex) it can be added to the United States section, either as a subsection or under an existing subsection about connotations in U.S. politics.Volodia.woldemar (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Volodia.woldemar You say it was hard for you to find this. That is strange given that you were pinged three times with invitations to join the discussion were this was proposed a month ago. You say the material is undue. Questions of due weight require analysis of sources. What sources support your claim that this material is being given undue weight? What policy supports deleting it entirely, as you did? Uhoj (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- You behave as if there was never any discussion about your previous edits to this article. Please read my previous two posts carefully, as well as what David Tornheim wrote about it. There is also good faith explanation and kind of solution. And yes it was hard to find, as far as I know, the majority of editors here are not focused on just one article or topic. We don’t have fixed schedules or deadlines for when something must be addressed or finished and there is no hurry about anything. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hello editors Uhoj, David Tornheim, Apfelmaische, PositivelyUncertain. It was hard to find this. That is a problem with so many changes at once and many different issues at the same time. Yes, there is concerns, apart it is part of previously challenged content, it is WP:UNDUE, and even if it is not there is one section about Russia now, so if some is useful have to go to the U.S. section as that section concern it. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
Discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Military–industrial complex Uhoj (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Are there any objections to the following change?
| − | + | The phrase ''military-industrial complex'' is usually employed as a [[pejorative]]. |
Uhoj (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not by me. I think we settled in favor of this in dispute resolution. The thread was archived unceremoniously, but I don't think this change is contentious. Aside: I probably won't spend much more time on this article. What skills and knowledge I have are probably better used elsewhere. Apfelmaische (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose the change. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @PositivelyUncertain and Volodia.woldemar: Any opinion on this? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have anything against it staying as it is now. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds like we need to run yet another RfC. Should the two options be those represented by this textdiff? Uhoj (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim and @Volodia.woldemar It seems like neither of you are taking this seriously. This proposal was already discussed extensively at DRN and neither of you provided substantive input. An RfC consumes significant resources. You have forced two RfCs already and weren't on the side of consensus. So, do either of you have an actual substantive argument against the proposed change? Uhoj (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please stop with attacking the editors by claiming "you are not taking this seriously". My position is as it was all along: Most sources do NOT describe it as pejorative, so the original version is the better per WP:DUE. The DRN did not come to any firm resolution. We have not "forced" any RfCs. You brought forth the DRN because you aren't getting a consensus that supports the change you want. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Global connotations
@Asarlaí Are you aware of any sources that explain the connotations of military-industrial complex as used by Russian speakers? When I read English academic literature originating in Russia, the way in which the phrase is used feels different than stuff from the US. Военно-промышленный комплекс is similar to the American phrase on the face of it, but it seems to be used more like defense industrial base. Оборонно-промышленный комплекс appears to be even closer to defense industrial base.
It would be good if we could find some sources that explain what this phrase means to people around the world.
The earliest known uses of the phrase in English are related to the Soviet Union. If there's a Slavic language origin of the English phrase it might be worthwhile mentioning that in the article. Maybe you have access to original Russian source text associated with the following?
Knickerbocker, H. R. (July 1931). "The Soviet Five-Year Plan". International Affairs. 10 (4): 442. JSTOR 3016236.[23]: 229 / The red trade menace
Tekh, O (1957). "The Bonn Republic". About Those Who Are Against Peace. State Publishing House for Political Literature. --Uhoj (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Are there any objections to adding Draft:Connotations_in_Russian_(military-industrial_complex)? Uhoj (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
References
- Weber, Isabella (February 2023). "State Capitalism, Imperialism, and China: Bringing History Back In". University of Massachusetts Amherst. Retrieved 15 November 2025.
While state capitalism has been used as a pejorative term by Marxists, liberals and neoliberals alike, it has served as a programmatic label for developmentalist and neomercantilist projects in reaction to imperialism in the periphery.
- King, Elspeth (2014). Home Front Diaries: Over Representations of the Chattering Classes?. Women's History Network National Conference 2014.
For those beyond the chattering classes, long hours of war work, coupled with domestic responsibilities in increasingly difficult circumstances, as the privations of war increased were not conducive to diary and journal keeping.
- Voth, Joachim (2017). "Europe's "Skill Shortage"". Economic Ideas You Should Forget. Springer. p. 157. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47458-8_68.
Members of the chattering classes nod their heads in agreement when the topic comes up over dinner.
- Hirsh, David. Contemporary Left Antisemitism. Routledge. p. iii. ISBN 978-1-138-23530-4.
This book looks at the kind of antisemitism which is tolerated or which goes unacknowledged in apparently democratic spaces: trade unions, churches, left-wing and liberal politics, social gatherings of the chattering classes and the seminars and journals of radical intellectuals.
- Wilson, Mark (2019). Kieran, David; Martini, Edwin (eds.). At War. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813584317.
- Light, Sarah (2014). "The Military-Environmental Complex" (PDF). Boston College Law Review. 55: 879. Retrieved 13 November 2025.
- Knowles, Robert (2021). "Delegating National Security". Washington University Law Review. 98 (4): 1153. Retrieved 13 November 2025.
- Newlove-Eriksson, Lindy; Eriksson, Johan (3 December 2023). "Conceptualizing the European military-civilian-industrial complex: the need for a helicopter perspective". Defence Studies. 23 (4): 565. doi:10.1080/14702436.2023.2277434.
- Gough, Terrence (August 1999). "The Political Economy of Warfare". Pacific Historical Review. 68 (3). University of California Press: 457. doi:10.2307/4492339.
- Miller, Christopher (2018). Planning and Profits: British Naval Armaments Manufacture and the Military Industrial Complex, 1918-1941. Liverpool University Press. p. 220. doi:10.2307/j.ctt22rbjgx. ISBN 978-1-78694-066-7.
- Dover, Robert (4 November 2022). A Research Agenda for Intelligence Studies and Government. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 155–165. doi:10.4337/9781800378803.00020. ISBN 9781800378797.
- Salisbury, Emma. Beyond the Iron Triangle: The Military-Industrial Complex as Assemblage (PDF) (PhD thesis). London: Birkbeck, University of London. Retrieved 13 November 2025.
- DeVore, Marc (19 November 2020). "Military-Industrial Complexes and Their Variations". The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Military in Politics. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1876.
- Cooling, Benjamin (2010). "62: The Military-Industrial Complex". In Bradford, James (ed.). A Companion to American Military History Volume 1. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 978. doi:10.1002/9781444315066. ISBN 978-1-4051-6149-7.
- Foxley, Curtis (2020). The Business of Atomic War (PhD thesis). Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma. Retrieved 13 November 2025.
- Steigerwald, Lucy (3 January 2019). "Good News, Ladies! The Military-Industrial Complex Is Ours Now!". Reason. Retrieved 13 November 2025.
- Lee, Dwoght (1990). "The politics and pitfalls of reducing waste in the military". Defence and Peace Economics. 1 (2): 130. doi:10.1080/10430719008404656.
- Rosemont, Hugo (2015). A UK ‘security-industrial complex’? (PDF) (PhD thesis). London: King’s College, London. Retrieved 13 November 2025.
- Lee, William (1972). "The "Politico-Military-Industrial Complex" of the U.S.S.R.". Journal of International Affairs. 26 (1): 73. JSTOR 24356792.
- Carey, Omer (1969). The Military-Industrial Complex and United States Foreign Policy. Washington State University Press. p. 3.
- Kipp, Jacob (1981). "Chapter 4: The Russian Navy and Private Enterprise". In Cooling, Benjamin (ed.). War, business, and world military-industrial complexes. Kennikat Press. p. 84. ISBN 0-8046-9276-9.
- Cuff, Robert D. (1978). "An Organizational Perspective on the Military-Industrial Complex". The Business History Review. 52 (2). The President and Fellows of Harvard College: 251–252. doi:10.2307/3113037.
- Ledbetter, James (2011). Unwarranted Influence: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Military-Industrial Complex. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15305-7.
RfC pejorative
There is no consensus on exactly which qualifier to use, and the discussion on that was muddied by C&D being added only after earlier participants had suggested "usually" wasn't ideal.
I'd suggest having a discussion on the specific qualifier and then, once that's been decided, whether or not it's valuable to the reader to combine that statement in some form with the attribution statement. Valereee (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which should we use: A or B?
- The phrase military-industrial complex is usually employed as a pejorative.
- James Ledbetter and certain other scholars describe the phrase military–industrial complex as pejorative.
- Support Option B – I disagree that it is usually employed as a pejorative, and, as others have said, option A suffers from WP:NPOV issues. To the extent this content needs to be in the article at all (it doesn't), option B is the least worst way to include it. Jcgaylor (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
[e.g. excessive government spending on defense, the cozy connections between the arms industry and the government, etc.]
- --David Tornheim (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Option C, "often" is correct here. "Usually" is impossible to prove. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support A + D because policy says that we must avoid stating facts as opinions. A fact is defined as a statement supported by sources and for which sources don't exist that contest the statement. 22 sources are quoted below supporting A. 18 of these explicitly reach the conclusion "pejorative" with qualifiers ranging from "often" to "always". No source has come to light that contests A. Option A is thus a fact and must be presented as such.
- B presents this fact as an opinion by attributing it. Furthermore, B misleads the reader by implying that James Ledbetter is somehow particularly important in this matter, which isn't said by any source. C uses a qualifier at one extreme of what the sources say. D is not mutually exclusive of A and adds useful detail. Both A and D should be added to the article. A neutral, verifiable version of D could read something like "It is frequently used to criticize military spending and conflicts of interest."
- Several spurious arguments have been made for why we should ignore the 22 sources that validate option A. The first is that only a fraction of all sources describe military-industrial complex as pejorative. The problem is that 100% of the known sources that discuss connotations either explicitly describe them as pejorative, or are compatible with that conclusion.
- A second argument is that most academic sources don't employ military-industrial complex as a pejorative. The problem with this is that academic writing is a tiny, unusually polite, slice of general usage. For example, terrorism is commonly used as a pejorative despite the fact that academic writing on the subject is largely dispassionate. The RfC question is about connotations in normal usage; not about connotations in narrow academic circles.
- Connotations explicitly described by academic sources are pertinent. On the other hand, original research that seeks to tease out connotations by interpreting the sentiment of sources is tricky. There's a reason we leave that to professionals like the folks quoted below who were published by Johns Hopkins, Rutgers, Yale, etc. and the guy with a couple Pulitzer prizes.
- A third argument is that we need to first all agree on what pejorative means. This is silly. We have 18 sources that use the word pejorative. As long as we use the same word, we can be sure that we're being faithful to the sources.
22 sources that support option A |
|---|
References
|
- Uhoj (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC) edited 00:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC) and 22:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Option A as per above. (Summoned by bot) NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
| |
- Option A (Summoned by bot) but I think "usually" should be replaced by "often". We have to rely on our own judgement as to how much pejorative sense an author might impart to it in a particular context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
| |
- SYNTH is combining "material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". Since ALL of the sourses explicitly state hat the term is pejorative (they may vary in other respects, such as when/why/in what contexts the term is/became thus), it is difficult to see what is being combined or what the relevance of SYNTH is. The sources offered are literally all using that very word, not even a synonym. So the only problem is summarising fairly those numerous sources - without resorting to the nonsense of attributing EVERY NAME that says it, or, as suggested in B, seemingly randomly attributing a single source + adding "certain other scholars" to cover all the other sources(How many scholars? How few? Why is that 'summary' of multiple sources neutral but "sometimes/often/usually" not neutral?(.
- A brief summary of something said by a large number of sources, as long as it is accurate and fair, is not SYNTH, it isn't WP:OR and it isn't POV. Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
| |
- Option B Again this here even if discussion is in the section above about the same thing and I already stated my opinion to it is better to stay as it is now. I agree with DangerousEagles about, WP:NPOV / WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV etc., so - Option B. Some editors participated in the same discussion in the section above about the same thing, and considering that I saw this accidentally I will ping them as maybe they have an opinion or want to participate in this section now, Apfelmaische, David Tornheim, PositivelyUncertain.Volodia.woldemar (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Option A
but I think "usually" should be replaced by "often"
, In the sometimes/often/usually/ordinarily continuum, B tends too much to implying that the term has occasionally been used critically, when sources indicate that it has come to be commonly used in this way. I would also add that it would be beneficial if we could say how/why the term is pejorative (implying an excessively cosy, potentially corrupt interaction?), though phrasing that might be difficult. Pincrete (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
| |
- Option A, but agree on it being "often" instead of "usually". Uhoj put forward a very convincing argument, pre-empting a lot of disagreements I have. But still, I have some qualms with the definition of pejorative and how I feel the term is used, hence "often" 1brianm7 (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Option B, Neutral on Option A. I disagree that the question of whether or not the phrase is used pejoratively is a matter of uncertainty or dispute - and why WOULD it be? Critics of a thing are under no obligation to use non-pejorative language about the thing they are criticising, so it should not be expected that they would address that topic at all. That it is a pejorative appears to be an undisputed fact, so attribution for this would look ridiculous. But the reason I am neutral on Option A is I am not convinced the question of its pejorativity needs to be mentioned at all; it might possibly not be DUE. But so far no one else in this RFC has argued that position, that I could see, though a couple editors did in the pre-RFC discussion. Another word to consider other than "pejorative" might be "critical"? ~2025-42413-82 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- I would agree that it is "critical". I was thinking about proposing that.--David Tornheim (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- I just added an Option C for "often" instead of "usually", since at least two editors support it.
- What do you think about use of the word "critical" rather than "pejorative" proposed above? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Option B, Neutral on Option A. I disagree that the question of whether or not the phrase is used pejoratively is a matter of uncertainty or dispute - and why WOULD it be? Critics of a thing are under no obligation to use non-pejorative language about the thing they are criticising, so it should not be expected that they would address that topic at all. That it is a pejorative appears to be an undisputed fact, so attribution for this would look ridiculous. But the reason I am neutral on Option A is I am not convinced the question of its pejorativity needs to be mentioned at all; it might possibly not be DUE. But so far no one else in this RFC has argued that position, that I could see, though a couple editors did in the pre-RFC discussion. Another word to consider other than "pejorative" might be "critical"? ~2025-42413-82 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose A; Support D, B and possibly C per DangerousEagles. We have discussed this before on this talk page [diffs to be provided later] and at DNR [diff to be provided later]. Even though many sources do call it pejorative, plenty more do not. Pejorative is too strong a word, because it implies an unwarranted and overly extreme and hyperbolic criticism. If that were the case, I do not believe there would be so much serious scholarship about it. From a random review of sources in the article on July 2025 (before the flurry of activity) and a review of a number of sources on JSTOR, the sources do not usually call it or describe it as a pejorative.
- I do believe the phrase is typically used to criticize, particularly the cozy relationship between the various entities that drives up defense spending so that the U.S. has more defense spending than the next 9 countries combined--a fact that is never brought up in major political debates in mainstream media. Sources I reviewed typically call it a warning by Eisenhower, as per the current WP:LEDE.
Most sources DO NOT support option A | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
My random review of sources in the article on 23 July 2025 (before the flurry of changes), I found the sources do not usually call it or describe it as a pejorative. The same with reviewing sources on JSTOR. I will provide those as time permits. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC) Table added 02:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC). Last revised 21:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC). Key:
@Apfelmaische: Thank you for improving the table with these edits. I have added 3 more sources to be reviewed and will continue adding the reviews and sources as time permits. If you or anyone else wants to review the sources before I get to them, be my guest. I will soon add the next list of 3 more randomly selected refs.--David Tornheim (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: Another question about the table. I've been assuming the 'criticism' column is for when a source criticizes the concept of the MIC, not the MIC itself. For example, if a source were to say MIC has a vague definition. Correct? Apfelmaische (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
|
- --David Tornheim (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC) [revised by adding table above 02:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)][Table last revised 11:39, 13 January 2026 (UTC)]
- Comment to folks gravitating toward "often":
- One source says "often"
- Four say "largely" / "usually" / "most[ly]" / "more often than not"
- Five say "almost always"
- Six say "pejorative" without qualification
- One says "always"
- So, I'm puzzled by the suggestion that we should use a qualifier from one extreme given that most sources that discuss connotations use qualifiers further along the continuum. Using "often" may create the appearance that we're whitewashing the topic. Uhoj (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support D without frequently: The phrase military-industrial complex is used to criticize...Ismeiri (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support B plus D. I've changed my mind on this twice, as I've read more sources. Uhoj makes a convincing argument by providing many sources that support option A—but I feel they are not representative of the literature overall. The most relevant policy here is WP:WIKIVOICE. If it were uncontroversial that MIC is pejorative, we should see that claim in more than a small fraction of the sources. David Tornheim's random sampling above provides strong evidence otherwise. We should err on the side of presenting this claim as an opinion, when sources are not in clear agreement.
It could be argued that only certain sources discuss this question, and that this subset is mostly in agreement that MIC is pejorative, but I feel treating this as a fact would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a (relatively) small portion of the sources. Apfelmaische (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Muddle and inconsistency in Russia section
The article opens by giving a definition of the term as describing a relationship/interaction between the military and the defence industry as part of the process of defence procurement: "The expression military–industrial complex (MIC) 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".
The Russia section opens by saying that the Russian MIC is overseen by XYZ, when I suspect it means that defence procurement/production is overseen by XYZ. It goes on "As of 2024, Russia's military–industrial complex is made up of about 6,000 companies and employs about 3.5 million people" confirming that the term MIC here is being used to describe the defence sector, not the interaction between military and defence contractors as an aspect of procurement. The section later has a whole sub-section basically arguing that the term means something else in Russian: "The English term implies a coalition of industrial and military interests. The Russian term refers to the military industries taken together as a group, or what is known as a defense industrial base in English..
If the term means something else in Russian (ie not about the relationship, as defined in the opening sentence), then it shouldn't be presented as being the same topic IMO. The most that there should be is a brief mention that a similar term exists in Russian, with different connotations/a different meaning. Pincrete (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Pincrete I agree that it's pretty confusing to give this much weight to a different concept for which some people use the same name. We should certainly make it clear that it's not the same topic. However, there's not a hard definition for military-industrial complex in American English either, with some people using it to refer to the American defense sector. I'm hoping to add a section on the various definitions and theories that have gone under this name so that those viewpoints may be described explicitly.
- Sources do say that military-industrial complex is a concept unique to the United States as discussed at the top of this draft, which is currently under consideration as an addition to the article. The draft may go some way to addressing the point you raised in the RfC about explaining how/why the term is pejorative.
- The Cold War context of this topic often leads to the question (in sources and probably among readers) of whether the Soviet Union had a military-industrial complex. So, to directly answer that question without the muddle, what do you think about adding Draft:Soviet Union (Military-industrial complex)? Uhoj (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- My only concern was that the opening definition doesn't fit some of the content. The opening definition seems to fit Ike's usage and that of later commentators on US defence procurement- though I have no prior contact with sources discussing either the term, or the process. Pincrete (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Discussion of Uhoj's draft
In this discussion:
of
I suggested breaking up the draft into pieces and discussing each piece separately here on *this* talk page rather than at the draft. I believe it will be easier to find consensus here on this talk page and it will be more transparent, so editors can know the exact history of how the changes were proposed and incorporated into the article. I am happy to create the sections. Does anyone agree or oppose this suggestion? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hello editors Uhoj, David Tornheim, Apfelmaische, PositivelyUncertain! What happened, and where should we discuss it? I think it is appropriate to use the talk page of this article. I have some health problems, so I am not able to be here very often, but I will try. In any case, I will repeat what I wrote before, more brief and everything relevant the appropriate sections, material concerning the United States can be added to the United States section, either as a subsection or under an existing subsection about connotations in U.S. politics. Similarly, material concerning Russia should be added to the section covering Russia. In general, this is a more balanced approach regarding undue weight issues. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Excessive Spending
This is regards to Uhoj's draft mentioned in the above section and being discussed at WP:DRN --David Tornheim (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Do we need an RfC on Uhoj's draft Excessive Spending section?
Robert McClenon has suggested here the possibility of starting an RfC on the excessive spending section of the draft. Specifically he says:
There isn't a consensus to add the Excessive Spending section. I can start an RFC on whether to add the Excessive Spending section, either in its present form or after minor editing.
Is that something we desire? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- No. Let's discuss first. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Revisions to the proposed Excessive spending portion of the draft
I made significant revisions to the Excessive spending section of the draft. I did not try hard to match up the text with sources. I feel like it is better to discuss concerns about the draft here so that editors have a clear record of the changes. The changes are related to concerns I expressed at WP:DRN, specifically here. These are the individual diffs: , ,, --David Tornheim (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for offering a concrete alternative to the draft that has been discussed thus far.
- Some participants declined moderated discussion. Various procedural objections were raised including opposition to the use of drafts. I am willing to try others' procedures. I have no objection to abandoning the draft page altogether and instead editing draft content here, or in another way.
- I took a look at the most recent version of the draft and am wondering about a deletion summary "possible WP:OR". What new conclusion is reached in the removed text that isn't present in the source? Uhoj (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for thanking me on some of the edits. I'd like to see what others like Volodia.woldemar and Apfelmaische (who were at DRN) think. Do you guys have thoughts, concerns, etc. with the edits? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- I added a mention of cost overruns. I didn't tie it directly to the MIC (I feel like the connection is obvious) but it wouldn't be hard to do so explicitly using the same source. Apfelmaische (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- The excessive spending section would be more relevant if it contained examples of excessive spending that have been specifically blamed on the military and the arms industry working together as a vested interest to cause unnecessary spending. Can anyone think of some examples?
- What we've got now is more like criticism of the arms industry, criticism of government procurement, and criticism of / warnings about aggregate spending. Uhoj (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe the C-5A Galaxy is a better example than the Seawolf? It had delays, cost overruns, and defects. Roland gives it as an example of corruption due to the close relationship between the military and the defense industry. He highlights politicians whose states and districts profited. (p. 57) Apfelmaische (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Good idea. I added the C-5A scandal to the article.
- I was planning on making an article for Alex Roland, but discovered that he doesn't meet any criterion for notability. The only potentially reliable source I found is a scathing article accusing him of bias and sloppy work including exaggerations of cost overruns.
- Given this, it doesn't make much sense to attribute opinions to Roland. So, I focused on Proxmire instead, since he's a key figure in MIC criticism and pivotal in the C-5A scandal.
- I left out Roland's claims about Mendel Rivers
because what he says failed verification. The problem in this case is that Hartung misquoted Rice's quotation of Rivers in a way that significantly misrepresents what was actually said. - I then considered attributing opinions to Rice, but didn't find any immediate signs of notability. Uhoj (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I was also thinking about Proxmire. Report from wasteland has a lot to say about cost overruns and inefficiency. Seymour Melman makes similar arguments and also talks about opportunity cost. Salisbury 2024 reviews a lot of the literature, and can help us gauge what sources are notable. It mentions Roland's views a few times. To me that scathing article only means Roland is possibly unreliable on the topic of spaceflight. Apfelmaische (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe the C-5A Galaxy is a better example than the Seawolf? It had delays, cost overruns, and defects. Roland gives it as an example of corruption due to the close relationship between the military and the defense industry. He highlights politicians whose states and districts profited. (p. 57) Apfelmaische (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- I also feel like an important point about opportunity cost and the MIC is that weapons serve no economically productive purpose once they are built. Investment in roads, power plants, factories, education, healthcare, etc. all help an economy grow faster one way or another. This argument is mentioned in some sources. I'll have to dig them up later. Apfelmaische (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim A cite is needed for
posits that continued deficit spending, especially on military build-up, is the single most important reason for decline of any great power.
- because I looked at the intro and US section of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers and it's not clear that the book supports this statement. In fact, pp531-2 partially contradicts it in our present context:
I also noticed that the few times he uses the phrase military-industrial complex he puts it in scare quotes, indicating an unwillingness to say it in his own voice. Uhoj (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)The debate upon the "economics of defense spending" is a highly controversial one, and—bearing in mind the size and variety of the American economy, the stimulus which can come from large government contracts, and the technical spin-offs from weapons research—the evidence does not point simply in one direction.
- That language came directly from the material written in American_decline#Deficit_spending which I copied without verifying. It looks like the source for that paragraph is not The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers but is this:
- Kennedy, Paul (2017-01-26). The Rise And Fall of British Naval Mastery. Penguin Books. ISBN 9780141983837. Retrieved 19 March 2019.
- I apologize if I copied it poorly so that the better source for that part of the statement was lost. I put the ref in. If you believe it is incorrect, you could raise the issue on the talk page of that article and possibly try to engage the editor who added it. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim I spent some time reading the beginning and end of The Rise And Fall of British Naval Mastery and found no hint of the POV being attributed to him by the text you copy-pasted. Please follow the guideline Copying within Wikipedia when copy-pasting in the future. Maybe it should have been a red flag that a book about pre-1945 Britain was being cited for statements about the War on Terror at the article where the text was copied from. Uhoj (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- That language came directly from the material written in American_decline#Deficit_spending which I copied without verifying. It looks like the source for that paragraph is not The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers but is this:
- I added a mention of cost overruns. I didn't tie it directly to the MIC (I feel like the connection is obvious) but it wouldn't be hard to do so explicitly using the same source. Apfelmaische (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for thanking me on some of the edits. I'd like to see what others like Volodia.woldemar and Apfelmaische (who were at DRN) think. Do you guys have thoughts, concerns, etc. with the edits? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, so, a while ago I think @David Tornheim mentioned that if we work in draft, the edit history will get lost when the draft is merged. FYI it's possible for an admin to merge and preserve the history, see WP:HISTMERGE. This will be necessary if we end up including anything from the draft since multiple editors have worked on it. Apfelmaische (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Interesting. Sounds like a pain, but might help. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Declinism
- Regarding the portions I removed on declinism. As far as I can tell, that text doesn't talk about the military-industrial complex directly; hence WP:OR. (I acknowledge that the MIC does *include* the high technology mentioned in the article). I have never heard the term "declinism" used in regard to the military-industrial complex. WP:UNDUE IMHO it is that term is a pejorative to portray and dismiss those who raise legitimate issues related to defense spending as out-of-touch WP:FRINGE kooks. MIC is a serious subject. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anything in our declinism article to indicate that it's a fringe theory or pejorative. The source does in fact use the phrase military-industrial complex many times. For example p81:
This last factor belies the notion of an enclave-style military-industrial complex built around a group of big defense firms.
- or p89:
Uhoj (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)This indeed marked the beginning of the NSS's continuing quest for innovation outside the traditional circle of prime contractors conventionally associated with the military-industrial complex.
- I did some more research on the term declinism (which sounds a lot like the even more pejorative term denialism). I compared declinism and American decline, and I believe I better understand where you are coming from. American decline (based on what is in that Wiki-article) appears to be a more serious subject than my first impression, which was initially formed primarily from googling declinism and reading the first two paragraphs of declinism.
- So, although I still feel that declinism is a pejorative [I can include more data on my research and as to why I still believe the general term to be pejorative], the section American_decline#Deficit_spending, which appears early in that article, seems to to articulate the same concerns in the section I deleted. Possibly one or more of those sources may be appropriate to add.
- I'm now also less likely to believe it would be WP:OR to connect MIC to American decline, because it appears in Google scholar results from searches of "American decline" military-industrial complex and of "American declinism" military-industrial complex. Similar results come from normal Google searches of declinism military-industrial complex and american declinism military-industrial complex.
- Hence, I have restored the material I deleted, but I replaced the term declinism (because of it pejorative nature) with a phrase that explains what it means.
- --David Tornheim (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Regarding the portions I removed on declinism. As far as I can tell, that text doesn't talk about the military-industrial complex directly; hence WP:OR. (I acknowledge that the MIC does *include* the high technology mentioned in the article). I have never heard the term "declinism" used in regard to the military-industrial complex. WP:UNDUE IMHO it is that term is a pejorative to portray and dismiss those who raise legitimate issues related to defense spending as out-of-touch WP:FRINGE kooks. MIC is a serious subject. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Switching to Harvard citations
Apfelmaische made a proposal that we switch to Harvard / shortened footnotes. It's a great idea in my opinion. Any objections to using these going forward?
I just added some, but the links aren't working quite right. Any ideas why? Uhoj (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Alex Roland reliability
I urge caution in using Roland's Delta of Power as a source.
- Gives a much different view of "goldplating" than Fox in the paragraph after he cites Fox.
- Promotes debunked meme of $435 hammer on p128
- Says that Berkeley Rice is the civil servant who brought the C-5A scandal to light and that Rice was punished for his disclosures on p58. This seems highly unlikely given that Rice wrote a book about it, but the dust jacket of that book describes him as freelance writer and makes no mention of him having a part in the events of the book. Rice's obituary likewise describes him as a freelance writer and contains no mention of civil service or whistleblowing.
That's in addition to the previously mentioned problems:
- He's known for historical misstatements and exaggerations about government programs and procurement.
Grossly misquotes Wendel Rivers. Apparently he didn't scrutinize his source Hartung, which is weird because he's obviously aware of Rice's book, which quotes Rivers differently.
Uhoj (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- How do you feel about Hartung 2011 then? I couldn't find any contradiction between it and Rice 1971 about that Rivers quote.
- I do agree I have no idea where Roland got the idea Rice was the C-5A whistleblower or that he got punished for doing so--Roland doesn't cite a source for this claim. Rice himself dedicates the book to "the few public servants who tried to protect the public's inderest during the C-5A affair: Ernest Fitzgerald, Senator William Proxmire, Representative Otis Pike, Representative William Moorhead, Richard Kaufman, and Peter Stockton." Fitzgerald is the whistleblower who got fired. So yeah, Roland seems sloppy. Apfelmaische (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hmmm it looks like I was wrong on the misquote of Rivers. Hartung 2011 cites Rice when he quotes Rivers as saying:
Regardless of what the plane costs, we need it, and we must have it.
- and the quote I saw on Rice p88 is:
This is a fantastic aircraft. It is the largest thing ever conceived by American industry. Who can imagine 750,000 pounds flying at over 550 miles an hour at 40,000 feet for 5000 miles? Of course we want to keep the cost down in every way humanly possible. But we've got to have this. It's as simple as that.
- But I see I got the page number wrong and that Rice p86 does say what Hartung and Roland say. So, mea culpa on this point and no prejudice against Hartung. Uhoj (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for double checking! Apfelmaische (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Qualifier for "pejorative"
RfC pejorative was closed with the suggestion that we discuss which qualifier to use in connection with the word pejorative. Here's a list of all known verifiable qualifiers:
- often
- largely
- usually
- mostly
- more often than not
- almost always
- always
- no qualification
Which one should we use? Uhoj (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'd support "often" or "usually". The previous discussion seems to have shot down the "always" variants, "more often than not" is too wordy, and "largely" and "mostly" don't feel as grammatically correct as they could be. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Some scholars suggest
Are there any objections to the following change?
| − | Some scholars | + | Some scholars say that it suggests the existence of a conspiracy. |
The reason for this change is that the sources cited with quotes in the article say that it suggests; they don't suggest that it implies. Uhoj (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)










