Talk:Military–industrial complex

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:

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.

— MOS:WEASEL

Uhoj (talk) 17:50, 29 October 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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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?

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)

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)

In this discussion:

• WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Military–industrial_complex (permalink)

of

• Draft:Potential_dangers_(military-industrial_complex)

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)

The excessive spending section is currently being discussed at DRN. Uhoj (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Are there any objections to the following change?

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)