Talk:Military–industrial complex

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

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

Recently added content

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

I'll go ahead and add it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It is the military-industrial complex that gave rise to several other industrial complexes. The A-IC also traces its coining to the M-IC. All these industrial complexes are the current applications of the M-IC. That said, AIC and other industrial complexes merits discussion within the MIC article. After all, all the information are well-sourced. The discussion on the notability of A-IC can be found in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism § Improving the AIC article. So am retaining these sourced info in the article. Rasnaboy (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion. The relevant debate on notability can be found here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The two topics have literally nothing to do with each other apart from a similar name. This article should not be WP:COATRACKed with completely extraneous material. Parsecboy (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should add Military time, Industrial laundry & Complex partial seizure as well. - wolf 02:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A-IC is not solely about veganism but it’s a topic very similar to the M-IC and in fact is a progeny of the M-IC, similar to prison-industrial complex, entertainment-industrial complex, pharmaceutical industrial complex, etc. These need to have a mention in the article, maybe grouped in a separate section named something like "Development of other similar complexes". If we do not have mention about other complexes, it only means we must add them, not remove the info on the A-IC. Apart from the A-IC being a progeny of the M-IC, most importantly the A-IC and M-IC are linked by the extended development of the complex named the military-animal industrial complex, an anti-war concept of the late-20th century. For example, the following words in Slater and Nocella’s book says the same thing: "The exploitation of animals, argues Colin Salter, is not necessary to military-industrial complexes, but it is a foundational and central element of the military-industrial complex as it actually exists." Bhagya sri113 (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a List of industrial complexes, maybe put a link to it in the "See also" sections of this page as well as all the other entries on the list, and leave it at that. - wolf 05:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Wonder why we are so particular about removing a well-sourced info. Given the fact that the M-IC is the base that gave rise to so many other industrial complexes, I feel we need to have brief mentions about those other complexes, too, such as the politico-media-industrial complex, pharmaceutical-industrial complex, entertainment-industrial complex, prison-industrial complex, and so forth, rather than removing the sourced info on the military-animal-industrial complex. There is a wide scholarly coverage, wide enough to be included as an encyclopedic entry per WP:NOTE, on all these. For example, the book [1] discusses in detail about all these complexes and how they are intertwined. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:Thewolfchild Thanks for creating the list. :) The current addition in the article is not simply about A-IC but how it is linked with the M-IC. Such descriptions are needed for all the related ones within the parent (M-IC) article. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, there is a link under "see also" section and to that "list of complexes", and it is already mentioned in content with other complexes and linked there in part of content according to Steven Best. That is it.93.86.99.45 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That link in "See Also" can be removed when we have it in the text (am removing those). But it's absurd to remove the sourced info just because we have a general link, especially when the info is more pertinent to the topic itself (in this case, the military-industrial complex, the avoidance of war, etc.). The concept is well-researched in the academics, so the addition is not to "promote" the concept as you think, but only to further the topic on hand, viz. the M-IC. What is needed further is the inclusion of the relationship of the M-IC with other complexes, which needs to be done with proper sources. Hope this makes sense now. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That material can be sourced does not mean it needs to be in the article; there's the issue of what WP:WEIGHT we give to different viewpoints. We should not be spreading WP:FRINGE theories, and I've seen no evidence that point you're trying to insert into this article is one that is relatively widely held. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion about the "fringeness" of the concept has already been discussed in the main project page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism § Improving the AIC article). I'm not the only person wanting to add this, as you see in this discussion. We cannot reach consensus just by removing the content while the discussion is still ongoing. IMHO, the content is equally, if not more, about the M-IC itself in a counter perspective (after all, M-IC itself is a counter perspective to wars and other military actions). And that's not the only source that has this viewpoint. Even if you still think it's a "fringe" viewpoint, it has been added only in a section that discusses about other similar views/concepts, not in the lede. Wonder how you think it's of undue weight. Let me not revert this time but would want a sound reason for your opposition. Thank you. Rasnaboy (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the concept of the AIC is fringe, which is what that discussion was about. I'm talking about the connection between the AIC and the MIC being fringe. That one book has been written that does so is not evidence that it's a decently widely accepted concept. A good rule of thumb for stuff like this is, have scholars outside the narrow field of study picked up on the idea? In other words, we as a tertiary source need to reflect what the consensus of secondary sources say, and while you may be able to find one or two sources that say this or that, if it's not a relatively widely held viewpoint, we shouldn't treat it as it is. For us to be able to do so, we'd need to see that the connection between the AIC and MIC has gotten significant traction in the broader academic population.

A perfect example: yes, you can find a small group of scientists who disagree with climate change, but we don't treat their view as equal to the vast majority of scientists who support the concept. And if that group did not have the propaganda machine that is conservative media behind it, we wouldn't talk about it at all. The August Complex fire article doesn't include a reference to Jewish space lasers, after all.

And, yes, we can reach consensus while the material is removed from the article. That is the basic point of WP:BRD. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

...and QUO. - wolf 16:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I get your point well, and so with the climate example. But the addition isn't opposing the main idea to even call it a fringe but only bolstering it. Similarly, while those who disagree with climate change is opposing the mainstream view (climate change) for no reason other than propaganda (which cannot be given due weightage), the relation between M-IC and other complexes only furthers the concept of M-IC. They are not opposing the idea from a fringe position but only adding to the concept. It's not a fringe, at least not as much as you call the idea against climate change. That's a world of difference.

And I think there's a difference between saying "We cannot reach consensus just by removing the content" and saying "we cannot reach consensus while the material is removed". Rasnaboy (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you understand my point? It doesn't matter at all whether something is opposing a mainstream view or not. The only thing we need to consider when evaluating whether to include a viewpoint or not is how widespread it is. If there is only a tiny handful of proponents, then it is by definition a fringe viewpoint, and we shouldn't include it. WP:UNDUE addresses this point clearing, stating that:

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."

And so far, all I've seen presented here is a single book. That isn't enough. Parsecboy (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And as further evidence, I found a single review of the book, which doesn't exactly suggest it's made a significant impact in or out of its field. Parsecboy (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I second that. There needs to be wide acceptance and consensus in the academical community and in different fields. We don't promote someone claims, arguing or advocacy. This is not a place for that. 93.86.99.45 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that there needs to be "wide acceptance" or consensus that the view is correct for us to include it, but it does need to have at least fairly significant acceptance. As an example from a field I'm active in, Clay Blair wrote a rather extensive history of the Battle of the Atlantic in the 1990s, and in it, he argued that the German U-boat menace was wildly overblown, and the Germans never had a realistic change at winning the campaign. Had every other scholar basically ignored him, so would we, as it would have been a fringe viewpoint; but since his book was fairly well-received by other historians and prompted a scholarly debate, his views are among several reflected in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

military–industrial–congressional complex

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

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

Needs information about what inspired Ike to talk about it

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

Old source speaking to 'current' attitudes

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

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

MIC being analoguous to East india companies

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

Planning to remove improper "globalize" tag

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

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

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

"Military-industrial complex" does not only refer to the United States. You'll find lots of references to Russia's military-industrial complex, both in Russian and Western sources. There's even the Military-Industrial Commission of Russia. You'll also find lots of references to China's "military-industrial complex". Yet none of this is covered in the article, so the tag is warranted for now. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 08:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I think maybe we could remove the tag if we add a "Usage outside of US" section. But agree this is mostly a US term that folks make analogies too, not really independent of US. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Should be removed. Just in the U.S. in the way how described in the article as kind of special connection and influence. Dragonofthehiddenlake (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)