Talk:industrial complex

RFD discussion: June 2017–January 2018
Hello, I tried to create a page for "industrial complex" because on Wikipedia, there is an article about "white savior" under which the term "white savior industrial complex" is discussed. There are a couple of Wikipedia articles, "military-industrial complex" and "prison-industrial complex", that exist. Beyond these, the term "industrial complex" has been appended in other ways as discussed here, which I had included in the Citations tab for justification. It seems appropriate as a dictionary term since there is no real encyclopedic coverage, but there exists a variety of uses of it. What warranted the rather immediate deletion of this page? Erik (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This says, "The suffix '-industrial complex' has become a convenient (and certainly overused) way to describe the meshing of public and private interests, usually in a manner suggesting that profit motivations have trumped rational policy assessments," with a few examples of its use listed. Erik (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I restored it temporarily so that it can be discussed. I agree that it has some issues, not least of which is that the definition is a mix of etymology and usage note, without having an actual definition included. It is also not a suffix. But perhaps it can be cleaned up? The citation is also a mention rather than a usage, which needs to be addressed. I do think it was added in good faith, so merits discussion. - [The] DaveRoss  17:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Please let me know what sources would be ideal to help here. I'm happy to look further. Erik (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dave, your ping didn't work. Anyway, let me copy what I said on my talk-page: "I'm really not sure it is appropriate for Wiktionary. You seem to be supporting a sort of suffix (although your entry didn't say that explicitly), but isn't it rather a case of various blends based on ?" I might add that if it were a suffix, the page title would have to begin with a hyphen. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete if only for the crap so-called definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there anything like "assume good faith" in this particular realm? Why is it exactly "crap" and "so-called"? I am seeing words under Category:English idioms that are less substantial than this. Erik (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've got to agree with User:Erik, that User:SemperBlotto's statement wasn't nice, and was inappropriate especially to whom seems to be a good-faith new user. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good faith doesn't necessarily prevent you from creating crap. I know this well, sometimes create crap in good faith myself. --Droigheann (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @ User:Droigheann But you don't word it that way, especially with new users. Encourage new users to learn further about the system. Using derogatory terms to refer to a good faith entry from a new user is mean, and not only that, but it can lead to new users who could very well one day become essential contributors to the project, feel that they are shunned away and don't come back. you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * New user? Oh, I've forgotten everybody's always sooo polite on Wikipedia ... The way I see it SB & Erik each yapped once, probably on the spur of the moment, and now they have better things to do. And so should the two of us. Pax. --Droigheann (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The concept exists, we just don't happen to be very good at it. The problem with the definition is that it isn't a definition, as was mentioned about by myself and Meta. A definition for this might be something like "a corrupting influence on the government by individuals or companies with a significant financial stake in related legislation". That is certainly not perfect, but it is attempting to describe what the term means rather than the origin of the term or how it is used. Another problem is that the term isn't used (as far as I know) independently of the various specific terms (military-, prison-, etc.). If the term is never independent then it is not worthy of an entry on its own, but should rather exist at each specific use. - [The] DaveRoss  14:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Why does the term have to exist independently? We can set it as "-industrial complex" if needed. Unless suffixes are not allowed? I see that -gate exists. Erik (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Suffixes are OK, if this is in fact a suffix it should be moved to the hyphenated version. The thing is there are lots of words and pairs of words which are common constructions but which are not affixes or terms in their own right. The question here is whether or not "industrial complex" is, in and of itself, a term. - [The] DaveRoss  19:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see why that is uncertain. I would be fine with a move to the hyphenated version. What about this from the book Unwarranted Influence from Yale University Press? Erik (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Those look like they are mostly "mentions" rather than uses. I think my inclination is that this is neither an independent term nor a suffix, but rather a number of snowclone terms of the form X-industrial complex. The industrial complex portion is not idiomatic in its own right, and I don't think that it is a proper suffix. - [The] DaveRoss  20:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Metaknowledge that these all look like blends of military-industrial complex with other terms: it derives from the whole phrase, rather from than from any of its parts. It's kind of like one of those images where someone's head is photoshopped onto someone else's body: the idea is to merge the two identities in incongruous ways, rather than treat the body as a modular piece to be swapped for another. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering all the different kinds of Wiktionary entries, I'm surprised there is no place for this term here in any form at all. I would have thought that a write-up of the very term in a Yale University Press book would be good enough. What kind of real-world use is warranted for inclusion? Erik (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, but move to -industrial complex: Mostly per Erik. I also feel like "Delete because the definition is crap" is a rather specious argument for deletion.  It's a good argument for fixing the definition, though. Pur ple back pack 89   18:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW,, you wanted the definition reworked? I've reworked it. Pur ple back pack 89   19:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We already have military-industrial complex. Therefore, we do not need to re-define it here. "Industrial complex" has another definition, however, which I added. Have a look. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think it's OK as modified. DonnanZ (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the new addition is SOP, and that the restated original definition is wrong. This is not short for military-industrial complex, especially not when used in terms like . - [The] DaveRoss  11:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleted second sense, added and  as derived terms. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 19:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)