Talk:Poverty–industrial complex

Projects
How is this an "anti-war" article? --Joujyuze (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:Bhagya sri113 I Think Joujyuze is right. I am not sure how topic of 'Poverty industrial complex'  would be part of    and  ; So I am removing the same being bold. May be some other user can take a call to review if at all these two projects are relevant   in the list and then let them put that back if needed. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology 220A
— Assignment last updated by Spatton27 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Edits coming!
Hi! I'll be adding some edits and additional content to this page in the next week as part of a Wiki Education Foundation course. I look forward to receiving your feedback! Spatton27 (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent reverted edits
Most of the problems with these edits were the Original Research. WP:OR But much of the added content is not related to PIC but rather poverty in general: for example, the statement: "While supporters of work-requirements argue that these incentives are beneficial to help families get an education and gain employment, opponents question whether these incentives are actually lifting people out of poverty or simply getting people off of welfare." has nothing to do with the PIC concept. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Avatar317. Can you please help me understand why you removed all of the added content?
 * First, I'm not sure what was removed because it was considered original research. A majority of the citations added came from peer reviewed books and journals.
 * Second, you mention some of it is not relevant to the PIC. Some of the information was background information to help people understand the terms used. If that is not relevant or helpful, could those sections be removed without removing the entire thing? There was a lot of relevant content added that provided examples of the PIC.
 * I appreciate your help. Spatton27 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for removing the entire thing; I simply don't have time to pick through all of that and fix it; I would say that about 25% of that was good information which could be re-added.
 * Here are some specifics:
 * If a source doesn't mention the term "Poverty industrial complex" than it is disallowed WP:OR to include that here. One concept that I think even experienced editors have trouble understanding is the WP:SYNTH policy. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."
 * From your first edit:
 * These two paragraphs: "The term industrial complex originated with former President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his last speech before leaving the White House...." are barely relevant to this article, and would be better left out other than a link to industrial complex. And unless sources relate Eisenhower to the PIC than his picture doesn't belong here either.
 * The paragraph before it is good, and could be re-added.
 * Second edit:
 * First and second paragraphs is (background on poverty) is irrelevant to THIS article, that info would/could be in the Poverty in the United States article.
 * The third and fourth paragraphs are Original Research unless the source mentions the term PIC, which it doesn't appear that they do.
 * Other comment:
 * I believe that part of the confusion here may also be that the term: "Poverty industrial complex" is a bit of a conspiracist term, like the "military industrial complex", in that people wouldn't say: I'm part of the PIC, or the MIC. It is used to criticize organizations that are not liked.  How about NON-PROFIT, but non-government agencies, that aid the poor, are they included in the PIC?  It is not universally recognized that every NGO that tries to reduce poverty is part of the PIC.
 * Hopefully that's of some help. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, what I mean by my last "Other comment" is that any nuclear power plant is acceptable to list in the List of commercial nuclear reactors. No one would contest that they are a nuclear power plant.  But WITHOUT A SOURCE saying that some agency (Jane's-for-profit-Poverty-Aid) is part of the PIC, you cannot say that Jane's-for-profit-Poverty-Aid is part of the PIC. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for clarifying some of your concerns. I want to follow up on some of them and discuss them further.
 * First, removing the entire thing seems to go against Wikipedia's policy to make small changes. The policy states: Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. To remove the entire thing because you don't have time to review it doesn't seem fair to the person who spent a great deal of time creating the article to begin with. It seems that respectfully editing the article should take time as well.
 * Second, I can't find anywhere on the No Original Research page that says a source has to specifically include the title of the page. The rule says, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." If I missed something, please point out to me where in the rules it says the source has to include the specific term.
 * I understand that I provided too much background information when discussing some of the concepts. I do think understanding the etymology of the phrase is important (and it's included in the article you reverted back to without any citations!). But I completely understand that I provided too much context, and I am happy to remove some of the background information on the Military Industrial Complex and poverty in general as you suggested and link to the page instead when I repost.
 * Finally, I'm not sure that I understand your final "other comment" and why it is relevant that you personally view the PIC as a conspiracist term. There are lots of industrial complexes listed on Wikipedia. Additionally, I don't think I say anywhere in the article that every NGO that tries to reduce poverty is part of the PIC. That is not my intention at all and if I do say that somewhere, please point it out so I can remove it. I do, however, name several examples that OTHER people have described as part of the problem with the privatization of social services.
 * Thanks for discussing! Spatton27 (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, your edits were MAJOR changes to the article. Did you look at the change in article size?  To be blunt, on Wikipedia, WE DON'T CARE how much time and effort you put into creating content; if it is poor content than we don't want it here.
 * If you were to add one paragraph at a time, that would make it easier to remove the problematic ones and give a reason for each, but you added many paragraphs all at once in huge edits.
 * In other points: as I said earlier: One concept that I think even experienced editors have trouble understanding is the WP:SYNTH policy.  Yes, there is no explicit rule that a source should contain the exact phrase of the article title, but it is generally an easy check against this type of SYNTH you appear to be doing with this statement: "I do, however, name several examples that OTHER people have described as part of the problem with the privatization of social services."  - Problems with privatizing social services are not always part of the PIC, they are simply: Problems with privatizing social services.  A PIC would by definition involve the feedback loop talked about in industrial complex.  That's why you need sources that say how/why THOSE SPECIFIC Problems with privatizing social services are part of the PIC. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By definition, the PIC IS problems with privatizing social services. The feedback loop that is identified in the article is that these companies make a significant profit off of social services, so what motivation do they have to reduce the need for social services? I'm not sure how that could be articulated more clearly and I'm not sure that we are going to agree on this, so I have requested a third-party review on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. WP:3O Spatton27 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: @ Avatar317 & Spatton27, I came here from WP:3O, since no one has taken up the request so far I forwarded  as input request to contributors of the article Industrial complex since I thought that users contributing to Category:Industrial complexes would be better placed to review and comment.&#32;Bookku    (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I came here as the result of a WP:30 request. My question is, do the sources mention the PIC explicitly and tie something to it? Yes, it may be included. Otherwise, it's probably original research. In the example discussed above ("While supporters of work-requirements argue..."), I checked the source, and while it does mention "the welfare-to-work industrial complex" in passing, the source doesn't connect it to the content cited to the source. The connection is to the profit motive of private companies that profit from welfare to work programs, not to the pros and cons of welfare restrictions. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Edits - The Witches (novel)
User Nyxaros has continually reverted reference edits I have made in reference to the Subject work, even though I have used proper references. The references I provided were in regard to audiobook editions of the Subject work. TonyPS214 (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @TonyPS214 You have placed your comment on an irrelevant talk page to your concern - and it is not likely to be addressed on this talk page. I suggest you post this comment on Talk:The Witches (novel). &#32;Bookku   (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you; my error.TonyPS214 (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)