Talk:Poverty/Archive 1

Things to do?

Improvement Drive: Jan 2007

The article Grameen Bank is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you want to support the article, you can vote for it there.--Fenice 06:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Just added it again... Please vote. futurebird 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

External links cleanup

I've removed most of the external links, as Wikipedia is not a links directory (see also external links guidelines). I've created a new section in the "see also" section to link to articles on Wikipedia about specific organisations. This means that only organisations that are notable enough to have an article of their own on Wikipedia are linked to. The links I have left are to the dmoz directory, another portal/directory that seemed to have information from a variety of sources. Please discuss here before adding any new links, or they could get removed. Thanks, Petros471 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope we'll keep this section in good shape.futurebird 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Things to add?

poverty cycle?

There is no mention of the poverty cycle playing a part in ... poverty. Or even formally stated, a "sociological" cause in causing poverty. Poverty breeds poverty in a quid pro quo economy. I just happened to request an elaboration be put here because the article on Anarcho-Communism needs it as it discusses the subject as a solution to solve poverty (because it links to a non-existent article named the poverty cycle). Now, if it was included in this article, I could simply change it, rather than having to create a totally new article. -- Natalinasmpf 20:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Live Aid II

Should Live Aid II (http://live8live.com/) be mentioned?

No. futurebird 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Annan quote

The above is way too long but there is a Nelson Mandela quote about poverty being unnecessary... anyone agree Mandela is important enough to get included in this article?--BozMotalk 07:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

India

I must admit I don't know what all of these items about India are getting at. Do people want to change parts of the article? What is the point here? futurebird 20:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

One third or over 200 Million People of rural India lives on Rs 12.00 (and One US Doller= about 48.00 Rs.)

<<Removed copyrighted text added by User:Vkvora2001.>> — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What a poor knowledge of copyright? NSSO

Let the economy expand, and pretty soon you won't have that kind of poverty. Isn't Capitalism grand ? :-) Dullfig 04:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. I guess India will have to destroy more working rights, destroy wages to keep down labour costs, and implement even more deregulation to obtain that strange chimera called "investment". Globalization is a race to the bottom. --Lobizón 14:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but living in Argentina couldn't possibly give you a perspective on what a true capitalism can do for a country. Dullfig 17:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! What an incredibly ignorant and elitist thing to say!

Actually, as a person from a country that has seen great socioeconomic highs and lows, and a very large array of different economic policies, from keynesianism to twenty years of free market policies, I think I have a better perspective than you about what capitalism can do to a country.--Lobizón 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Indian Poors sacrifice their children for Prosperity.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=79072

Parents sacrificing sons to be prosperous

Press Trust of India

Posted online: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 at 1643 hours IST

Baripada (Orissa), January 3: Lured by promises of prosperity, a couple has allegedly sacrificed their two sons in Orissa's northern district of Mayurbahanj Padmalochan Gan and his wife Tuni had been advised by a 'tantric' to sacrifice their sons Harish (9) and Dipu (7) and hold a puja to set themselves on the path to prosperity, police said on Wednesday.

The couple sacrificed their sons at their home at Tilapada village, about 55 km from here, after observing some rituals in the presence of the tantrik, identified as Jagannath Tudu, police said.

Though the incident had occurred about a week ago it came to light only this morning, when the foul smell emanating from the decomposed bodies alerted the local people.

They found the bodies of the two boys and informed the police, which have arrested the couple.

The tantrik is absconding.

The couple also has a two-month-old daughter, who had been spared, police said.

vkvora 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country for kids

In New Delhi, a woman wields a pickaxe on a footpath maintenance project while her husband rests and her baby sleeps

• http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=72099

vkvora 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: I commented out the copyrighted news story pasted here verbatim by Vkvora2001 (talk · contribs). The news paper website explicitly mentions that the news is copyrighted. --Ragib 05:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Poverty in India

The high level of corruption found in government offices in India, including the police and judicial services largely affects the poor, director of the Tamil Nadu state judicial academy S Vimala said on Tuesday 7th November, 2006. vkvora 15:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Poverty and Hunger

There are many Hungry poors in Indian subcontinent than African subcontinent and India is on top. Border of Pakistan and India (near Punjab, Rajasthan, Kutch) is waste land but Indus Sindhu river pass through this land. Land is plain in surface and can be converted in green belt. Reader of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia are requested to find out some solution to eradicate the poverty in Indian subcontinent. vkvora 03:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition

Poverty

Im sorry but...wht does poverty mean to you ??... not wht the definition says but wht do u say ?? wht do u think it means?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.134.31 (talk • contribs)

---

A person living in this condition of poverty is said to be poor.

The poor comes to live in a state of poverty because society has pressured them to be so. A family of limited resources living in a remote mountain village in a "third world" country like...example the Philippines...will easily classify as being "poor" by today's "first world" standard. They are not necessarily living in a state of poverty. But this same family, when overtaken by urbanization, becomes impoverished when they are marginalized by society itself especially if their government is insensitive.

---

there is no mention of relative and absolute poverty here. this needs a bit of tidying. and no mention of any other wikipedia pages under a "See Also".

POV issues

What is the USA doing?

basically my views on poverty are simple...what is america doing about it? they are spending loads of money on those troops in Iraq, when they could be spending all that money to the people in Africa because the poverty over there is shocking! other countries are doing their bit, i live in New Zealand and we are always trying to get more money for the people in Africa, WHAT IS WRONG WITH GEORGE BUSH!????

---

America donates, however economically and politically there isn’t an easy answer. Throwing money at Africa may alleviate some problems and make us feel better, but it won’t solve the problems. Warlords and the like can simply steal much of the money, but even if it all gets to Africa, it won’t do as much as people think. The amount of money that Live 8/Live Aid raised for example, is like putting a band-aid on a broken dam to fix it.

To the person with views on poverty that "are simple..." and "what America is doing about it", your opinion is poor and you obviously have a simple-minded anti-American view? Why target America? America certainly gives much more than others. In 2004, America provided 35% of the worldwide relief aid! Why is it always America? 80% of Americans belong to a voluntary association, $240 billion was donated in 2003 by American individuals and "EVIL CORPORATIONS" to charitable causes, and 75% of households in the US report charitable contributions. Privately, Americans give at least $34 billion to foreign countries overseas. 73% of Americans make charitable contributions in 2004 compared to 44% in Germany, and 43% in France. Average sum of donation for 2004 was $851 per American, $96 per French, $120 per German. In 2004, 49% volunteed in some program, compared to 13% Germany and 19% France. American paid 17% of contributions out of 184 countries that form the World Bank for assistance to debt relief for developing countries in 2004. American held 17.5% of the total 184 contributions for financing general support through the IMF. The US annulled $14 billion in foreign debt from the 80's to 1995. $200 million given to Tsunami aid... America has rid the world of Nazism, assisted Europe in two world wars, kept the communists from entering Europe, and as usual, America gets accused of "not giving enough". America's contributions to other countries do not even compare! Furthermore, there have been trillions and trillions of dollars given to Africa already with little change. Your "simple solution" is too simple to understand the nature of those economies. Throwing money does nothing. It feeds people for one day, and they will still have nothing to eat the next. Your "solution" is like a childish plan to simply have the rich nations give money to the poor nations and all will be okay. It doesn't work that way. Besides, if America's wealth was not to exist, the aid that has already been given to African nations would have not been given. America's wealth is a good thing because it means that America has money to give. And it does! Other countries have perverted their own economies with socialism and communism and have no money to help themselves? Is that better? No! Because America has pursued its own wealth and created a powerful economy, it can now give more than other countries (which it does). Now, if other countries have not pursued their communistic/socialist economies, they might have had more to give. Why don't you concentrate your frustration on actual problem countries like countries which do not allow women to work or drive cars, or countries which shoot you in the head if you don't support the leader. Why is it always America? And furthermore, in the long run, Iraq will be a democratic/capitalistic society... economically better off than it was during Saddam's rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Futurebird (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Too left wing

This article goes on and on about aproaches to end poverty that are mainly put forward by the left. Things like "affordable health care", "afordable housing" are leftist ideas. The country with the least amount of poverty (USA) is the most capitalist one. A case could be made that countries that come the closest to a true laissez-faire captialism are the ones with the least poverty. But no where in the article is a compelling case made for that point of view. the POV tag may be in order here... Dullfig 21:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps those solutions (affordable housing, health care) are POV but they are specific ideas relating to specific problems of poverty and therefor pertinent I think. The proposal you put forward, "laissez faire capitalism", is a rather high level solution with less immediate or specific results, and seems much less useful in the near term. If, say, you could add specific "right-wing" programs to offset the "leftist" ones you mentioned, I think it would be helpful. If the general "right-wing" view is that all specific remedial programs by government are bad, it's hard to fault the inclusion of the "left-wing" programs merely because they address the immediate symptoms. I'm not trying to be offensive: this is an honest suggestion on how to include differing views on the subject. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, there is the sugestion for example, that inequality can be fixed by progressive taxation, etc. I'm sorry, but inequality is not the same thing as poverty. That is, dare I say, a marxist idea (Marx himself proposed "progressive" taxation). Progressive taxation is not about helping the poor, it is about soaking the rich. I don't even know why it is mentioned in an article about poverty. Dullfig 03:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your last phrase is a clear example of a POV view. According to left-wing, centrist and keynesian ideas, progressive taxation *is* about helping the poor, since it helps to redistribute wealth in an economy and allow the middle and poor classes to have more money to save and start their own bussinesses. This, in the long run, stimulates the economy and helps to ease poverty. See the New Deal.

As a side note, earlier you said that "a case could be made that countries that come the closest to a true laissez-faire captialism are the ones with the least poverty..."

But you forgot to mention that the richest nations tend to become more liberalized only after they have become wealthy. As economist Ha-Joon Chang noted, most, if not all, of the modern world powers used tariffs and protectionist measures to develop their economies, and only advocated free-market ideas once they were fully developed. (or "at the top of the ladder"). Haiti has also been a free-market state for the past 15 years, but I don't see much development there.

--Lobizón 13:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Other approaches

This section is one leftist idea after another, presented without balance, and without reference material. It desperately needs clean up, and de-pov'ing, please. Dullfig 03:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Right Wing Views?

Isn't it a bit biased to say the right attributes poverty to lazy people? Any proof?

Because it's listed as one of three possible views a right-winger might have, I don't think it's necessarily POV. But the wording could be seen as inflamatory, so an alternate wording might be preferable if one can be found. Or perhaps some clarification that even those who see poverty as sometimes being caused by laziness acknowledge that there are other causes as well. --Icarus 05:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I tend to disagree. The words "often" and the lack of alternatives provided does make it seem biased. "Often" means a significant amount denoting that it is worthy of attention. As someone who is right-wing myself, I can immediately spot that the person who initially wrote the sentence about the right-wing view is not someone who is right-wing. Thus, it cannot represent the right-wing viewpoint and should not do so. A clarification that "even those who see poverty as caused by laziness acknowledge other causes" also makes it inaccurate because the wording still asserts that laziness is thought to be the major cause; it isn't. All of this is being written on the assumption that right-wingers see people in poverty as being lazy. This is not true and whoever suggests that is employing beliefs based on stereotypes. To clarify (and I speak from a right-wing perspective), poverty (as itself in general) is not caused by laziness and hardly any right-wing person actually thinks so. The "laziness" aspect of poverty refers to the flaws of the welfare system and the economic discouragement from engaging in production due to any increased reward/compensation for "non-work". If one is paid a sum equivalent to $5 per hour for not working and $4 per hour for working, one will chose not to work. This is not "laziness" attributed to an economic class. It's "laziness" attributed to the human nature of selecting the best and easiest scenario in a trade-off situation, resulting in inefficiency in an economic system that allows for such. If anything, people in severe poverty work extremely hard to make very little. No right-winger actually believes that people in Africa are starving because they are too lazy to take care of themselves and otherwise could if they just wanted to. I would put something that truly represents the ring-wing view on the cause of poverty. I'd completely take this line out until the view is completely identified (which I can not even do at this point because I can provide no research on the matter), but generally speaking, the main cause of poverty is an under-developped or mismanaged economy. What causes an under-developped economy is another topic beyond the scope of this discussion. --Dr. Paxl 15:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think this whole article reads very, very right-wing. Ken 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

One attitude and POV that differentiates conservatives from liberals is the belief that we live in a merit-based soceity. Right-wingers maintain that you succeed in life by working hard, doing the right thing, and that resources are spread fairly amongst those who deserve them. When a society is merit-based, promotion and acquisition occurs based on skill, effort, etc. Left-wingers tend to believe that we are not in a merit-based society (and that acquisition of resources is based on race, values, strength, whatever) and that's why we should "share the wealth." Of course, this is just a skeleton-it needs more.--Annalisa579 23:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---

One of the right wing views listed talks about a lack of birth control...?? I thought they wanted to do away with birth control? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youbetterwork (talk • contribs)

I agree. Birth control is a left wing idea. No one on the right advocates birth control. And the section needs cleanup, because the right views poverty first and foremost as a result of structural problems, lack of freedom, lack of economic growth. Personal choices are never the primary reason given. Dullfig 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

mental stunting????

Has no source and is more of an effect than a cause. I will remove it if there are not objections.futurebird 14:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine added a great source for this, so it's not a problem anymore. (I did not know that!) futurebird 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Large scale deletions of sourced materieal

Futurebird, do not detele sourced material, especially without explaining why. Please try to follow standard Wikipeda format, like for the intro.Ultramarine 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is missing. Some things were moved out to their ouwn article.futurebird 20:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. You have for example deleted soured graphs and material regading inequality without explanation. And tags showing lack of sources.Ultramarine 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In short, you have simply deleted without explanation everyhing showing improvements in poverty. Not acceptable.Ultramarine 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I put a note saying that that information wasing being merged out to Measuring poverty? If I didn't I'm sorry. There is a link to the main article in that section. It's mentioned on the todo list too. I didn't intened to cause confusion, but I thought one of the goals of this revision was to reduce the focus on economic poverty and make it more general. That is whay I moved (no deleted) the material.futurebird 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that sourced material belonged in this article. That you simply removed it from the article is not acceptable. I see no reason to moving it to another article. Why did you remove the tags showing no citations? Ultramarine 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You have selectively removed most of the sourced material, including everything showing improvements in poverty, and retaind unsourced speculations.Ultramarine 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the tags showing no citations" I updated the ref links so that they would name the source or show a quote from it. I'm going to take a look and see if there are any mistakes. Please do not revert anything. I will add the material back if it is missing. (but not the section on measuring poverty, I think we need to find out what others think about having so much of the article focus on economic measures) In the mean time, I don't object to adding the graphis back. I just wanted to make it more general and the graphics were (I thought) overwheling the other aspects of the article. But, I don't feel strongly about that, so I leave it up to you.Please read all of the comments on this talk page. I'm doing my best to act in a manner that addresses the issues raised here by others. It's not personal.futurebird 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Explain why you deleted sourced material and kept unsourced speculations. If anything, that is what should be removed. If you feel that there was too much weight too something, you should have added sourced material, not removed sourced material.Ultramarine 21:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is sourced doesn't mean that it belongs in the main article for poverty. I took the most general overview-type statements from the section on "measuring poverty" and removed the specifics. I think it works much more clearly in the new format. Perhaps, we need a new section on "Trends" this would be a place to talk about the current state of the data rather than how it was collected. futurebird 21:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should an article about poverty not discuss what researchers use to measure poverty and the results showing a decrease in poverty? Why should the article instead have long lists of unsourced speculations? Why is the stunted section on measuring poverty placed last' in the article, it should be placed first since it is related to what poverty is which obviously shoudl be first in order to understand the concept.Ultramarine 21:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read everything on the talk page. futurebird 21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please answer my questions, I can see no answers.Ultramarine 21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, Please calm down!! We're on the same side here and I know we can work this out. I may have made a mistake, but let's just work to reintegrate few of the things that you seem to feel are so important. I felt that the article had too limited a focus --did you read "Dr S.Marques' comments: questioning the focus on economic poverty?" on the talk page I thought they were right on target and so did T.C. Craig. That's three of us. That is why I have made these edits. Please do not revert since I have mad a LOT of other changes that improve the footnotes in every section, put the links in alpha order and added sources. Getting sources for the "Cause" and "effects" section is my top concern at the moment. Once we have sourced as much as possible we can justify eliminating some of the more dubious ones, but I didn't want to do that until I and others had the chance to do research. Please stop saying that material was deleted. It was not deleted it was moved. I ought to have communicated more about why, I'm sorry. But, I did not "delete sourced material." futurebird 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you feel something is missing, then you add sourced material, you do not remvoe whatever sourced material the article had. I see no agreement for your extremely large scale changes of the article, that seems be your own interpretation. Again, why did you place the stunted measurement section last. It is obviously related to what poverty is and should be first? Ultramarine 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The data are very specific. Articles should go from the general to the specific.futurebird 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is your own POV. Articles should be presented so that the readers understand what is discussed. That requires explaining what poverty is first which includes how it is measured. Also, that is not more specific than a long list of specific detailed causes.Ultramarine 21:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Making statical measures of poverty the end all-be-all of this article also represents a POV. We need to find a balance. I've added some of the material from that section back to show the current trends. What do you think? Also, did you read "Dr S.Marques' comments: questioning the focus on economic poverty?"futurebird 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The prior version did make any claim that these measueres and research what everything to be said about poverty. But it is a very significant view, since it is empirical research published in peer-reviewed articles, far more reliable than simple opinions. I see nothing in that comment excusing removing the most reliable sources. Again, if a view is missing, add more material, do not delete other views. I have still not seen a goog explanation for why you moved the most reliable material to the end of the article which also makes the article difficult to understand.Ultramarine 21:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Then move it back, I guess. I thought I was improving it. Just don't revert all of the improvement to the footnotes. Could you answer my questions, please: I've added some of the material from that section back to show the current trends. What do you think? Also, did you read "Dr S.Marques' comments: questioning the focus on economic poverty?"futurebird 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I read it. Mostly personal POV without sources. If there is any sourced criticisms of "economic poverty", then that should be added to the article. What most researcher use and how found when doing peer-reviewed research should certainly not be removed.Ultramarine 21:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I will restore the prior version but keep your improvements to references. Any specific objections? Ultramarine 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Sounds good.futurebird 22:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference problems with revert

References Number 4-6 and 19-24 and 27 are all messed up again.futurebird 22:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I will fix it.Ultramarine 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I should do it... it was in sections and more organized. The causes and effects were divided up by things like "material" and "social"-- Just put the "measuring section back the way it was and I'll come in later and set things straight. I still object to having it first, and I object to the level of detail it includes. It makes it seems as if poverty is only a current events issue and it focuses on numbers that not everyone agrees are even good measures of poverty. It is narrow western-focused and limited. But, I'm sick and tired of this debate and I'll just wait for others to weigh in and, until then, focus on sourcing the causes and effects.

I would like you to know that I think you have been a bit disrespectful. I don't think it was intentional, but from my point of view I feel I have been bullied in to accepting something substandard. I wish that I had communicated better earlier in the process. Still, I'm dissatisfied with how this has all turned out. I wish we could simply work together to improve not only this article, but related articles, but it seems you have an agenda here-- good luck with it, I suppose.futurebird 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, if there are sourced criticisms of these economic measures, then add them. However, they are what is used in reaserch, so they should certainly not be removed. The World Bank includes most of the world's nations, and not only the "West". I certainly hope we can work to improve the article by adding more sourced material.Ultramarine 22:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! The world bank has many member nations, but the most wealthy have more infulence. That's simply a fact. By the way. Having "Causes and Effects" in one section made more sense. I think we should only have sourced statements there (it's not THAT hard) and we should put them in one group. It makes more sense becuase the two lists have overlap and there is debate about what is a cause and what is an effect. What do you think?futurebird 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems very reasonable.Ultramarine 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding other measures, see this (pdf): [1]