Talk:Extreme poverty: Difference between revisions
noting Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is about to be deleted WP:NONFREE |
Busy Stubber (talk | contribs) →Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg: rmv bot message no longer applicable |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
Well... something has to replace the poetry |
Well... something has to replace the poetry |
||
column... |
column... |
||
==Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg== |
|||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|70px|left]] |
|||
'''[[:Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg]]''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] but there is no [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline|explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in '''this''' Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|boilerplate fair use template]], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with [[WP:FU|fair use]]. |
|||
Please go to [[:Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg|the image description page]] and edit it to include a [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline |fair use rationale]]. Using one of the templates at [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. |
|||
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 --> |
|||
[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:46, 9 July 2007
Weird. So according to this 1$ definition less people will be poor when the US$ devaluates. And over time less people will be poor, simply because of because of inflation. So this definition seems utter nonsense to me. Could someone explain to me why it is not? Or point to some more knowledgeable critique of this definition? G-u-a-k-@ 00:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Though the number of people "earning less than a dollar a day" is a common figure cited when discussing global poverty, the methods by which one might calculate what a dollar is worth in developing countries are several and complex. Certainly the meaning of the phrase will change with inflation, and people who use this metric would have to take that into account.
This article is confused; it uses the term "abosolute poverty" to mean "very bad poverty" when income inequality metrics defines it as a technical term, which means poverty as measured by what you can afford, not by how you compare to others. I think it's best just to merge this article there, if there's anything here worth saving. -- Beland 07:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Absolute Poverty
Someone living beyond the edge of subsistence, whose continued existence is dependent on the active charity of others. May have a religious or world renouncing component if voluntary... User:swhit41
- So if you look on Poverty, you'll see that there are two meanings to the term "absolute poverty", one of which is the percentage of people below some poverty line, and the other of which means "extreme poverty". The first meaning is already discussed at Income inequality metrics, and the remainder could easily be integrated into the discussion of absoluete/extreme poverty at Poverty. If this subject is going to expand into its own article (which could certainly be worthwhile), perhaps it would be best to rename it "extreme poverty" (or similar) instead, to avoid the confusion. -- Beland 03:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Semantic split
OK, I edited the article to clearly differentiate between the two meanings. What I was thinking was that the "In economics" part should move to Poverty line, since in this sense, being in "absolute poverty" means nothing more than being below someone's "poverty line." The material left over fot the section on how the phrase is used to mean "extreme poverty" is barely more than a dictionary definition, and so should either be moved to Wiktionary, merged with Poverty, or both. -- Beland 04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Solution?
I suggest that we reserve the absolute poverty to mean 'below some poverty line.' and transfer the other to the dictionary if not just deleting. Can I just merge the pages? (I am new).
- Extreme poverty is not the same as living below the poverty line.--69.156.204.111 18:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An interesting metric?
How many die of /it/ each day?
I've heard 30,000 a day (every day)
die of /extreme poverty/. Yes? No?
Was it better last week?
Clearly -- the /brave ones/ that die of starvation or simple disease could be considered "extremely poor". (way too poor to read these words...)
There must be a more extreme term for those that die in poverty...
Clearly the number changes, and could be tracked and studied. A regular newspaper feature...
Well... something has to replace the poetry column...