Talk:Poverty

Template:Vital article

Editing Done to Remove Overlaps

The Poverty and Poverty reduction articles overlap in much of the strategic information presented in the reduction page. Therefore, the section on poverty reduction on the Poverty page will be shortened substantially to simple summaries of each topic area in order to remove the repetition of these sections. - Valerie.H.Le (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Poverty is often understood to be an essential element of renunciation in religions such as Buddhism (only for monks, not for lay persons)

This is not true it is simplicity that is an essential element to renunciation not poverty.Ask any Buddhist monk. They'll laugh if you say that poverty is an essential element because then it is obvious that all the poor people would attain nirvana easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.68.54 (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Using minimum resources for survival (with own wish) is different then living with no resources. Many saints (beggars in some term) choose this way to live and many will be surprise to know that those people (who choose that kind of life) are many times successful people in economic terms.

File:The children - victims of adult vices (poverty).JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The children - victims of adult vices (poverty).JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The children - victims of adult vices (poverty).JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

all maps are outdated!

all maps are between 2000 and 2006 and we are in 2012!!! how wikipédia want to be a example with articles so wrong!!!!the modern world change fast and 6 years from 2006 until 2012 too much things has changed wake up !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.110.105.75 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, please go ahead and fix them. However you should consider that surveys such as censusses are generally only done once a decade in first world countries, in poorer countries such information could easily be even older than that. Roger (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes to definitions of Poverty and child poverty

Definition of Poverty

I'm sorry to say I think the word poverty has been hijacked for political ends in the last few years. This is fine as long as it is identified. Poverty to most people means absolute lack of goods, food,, clothes - everything. This needs to be differentiated from the political poverty which is defined by some interanational organisations as 60% of the mean wage. This leads to bizarre situations where some people can have everything they want, never have to work and be extreamly wealthy compared to people in other countries yet be considered to be in relative poverty according to the formula. This needs to be more clearly explained. People need to know which poverty your talking about - real poverty or some politically motivated formula.

1. The Merriam-Webster dictionary that is spread all over Wikipedia is a marketing tool primarily and not a respectable dictionary. This is a separate issue that needs to be addressed elsewhere. I keep getting asked by it to take out a payment plan whenever I click on its link.

2. I was disappointed with the Merriam-Webster definition of poverty for the following reasons :

   a. It does not concur with the gold standard definition as produced by the Oxford University Press dictionaries.
   b. The definition it uses is highly subjective - using the work socially acceptable as the quantifier.

The definitive source on language is the Oxford University Press Dictionaries, they are trusted around the world as the definitive source on the English language and the first point of reference. Drawing on the largest language research programme in the world – and more than 150 years of dictionary-making experience.

The standard defintion of poverty as a noun according to the Oxford University Press Dictionaries are : Definition of poverty in English:

noun [mass noun] 1. The state of being extremely poor: thousands of families are living in abject poverty 2. The renunciation of the right to individual ownership of property as part of a religious vow. 3. The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount: the poverty of her imagination.

The only one relevant to us in this context is number 1. For further guidance we can examine the Synonyms:

Synonyms penury, destitution, indigence, pennilessness, privation, deprivation, impoverishment, neediness, need, want, hardship, impecuniousness, impecuniosity, hand-to-mouth existence, beggary, pauperism, straitened circumstances, bankruptcy, insolvency; Economics primary poverty rare pauperdom.

It can be seen from these Synonyms that the political or academic definition can be quite far removed from the official/standard definition.

I propose changing the definition to the Oxford University Press Dictionaries as they are more reliable and of higher quality. I also propose explaning more clearly what the reason is for using the terms absolute or relative poverty are.

Relative poverty has been challenged by Joseph and Sumption (1979). They argued that “a person who enjoys a standard of living equal to that of a medieval baron cannot be described as poor for the sole reason that he has chanced to be born into a society where the great majority can live like medieval kings (1979: 27).” Still, the term relative poverty has been widely used in the UK and other countries. Joseph, Sir Keith and Sumption, J. (1979) Equality. London: John Murray.

Any comments please ?

User : People1750

It was mentioned on the Radio Four programme Today on June 14 2012 that the government in the United Kingdom are considering changing the definition of child poverty. If there are any developments here, we can keep an eye on them to help to update the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Homeless in United States graph

I had removed the graph once because the site link was broken. Now that site is working and therefore I am fine with it. I have clarified, for international context, what the term homeless includes in the United States per McKinney–Vento Homeless Act (the cited source confirms on page 86 that this is indeed the definition used). This definition is not the same in European Union, UNICEF / WHO / UN and per laws of individual developing countries. In addition to the graph, some more text in the sub-section to explain the situation and trend would be helpful and welcome. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Agricultural subsidies

One major issue that contributes to poverty are agricultural subsidies. One thing the WTO may wish to implement in the Doha rounds is making the use of agricultural subsidies for any country illegal in its entirety, or equalising them (rather than just lowering them). At present, each country subsidises his agricultural (or primary) sector by a country-specific percentage of the GDP. Developed countries subsidise their agriculture much more than developing countries, giving developed countries a unfair advantage. This is especially tragic as a far fewer percentage of the country's population in developed countries work in the primary sector than in developing countries. In addittion, it can also be considered unfair to the people in this developed country working in the secundairy and tertiary sector (as they are not subsidised). If the agricultural subsidies of all countries would be equalised, or scrapped in their entirity, this unfair advantage would disappear, and food would globally become more costly (which also reduces food waste).

add in article 109.130.177.248 (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Images from East

An IP from Philippines deleted an image of poverty in Philippines and was reverted. The IP did not explain why he deleted the image but there is no doubt that he/she was offended by it. Is there something wrong with the images in this page? Kiatdd (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Health issue?

Is the phenomenon of financial worries putting a severe burden on one's mental resources a health issue? The problem simply disappears when people no longer have reason to worry; it is not like some ailment or disability (unless you think that not being able to run while shackled qualifies as a disability). I think it is strange to put this under the heading of Health.  --Lambiam 21:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Political bias in article introduction

This sentence "The supply of basic needs can be restricted by constraints on government services such as corruption, tax avoidance, debt and loan conditionalities and by the brain drain of health care and educational professionals." implies that the supply of basic needs is provided solely through government services. At the very least it should include restrictions caused by governments (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_ceiling#Real_world_examples) in order to remain neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.248.11 (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply that. My ability to become fifty feet tall is constrained by my human genes; it is also constrained by basic physics, as bipeds can't grow that tall. Moagim the Horned (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It does imply that because it excludes other/alternate possibilities, like restrictions on government improving a state of poverty. I understand that this statement is not necessarily wrong, and therefore should not necessarily be deleted. But if it is included, then additional information should be included. I would add it, but I am not allowed since I have not done enough editing, and apparently my account was never set up by Wikipedia anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.248.11 (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Purchasing power parity

It is very important that discussions of international poverty lines stresses that they are given at PPP. The thing that stays the same is the amount of real goods and services buyable with the money in the domestic market, not the amount buyable with the money anywhere. People below the World Bank poverty line are living with a level of real consumption below that of a person in the USA living on $1.25/day.

Please be very careful to retain this information in the article. Moagim the Horned (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Income packaging / survival strategies

Hi, I'm interested in seeing Wikipedia coverage of the concept of "income packaging," defined by Hetling, Kwon, and Mahn (2014) as "piecing together cash and non-cash resources from a variety of sources... a common financial survival strategy among low-income [people]" (from abstract). Looking for feedback if this should be a subheading within the main poverty article or a separate article? You can reply to me here or post on my (talk) page if you have thoughts! Much appreciated. Melody.waring (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Death statistics (in "Health" section)

The following sentence starts out the section discussing health implications in poverty:

"One third of deaths – some 18 million people a year or 50,000 per day – are due to poverty-related causes: in total 270 million people"

To what the does the "in total 270 million people" refer? I checked the citations for the next sentence, but none seem to explain (though I will admit I don't have access to one of the 3 sources I checked and a second reference is a 385-page document that I didn't read in full). Thanks. El piel (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

the 270 referred to malaria which is covered later. Not deaths, I removed it Jadeslair (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing to introduction

I removed the following paragraph for the following reasons. The first and second sentences seem to jump into an analysis of causes with no context. The final three seem to be addressing government efforts to address poverty, again, without context or introduction. For example, there is no discussion of the role of an individual's work or education, just government amelioration. finally, the paragraph is in awkward English ("interference in society"?).

After the industrial revolution, mass production in factories made production goods increasingly less expensive and more accessible.

Of more importance is the modernization of agriculture, such as fertilizers, to provide enough yield to feed the population.

Responding to basic needs can be restricted by constraints on government's ability to deliver services, such as corruption, tax avoidance, debt and loan conditionalities and by the brain drain of health care and educational professionals. Strategies of increasing income to make basic needs more affordable typically include welfare, economic freedoms and providing financial services. Poor people have less access to health and education. They also face malnutrition, hunger and have little or no interference in the society. '--

Avocats (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, all new topics on the talk page go on the bottom, where I now brought it, not the top, where they might get missed. Sure, the last two sentences can go. But the rest are a needed summary of major sections of this article. JustBeCool (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Graphs in section "Wealth concentration"

I had to remove the two graph images used as figures in Wealth concentration because there was no sources cited or explanation given for how the data in the graphs was from.

If these graphs are relevant, I encourage someone to create new ones using precise data and also including reference to the data on the image page. We should be very careful to not include unsourced material.

58.109.94.165 (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)