Talk:Extreme poverty
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Extreme poverty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Criticism
Hi. I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, but there is important new criticism of this metric that claims to measure extreme poverty. It's an arbitrary metric and doesn't seem to account for the difference between people who have a house and land and food in the ground but may average $1.50/day income, versus someone who has nothing but may get $2/day somehow. The former would be much better off, obviously. Anyway, here is some recent critique in this vein, and there is much more. I don't know how to even do links in Wikipedia but maybe this will work. The link should lead to a recent essay by Jason Hickel at https://newint.org/features/2019/07/01/long-read-progress-and-its-discontents
Hope this critique about Enclosure and the nature of what is being called "extreme poverty" and the faults of this metric. Thanks. John.
Just adding to this, many good Wikipedia pages seem to have a section on criticisms of a subject and that seems to be missing here. I actually came to this page to look for such a section and think if someone could add it that would be useful for future readers. Unfortunately, the editing system seems a bit overwhelming to me so I´ll leave it to you smart people :) - UDRF/Jakob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udrf (talk • contribs) 11:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it needs critique. It also makes it seem as if $1.90/day in 2011 is the threshold everywhere, but it's not. It is adjusted (mostly downward) by PPP which is not mentioned clearly in the lede. 216.19.250.77 (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Missing Significant Minor Viewpoints
Coming off of Talk:Maddison Project#Concerning Paper...
There seems to be minor coverage of $1.90 a day criticism from a significant press outlet, The Guardian. (Wikipedia article: The Guardian).
Going through the linked papers leads to [1] and [2]. If it is significant, it's not being represented well. I should also note that the two most significant contributors (on XTools) are single-purpose accounts. Expert needed pronto.
There may be a Wikimedia project involved, but... wp:crystal ball, and we should leave it at that, until we get more information.⸺(Random)staplers 23:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class International development articles
- Low-importance International development articles
- WikiProject International development articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- C-Class Economics articles
- Low-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- C-Class Finance & Investment articles
- Low-importance Finance & Investment articles
- WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- C-Class United Nations articles
- WikiProject United Nations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class Social work articles
- Mid-importance Social work articles
- C-Class Urban studies and planning articles
- Mid-importance Urban studies and planning articles
- C-Class history articles
- Unknown-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles