Talk:Charles Booth (social reformer)

Life and Labour study
Report was compiled between 1886 and 1903

Findings: - 30% of the population of London were living in poverty - 45% of old people were living in 'dire poverty'- hyperlink this to dire poverty article - poor people were often too ill to work - unemployment was often beyond the control of the worker - more detail needed, and do the sam with seebohm rowntree's 1901 report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.36.61 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GB and US vocabulary
I think it's a problem to use a purely American meaning of the word "liberal" in an article about a British person. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Charles Booth (social reformer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://archives.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/dispatcher.aspx?action=search&database=ChoiceArchive&search=IN=MS797
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209112932/http://mubs.mdx.ac.uk:80/Staff/Personal_pages/Ifan1/Booth/ to http://mubs.mdx.ac.uk/Staff/Personal_pages/Ifan1/Booth/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041109034429/http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk:80/cucr/pdf/gidley.pdf to http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/cucr/pdf/gidley.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Booth (social reformer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140223205901/http://www.thringstonestandrews.co.uk/ to http://www.thringstonestandrews.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"35% were living in abject poverty"
"This research, which looked at incidences of pauperism in the East End of London, showed that 35% were living in abject poverty – even higher than the original figure." It is not clear that this statement is justified by Charles Booth's work, or represents what he himself said.

Because it's hard to find an online, public domain version of Booth's book, from now on I shall use a review which is, and quotes from it.

His claim about the 35% was:"Grouping the classes together, A, B, C, and D are the classes of poverty sinking into want, and add up to 314,000. or 35 per cent. of the population; while E, F, G, and H are the classes in comfort rising to affluence, and add up to 577,000, or 65 per cent. of the population (p. 62)."

Those classes represented very varying degrees of poverty. They ranged from "The lowest class of occasional laborers, loafers and semi-criminals" (Class A) to "Small regular earnings" (Class D).

To the best of my knowledge – I could be wrong about it – Booth never claimed all of those classes lived in "abject" poverty: itself an undefined, rhetorical expression. What he actually said was this: "The poor (C and D) are those whose means may be sufficient, but are barely sufficient for decent independent life. (p. 33.) Though they would be much better off for more of everything, they are not "in want." They are neither ill-nourished nor ill-clad, according to any standard that can reasonably be used. Their lives are an unending struggle and lack comfort, but I do not know that they lack happiness. (p. 131.)"

We may argue whether people who are neither ill-nourished nor ill-clad according to any reasonable standard, and are not in want, can be said to be living in abject poverty. The point is that Booth himself did not say so. Hence it is wrong to attribute the statement to him.Ttocserp 11:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)