Talk:Poverty/Archive 3

Adding sub topics about donations and the "charitable culture" around poverty, especially in Western countries.
I suggest adding information about charities and non-profit organizations and what influence they have had on poverty in Western and first world countries. For instance, in Vancouver, the Greater Vancouver Food Bank (GVFB) has served more than two million pounds of food and has served almost 150,000 individual clients from 2021 to 2022 alone. I believe this information among other examples such as homeless shelters and programs should replace the commentary about the industrial revolution, which I believe to be irrelevant especially the part that talks about China's effort to make luxuries such as cars and computers less expensive. This is not relevant to the topic of food and other goods and should be removed.Leosibb4 (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Stealth resectioning
I'd like a third party's perspective on this edit, regarding the difference between the edit summary and the bulk of the change. This is the second time I have reversed this change, and it's been occuring previously too. OAGD-002 Colab Project (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: JMC 440 Research Methods in Public Relations
— Assignment last updated by Ehudson9 (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

History of Poverty? History, conditions of facilitation of Poverty in relation to settled life and civilization and the possibilities, necessities and limitations of civilization in relation to poverty, are questions I brought with me to this article. If that history shows that civilization without significant poverty is rare or non existent or on the other hand not uncommon - recognition of the fact - whatever it may be, would support a better sense of the subject, at least I hope so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.86.146 (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Word Change in Picture Description
There's an artist's rendering of poor Swedes in the article with a description that calls the Swedes a "gang." The word "gang" has negative connotations for U.S. English speakers. We should use the more neutral term "group."
 * That does read badly. Edited. EEng 21:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence
A few days ago the opening sentence read, "Poverty is the state of having few material possessions or little income". This is an oversimplification and in contradiction to the contents of the article itself (especially the definitions of poverty provided by the United Nations, World Bank and the European Union).

It has also been argued by editors that "someone stranded on a desert island would not be said to be living in poverty". This is another oversimplification, but it is still useful to make the point: The statement is true in the sense that provided the person on the desert island was able to make adequate shelter, and get access to sufficient food and water. But it would be false if they could not get access to these things and their health and safety were put at risk due to malnutrition or lack of appropriate shelter. This is another reason why linking poverty to finances is clearly false.

Ultimately the opening sentence needs to match the definition found on the rest of the page, namely pointing out that poverty is either a lack of basic human needs (absolutely poverty) or living below the average standards of your own community (relative poverty). I consider it wrong to state it is a "lack of income or possessions". Owning an iPad does not mean you are not living in poverty if you cannot feed your children. And there have been plenty of times in history where inflation has devalued currency to the point where people have starved, despite ostensibly having lots of money.

In short, financial status or material possessions are not a reliable, or even good, metric to evaluate poverty. It is an issue far more complicated than that. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Everything in the 'Definitions and etymology' section stresses financial considerations. "lacks the financial resources", "not having access to credit", "includes low incomes", "Poverty is measured in relation to the distribution of income". So too must the lead section, since the purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article. All definitions and measures of poverty are bound up in individual finances. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you have deliberately removed context to make your argument that "everything" in the section "stresses financial considerations". Poverty, as I keep saying, and as the article repeatedly stresses, is a complex subject with many factors. It is not to say that all measures of povery are bound up in an individual's finances. Here is the complete section you quote, without edits, context in tact, with commentary from me:


 * Quote: "There are several definitions of poverty depending on the context of the situation it is placed in, and usually references a state or condition in which a person or community lacks the financial resources and essentials for a certain standard of living."


 * Even principal summary of the section states that the definition of poverty changes with context, but that finances are never seen alone and makes the point that finances can be community based. So already we see that the article is not defining poverty primarily by "income", as you argue, but saying they are only one of many different factors.


 * Quote: "United Nations: Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one's food or a job to earn one's living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation."


 * The definition from the United Nations makes only a passing reference to finances in-conjunction with other definitions: Not having access to healthcare or education, not having land to grow food, not having clothing. Again we see the article does not stress financial considerations, but instead places them as one piece in a jigsaw puzzle of other considerations.


 * Quote: "World Bank: Poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being, and comprises many dimensions. It includes low incomes and the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary for survival with dignity. Poverty also encompasses low levels of health and education, poor access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and insufficient capacity and opportunity to better one's life."


 * Likewise, the World Bank's definitions state that poverty has "many dimensions", only one of which is income. They explicitly make the point that poverty encompasses the lack of access to "health and education, poor access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security, lack of voice, and insufficient capacity and opportunity to better one's life". Finances is only one of these things.


 * Quote: "European Union: The European Union's definition of poverty is significantly different from definitions in other parts of the world, and consequently policy measures introduced to combat poverty in EU countries also differ from measures in other nations. Poverty is measured in relation to the distribution of income in each member country using relative income poverty lines."


 * Finally, the European Union's definition of poverty does make finances it's sole metric, however this is noted as being "significantly different" (not least because it only applies to individuals living within developed nations within the Eurozone). It is, in other words, the exception that proves the rule.


 * In short, your argument flies in the face of the article, and the expert bodies quoted within it. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of WP:OR you're applying to get around the plain language of the sources and the rest of the article, which make clear that the primary means to define and measure poverty are based on income. MrOllie (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no original research. It is factually incorrect to say the sources state "the primary means to define and measure poverty are based on income". WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @MrOllie@ThunderPeel2001The current version of the opening sentence includes both the financial and standard of living based aspects of poverty, both of which are included in the United Nations and World Bank definitions (not to mention common understanding of "poverty"). These definitions clearly imply that the "denial of choices and opportunities" and the "deprivation in well-being" are caused by and in part defined by low income. The opening paragraph further clarifies absolute vs relative poverty, in a way that easily follows from the opening sentence.
 * I think the current version of the opening is fine, and I definitely disagree with removing mention of the financial aspect of poverty from the opening sentence. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, I like the first paragraph as it now stands. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Poverty reduction section headings
the TOC structure for the "Poverty reduction" section is laid out with three general approaches at the second level, and specific categories at the third:

Poverty reduction Increasing the supply of basic needs Food and other goods Health care and education Housing Removing constraints on government services Reversing brain drain Preventing overpopulation Increasing personal income Income grants Economic freedoms Financial services Reversing wealth concentration Tax and governance reforms Labor support Direct aid Education Infrastructure

I didn't create that structure, but I tried to follow it when expanding the "Reversing wealth concentration" subsection. I did so because the section as a whole was missing consequentialist approaches prevalent in the literature and in practice. Does it make sense that the specific categories addressing wealth concentration shouldn't be at the same header level as that general approach?

I do agree there is some overlap, for UBI in particular, but there are some subtle differences, for instance between increasing the overall supply of food to a population and direct food aid to individuals, between instituting microloan programs and reducing interest rates for consumer credit generally, and between increasing housing supply and increasing its density and affordability on a per-unit basis. Sandizer (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that there are many ways to structure an article, with no necessarily right or wrong ways. My impression (while I haven't read all of your recently added sources) is that things like education are NOT ONLY a means to reduce RELATIVE poverty by reducing wealth concentration or income inequality, but even a way to help people in extreme poverty, (basic job skills) so I think that most of those sub-categories you added should be higher up, like I changed them to be. --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The categorization of "increasing supplies / increasing income / decreasing inequality" is the cause of some overlap, and may be inferior to listing all of the specific interventions at one level, but it doesn't make sense to do that for some but not all of those categories. There are also some clear flaws, e.g., "reversing brain drain" isn't "increasing supply of basic needs" at all. I'm trying to think of some better top-level categories. Sandizer  (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The subsections above mentioned about increasing the supply of healthcare and education. "Reversing brain drain" is a significant part of retaining healthcare personnel. JustBeCool (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

How is this? (Ordered alphabetically at both levels)


 * Governance: Corporate accountability, Development aid, Good institutions, Increasing economic freedoms, Land reform, Microloans, Providing more financial services, Removing constraints on government services
 * Human development: Early childhood education, Empowering women, Free college, Increasing the availability of health care, Job training and vocational education, Political participation, Reducing workweek length
 * Infrastructure development: Bicycles; Climate change adaptation; High-density and affordable housing; Increasing the housing supply; Public transportation; Water, sanitation, energy, and transportation infrastructure
 * Labor issues: Employment and hiring subsidies, Helping farmers, Increasing wage share of income, Worker protections
 * Population management: Increasing the supply of food and other goods, Overpopulation prevention, Reversing brain drain
 * Social safety nets: Clothing, food, electricity, heating, housing and telecommunication services welfare programs; Debt relief; Income grants; Universal basic income; Universal healthcare
 * Taxation: Payroll tax reduction, Progressive taxation, Wealth taxation

I've included topics from Poverty reduction which we don't already have here but should probably include at least a couple sentences in italics. Sandizer (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't much mind how stuff is ordered (so I won't argue over it) but I think the most intelligent way to order this stuff would be from most IMPORTANT or EFFECTIVE to lesser, in the way that you solve problems by solving the biggest first, but that would also require sources prioritizing poverty responses, which may be very difficult to find.
 * Your choice at least groups things together logically, so I'd support reorganizing the article to that structure. If you do this, can you please move one or two paragraphs per edit, to make it easier to follow than one HUGE re-org.  Thanks! --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not support this proposal as it is proposed right now. If you check the history section, more than ten years ago, the poverty reduction section was not navigable and was becoming increasingly exhaustive similar to the poverty reduction article is right now. This section already has a tag for repeating too much of the poverty reduction article and for not following summary style. The original categorization as explained in the lead of the section of 'increasing supply of basic needs' and 'increasing personal income' I believe helped the structure over the years a lot. Recently, a third subsection of 'reversing wealth concentration' was added which I feel only made things worse and muddied the waters. The section used to be about reducing absolute poverty. Perhaps a solution is to have another section for relative poverty where more of the issue of wealth concentration can be addressed. JustBeCool (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Most impoverished people are poor at the margins. Extreme and moderate poverty are increasingly the minority of those impoverished, so restricting the section to reducing "absolute" poverty is WP:UNDUE here. Anyway, I'll work on Poverty reduction first since it needs help and it seems reasonable to do the WP:SUMMARY article before the section, and then I'll work on a concrete proposal for the section here so there is something substantive to compare. Sandizer  (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * My proposal was for two sections, one dealing with reducing absolute poverty and the other dealing with relative poverty. Taking the recentism bias approach that since absolute poverty is decreasing that this would be WP:UNDUE is not how WP:UNDUE works. Would you want two sections for relative poverty and only one for absolute poverty to balance it out somehow? I see you have made the same layout proposal in the poverty reduction article. I still think the different approaches to relative and absolute poverty need to be separated but, if anything, your layout would rather be better in the poverty reduction article since having seven level-three headers instead of two or three would be cumbersome in a section that already has a tag for not being concise. JustBeCool (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * How would you sort specifics into those two categories? Does education decrease absolute or relative poverty? How about universal health care? UBI? Means-tested direct cash grants? All can do both. As for recentism, the decline of extreme poverty has taken place over decades. Regarding brevity, I suggest trimming the longer sections from this article and moving anything missing from poverty reduction to that article.  Sandizer  (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If you do not want another section for relative poverty, then having a subsection for it within the poverty reduction section isn't any better. Some of the content you added are appropriately sourced and I would like to incorporate those into the existing structure such as universal health care and grants which already had a place in the section before you repeated extra subsections. JustBeCool (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I haven't gotten a reply for two weeks now. I am proceeding with merging what you added into the existing structure. JustBeCool (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)