Talk:Homelessness in women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] References

I don't have the time to check and complete them right now, but I'm assuming they're books? If so, they should have years specified and be put into a proper reference format. APA seems to be popular here, so that'd be something like:

Butler, Sandra S. (1957). Middle-aged, female and homeless. City: Publisher.

Just a heads-up. :) --FreelanceWizard 22:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute

I'm creating this section because there isn't one. What is the dispute about, exactly? What should be done to fix it? I don't see anything in the article that necessarily screams NPoV to me. It can't be fixed if no one explains it. --FreelanceWizard 22:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This article just seems to state over and over again how men are the problem and always refers to women as the victims. Essentially the bulk of the article is opinion in combination with blanket statements and only the facts that support the author’s ideas. Making this article NPoV would be creating an extension of the page on homelessness referring only to the relation between the homeless populations of men and women. This article could very easily be deleted if you included in homelessness or in homelessness in the United States the percentages of homeless that are female and possibly a blurb on their history. Projectflyingpenguin 01:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with your assessment that this article could be easily merged. The reasons why women (in this case, abused women, which is what this article is generally about) end up homeless and the potential solutions to the problem are related to homelessness, but aren't inherently part of the same article. However, upon reading the article, I can definitely see the issue with the tone, especially in the first paragraph. There's also the matter of replicated information from other articles and no parenthetical citations (but that's a cleanup issue, not an NPoV one). In any event, if facts exist to contradict the author's view, that's great; they should be put in. For the record, I have no vested interest in this article; I just came across it while doing newpages patrol and thought the NPoV tag was curious. I figured it'd be worth discussing to see if we can get some consensus here to get the tag pulled.

I think I'll go poke FCYTravis who put up the tag originally and ask him to make a statement here. That'd probably be helpful to the editors looking at the page. --FreelanceWizard 03:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)