Talk:Homelessness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Homelessness, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homelessness article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Older comments

I have updated some of the demographics and other things. I am a researcher in the field finishing my Ph.D. in Social Welfare with a homelessness emphasis. I will continue to clean up the page to reflect the most current research and debate. 66.91.109.66 13:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me that efforts to create accurate homeless statistics come short. Especially considering there are those who do not want to be known as homeless. Misschang, I agree with your point and your quote sounds like it would make a perfect contribution to this article. Piquisito 21:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there has been some discussion about the homeless demographics listed in the article. I feel a bit uncomfortable about those demographics reported, for two reasons. First, there is a huge disparity in the racial demographics reported by the various surveying cities, national reports, Conference of Mayors and independent demographic groups, like the Urban Institute. Because of this disparity, I don't know that such demographics should be reported without resolve. Second, because of the inherent nature of homelessness, homeless demographics are unlikely to be representative of the entire homeless population. There have been several published manuscripts that have discussed the concept of "hidden homeless", those who are not easily observable or surveyed. It is estimated that these hidden homeless are often several types of communities of similar demographics, all unreported. I mention only to highlight the fact that demographic data is, again, often unrepresentative of the actual population. I think we should add a line mentioning this concept, perhaps something along the lines of, "The mobile and often hidden nature of homelessness makes this group difficult to accurately survery, but the following demographics are one of those recently reported." Any opinions? --Misschang 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a few sections, cited what I could. Types of Houselessness was called such because of the discussion here. Additions include small parts to services and a new section called barriers to exit. Piquisito 01:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Did a major overhaul of the causes section. Bulleted points, added more causes, cited additions and found citations for some already there, slapped a [citation needed] onto some other information. If someone could help find those pages it would be great. http://forums.homeless.org.au/showthread.php?p=5998 was a great source. I'll be back later to straighten out some more sections. Piquisito 06:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: "proposed solutions" section = Yes, but it should be on country specific pages as there is a large variation amongst national responses imo.

Shouldn't there be a "proposed solutions" section? 88.108.147.21

I moved:

to Homelessness in the United States as they are only relevant to the USA. Also, fixed the location of images so the page flowed without big gaps in the text.

In response to the social worker posting two down, I would like to start by chipping in my two cents here on the talk page, perhaps to influence the main article in future. I have lived in my bus on the streets moving from parking space to parking space and seem to have gradually gotten the OK from cops, denizens, and government. I just filed my taxes today; and I decided not to use a resident state return and instead used a non-resident return as though I had moved out of state. (The reason for this is the technicality that states resident at such-and-such an address as of 12/31/05 which is not true.) It was a mild winter 2005-2006: I have lived in the bus for just over 11 months. Yet I don't pay rent, and I only get fuel for the bus once every three or four months. I am not involved with DSS; I have a BA; I don't have a job; and I don't hang out with people. I spend much of my time writing. So. I am one of those Home is where the heart is. I don't want to pay rent. I don't want to work either (who does). And I insulated myself well last winter. It feels a bit like a kid; after all there is no real cushion that the corporate health care program provides. I am totally against burning fossil fuels. I don't even use heat on the bus. I sneak in and use facilities when I can in the winter to clean up. I wish there were a way, without getting involved in emotionalism; assumptions; and buddy-buddy with someone, to have a place to shower or use the toilet. (Vis: Are we on good terms today? What suddenly happened? I was counting on this.) I wish there were a community space; and yet I am a snob who doesn't much want to deal with others, and bums in particular can be off-putting. Bottles and cans; smell; and perhaps they want more than a friendship. I wouldn't classify myself as a hippy.

Some have called it an adventure as they talk to me on the street. Perhaps. But I see the apartment, the house as such a stagnant thing. First of all you pay usually $6K/y in rent; and then there's all the utility bills. Great. So you have a home to come to. You slave at work to have the security of an empty box. Then there's the social conundrum: do I stay locked up in this apt by myself or do I invite friends in? Well, the latter certainly is not my style; and so I would rather go to 'social' places and see and be seen, and for me, not have to deal with the faux reality of conversationalism. It's a bit of the wild west, but I am not really a territorial person, and on /that/ subject the idea of owning land goes straight back to the Native American. So why would I want to continue to desecrate their soil.

Perhaps I am not average. Perhaps I have a nicer background; a higher education. I don't really need the comfort of people, and I see even the homeless around here socialize in peer groups. That's not my style. And yet I want to remain 'homeless', because I can simply drive to a different neighbor. I don't have to share walls.

So to amend 'Homeless' as a definition, we need to remove the stigma of marginalization from the outer level, and even government subsistence, and perhaps use that as a subheading. Homelessness may be a philosophical choice by a dissatisfied citizen; or to contrast: it may be that there aren't enough beds. Is homelessness an adventure or to contrast: is a lease or homeownership to be stuck in a rut? Can people perhaps live in their campers year round? I've seem some mighty fine homeless girls. How do they do it? Perhaps networking exists here too. There has /got/ to be a book out there or research on the subject.

What has conservatism or liberalism got to do with it, until the homeless person uses government funding? I don't.

Anyway, go to a soup kitchen and you'll see the demographic. Our soup kitchen is a private corporation which uses donations.

Hi, Someone wrote, I love chicken!!! and I edited it back.

Hi, I'm a Social Worker and admin the international homeless forums and have highlighted this article in that forum (http://forums.homeless.org.au/showthread.php?p=5998) and am asking the mainly homeless or formerly homeless membership to contribute to the article. It would be great to hear from the homeless themselves about this entry, so hopefully it works out.

Can someone provide a link to the unicef statistics for industrialised countries? I think the figure for Australia is grossly short, by about a factor of 5. http://www.homeless.org.au/statistics/houselessness.htm reports the 2001 census finding 99,000 [again here at the ABS http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/DDC8DC3787E2D9FCCA256E9E0028F91E?Open ]. Could the issue be confused by the sleeping rough compared to temporary accomodation?

Surely the only certain thing that can be said about homelessness is that is about not having homes? Should women escaping violent relationships by becoming homeless be condemned? -Adrian

"Home is where the heart is." The only thing that can be surely said about the homeless is that they don't have houses. They do not live in a normative shelter. This is no way means they do not have a home. Many people feel perfectly at home even without a house. ---Darci

Nonsense. Every society and nation has specific ways of *reacting* to homelessness, regardless of causes of it. Those can be commented on here. Also there are UN agreements on rights of children, to shelter, etc., that can be used as a basis for an NPOV analysis. We are not looking only for what is "certain".
Are you being inadvertently ethnocentric? How about nomadic societies and nations? It might be fair to say that every state reacts to homelessness as a problem. My ignorance of non-western cultures in this respect is encyclopedic. Western states tend to have laws against "vagrancy" because non-sedentary people are considered a public safety problem, but non-sedentary ways of life were not considered a public safety issue not so long ago (on the scale of a few centuries). Also, to this day there are large problems accomodating gypsies in many European countries, and this can partly be traced to nomadic/sedentary lifestyle issues.
Am I totally off the wall, or could some of the resident anthropologists/sociologists link this article to the relevant content? -- Miguel

Another ultra-liberal threatened to censor this page by protecting it, a tactic that was used against my fact-seeking before. This is a perfect example of the relation between liberalism and totalitarianism. -- JoeM

So you're saying that people who believe in Free Speech, advocate freedom of choice and fight to stop people having other beliefs forced upon them are the totalitarians, as opposed to those who believe that it is a moral sin to deviate from the acceptable social template? Conservatism isn't about preventing people from having their own beliefs. You're not even advocating the conservatists, you're making them look arrogant and authoritarian. You, in your super-conservatist ranting, are setting yourself up as a fascist, insisting that you are correct and that there is no other possible way of looking at the subject. You say 'ultra-liberal' as if it were an insult. Your 'fact-seeking' sounds to me like a synonym for propaganda tactics. People like you, people who confuse conservatism with Nazi-like forced obedience and absolutism, do not deserve a place in society. -- CHEESEFACE
Your 'fact-seeking' is POV rhetoric - Vaughan 18:25, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a conservative Republican. There is a proper way to put your facts into this article while maintaining a neutral point of view. The way you've done it ain't it.Ark30inf 18:29, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tell me one thing in this article that isn't common sense and FACT. You liberals just want to censor me because you know that you can't argue against my additions with fact and common sense arguments. That's why you want to censor it rather than rebut it. My comments to the conservative Republican on this page: let me see you do a better job. You know I'm right. -- JoeM

So liberals are the ones doing the censoring, are they? You ultra right-wing fanatics spreading propaganda are the ones allowing freedom of speech/opinion, are you? I suppose that 'fact and common sense' are your synonyms for angry ranting. -- CHEESEFACE
Thats your problem. Whether you and I know you are right is meaningless in an encyclopedia article. It is up to the reader to form his or her own opinions on, for instance, homeless advocacy being a fraud, based on the facts in the article. Neutral facts on which you base your opinion are valid for an encyclopedia article. Your opinion itself is not.

JoeM I think you do not understand NPOV. You can not go into an article and shout about 1 POV being right and all others wrong. - Fonzy

Hmmm, a condition in which a person does not have a permanent place of residence. Is nomadism homelessness? Can homelessness be a conscious choice of way of life? Has the answer to this question changed historically, or across cultures? -- Miguel

JoeM, do you want to know what's wrong with this introduction?

Caused by moral failure encouraged by social liberalism and laziness encouraged by liberal socialistic welfare statism, paradoxically liberal propagandists have used this issue to targets those with the solutions: conservative republicans.

Well, it's clearly written for internal condumption by a faction in the USA political debate. It is irrelevant and close to unintelligible to anyone outside North America. -- Miguel

All of JoeM's edits have a political content. It's time for him to be banned. RickK 23:47, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If that's a fair sample, they are severely lacking in gramatical content. Subject - object, anyone? Tannin

Hey, why are you people censoring me? You are joing to have to go through line by line and tell me what is specifically wrong with the facts and interpretations. If you don't do that, I want you to do what the people did with me on the Islamofascism article. They rewrote all the points I made, just in a more subtle way. JoeM

Read NPOV. Evercat 00:02, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--- I DID. And it tells me that you shouldn't be censoring all views that are not left-wing liberal. THe conservative position belongs in every article. You people seem to afraid to rebut the conservative position (perhaps because it's impossible to argue against common sense and facts?), so you just censor it. To all you people NPOV means SPOV-- Socialistic POV. You people are just like the liberal media and academia-- convinced that your are all adhering to "standards" that are honestly "neutral and objective" even though you might as well be writing for the Bolsheviks. If you people really believed in NPOV, you'd take my additions and at least rewrite them and incorporate them into the article. JoeM

You are not taking a position, you are writing a diatribe. Let me give you another example...

The truth is that America is the land of the free. It is the land of the free enterprise system. America's prosperity is built on individual responsibility. Individual responsibility and hard work, with the incentives of the market, made America great and powerful. In the market everyone who has the skills and the energy can succeed. But poor people, like poor countries, failed due to their own laziness, stupidity, bad choices, and immoral conduct.
  • My goodness, what a bunch of American neoconservative and individualist rhetoric! Homelessness is also prevelant amongst the disabled, mentally ill, and victims of discrimination. Are you telling me that these people made "bad choices". That's ridiculous and nonsensible! And as most American neo-cons, you must be a Christian. Remember that one part of the Bible about Jesus' love and compassion, or do you just remember the Bible's condemnation of sodemy? "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" - "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me". - Jesus. Are you saying, too, that the people of the "Third World" who have been exploited and pillaged by the rich are stupid and lazy? Your comments wreak of ignorance, incompassion, and utter stupidity. And to JoeM and all you other paranoid American neo-cons: stop whining about how America and the world have been taken over by socialism! Everyone outside the US, including me, are laughing at you right now.

I don't know if you realize that this paragraph is meaningless to pretty much everyone in the world except Americans. It is also a non-sequitur -- Miguel

Well if you're so smart, rewrite it so that it is. Don't censor the views that are actually held by most hard-working Americans. JoeM

More propaganda, right there. You're building up the liberals as immoral scum. You used the phrase "hard-working" to imply that liberals were lazy. -- CHEESEFACE
I'm not so smart, thank you. And, IMHO, there is very little in what you're writing that can be salvaged. -- Miguel

If you want to put your views into articles, you should not use loaded language, and should make some appempt to explain them. We should not be expected to rewrite your rants. Vancouverguy 00:13, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why should I be expected to rewrite your rants. THIS ARTICLE IS A COMMUNIST RANT RIGHT NOW! Most Americans believe that moral failure is the number one cause of homelessness, but this isn't mentioned in your propaganda piece. Second, homelessness is a result of big governmenent messing with the housing market with rent control and big government making people lazy and dependent with welfare. Wikipedia is out of step with the views of the majority of Americans. There is a worse leftwing bias around here than on CNN, PBS, NPR, ABC, the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, and NBC. JoeM

Interesting that the only mainstream media you don't mention is FOX... -- Miguel
Also, the majority of Americans are at most 2.5% of the world population. Welcome to the internet. -- Miguel
You said: "Most Americans believe that moral failure is the number one cause of homelessness, but this isn't mentioned in your propaganda piece." The majority of Americans also believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, yet it says in the opening paragraph in the wikipedia "Earth" article that the Earth is several billion years old. Should that article be re-written to reflect what the majority of Americans believe, as well? -- meno71
  • I'm blown away by this American chauvinism and stupidity. It does not matter, AT ALL, what the majority of Americans think. English Wikipedia is not American Wikipedia, nor is it a venue for neoconservatives to rant about the alleged rampancy of communism in the world. This article is not just about homelessness in the US, and therefore it should include more than American popular opinion. And stop ranting and raving about the "Communist" media. Frankly, JoeM, you sound like a paranoid, far-right nut-case. You're simply spewing out free market rhetoric and doing nothing to solve the supposed impartiality of the article.


We do not expect you to "rewrite" our articles.Vancouverguy 00:23, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(THe conservative position belongs in every article.) Yes, it does, presented in a neutral manner with the opposing views included so that the reader can decide for THEMSELVES. Its supposed to be an encyclopedia article, NOT a position paper. I know you are smart enough to know the difference. Do you want to? If you think its a communist rant now then you should have attempted to edit it to be neutral with opposing facts included. Not replace it with a rant from the other side.Ark30inf 00:27, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

First, this article focuses on homelessness in America, so the views of most Americans, the people who defeated Kaiserism, Nazism, fascism, Communism, socialism, and now Saddam Hussein and Islamic terror, count.

Then change the title to homelessness in America. According to the current version there are 4 times as many homeless in the EU as in the USA, so there should be 4 times as much content on the European political debate as on the American. Or not? -- Miguel

And please don't call me hurtful names. You are censoring the conservative point of view and you know it. You are censoring the views held by most Americans on homelessness. Liberals control adademia, the media, Hollywood, and the federal bureaucracy. Add Wikipedia to that list. JoeM

No one not censoring the conservative point of view, in fact it's the other way around. You keep insisting that anything not conservative is incorrect. What's that if it isn't an attempt to control people's opinions? "Most Americans' opinions" doesn't equal correct. "Most Americans" could be completely ignorant about the whole subject. -- CHEESEFACE3

And that's right. I don't mention FOX. And don't go through that liberal candard about FOX being biased to the right. It's the most neutral media around. You're just so used to liberal bias that when you hear something is fair and balanced you assume that it's biased to the right. Remember, every time they have a conservative commentator on, there's a liberal one on too. JoeM

It can't be the most neutral when there is nothing to the right of it (in the mainstream, that is). I'm amazed that you call the NYT, NBC, CNN and CBS left-wing. -- Miguel
I don't think we need to veer off the subject (since I basically agree with him on this one :-) ). The subject that needs addressing is a position paper masquerading as an encyclopedia article.Ark30inf 00:36, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree, but I couldn' resist. Let me put it this way: you cannot list 8 different media outlets and claim that the one that is unarguably to the right of all others is the "moderate" one. It may get things right more or less often (I won't get into that), but in terms of tendency, and within the spectrum of American media, it is not neutral. -- Miguel
I just don't think FOX is any more right than CNN or CBS are left. To me its a good counterbalance. We can disagree on that because its unimportant to the question here.Ark30inf 00:54, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Fair enough. SOrry for getting off-track. -- Miguel

I bet there are some conservative Americans on Wikipedia that do not object to the way the articles are written, and some probably write them.Vancouverguy 00:32, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are betting correctly.Ark30inf 00:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, we should have seperate articles on homelessness in Europe and America. And BTW, do you want to know why homelessness is more of a problem in Europe? One thing: "social democracy." The truth is that homelessness is caused by the left, not the right, even though the left gets away with blaming the right for homelessness because they control the media (and Wikipedia). JoeM

This is getting out of hand. Where do you get your information? 'Caused by the left'? I don't think there is any justification behind that statement, or, in fact, behind any of your arguments (rants, more acurrately.) 'Social democracy'? The left don't control the media, frankly, the lack of liberal news networks is disturbing. You're going as far as labeling liberals as 'doubleplus ungood crimethinkers.' - CHEESEFACE3
Yeah, there are conservatives on Wikipedia. And Bob Novaks's on CNN. Novak or no Novak, CNN is still the "Clinton News Network" or the "Communist News Network." I have a feeling that those two Arab women, Rula Amin and Jane Arraf on CNN actually wanted Saddam Hussein to win the war. We're outnumbered on CNN and Wikipedia. JoeM

"I have a feeling that those two Arab women, Rula Amin and Jane Arraf on CNN actually wanted Saddam Hussein to win the war."

I felt that that statement was extrememly Racist, inappropriate, and just plain not really related to the conversation. Just because those two women were of Middle-eatern descent, that does not make them supporters of Saddam Hussein. Really, JoeM, grow up. -Aeros Elvaan

in The United States of America, 13% of all people is living below the poverty line, in The Peoples Republic of China, 10% is, in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 0% is. --62.251.90.73 00:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find this quite interesting, it is fascinating that the dividing of power into 3 branches of government has completely failed in the US (all branches are now controlled by one party, with enough power to hold it that way for quite some time with the high congress and judicial incumbency rate) while a partial monarchy has worked so well in the Nethernands. I would love to see a table of "form of government" versus "average poverty rate" --Dj245 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Homlessness around the world has been caused by both right and left-wing goverments. For example the Soviet government did not build enough housing, leaving people homeless. Even so, the US government does not encourage the construction enough low-cost housing, perticularily in places like New York. As well, in the US, even minimal housing can be out of the spending range of a lot of Americans, because of wages that are simply too low. Vancouverguy 00:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not institutionalizing the mentally ill is also a contributing factor in the US. There are a variety of reasons for that on all sides of the political spectrum.
Hey, wasn't Ronald Reagan responsible for this as governor of California? Hmmm... -- Miguel
The left is seeking to destroy the concept of individual resposbility, the very ethic that made America free, great, and prosperous. They think that every crime and every failure is caused due to "environmental factors" and "psychological illness." It's time to can the pseudo-science and preach individual responsibility. JoeM
While the values you just preached are important, the idea that the left has tried to destroy those morals is ignorant garbage. 'The left' doesn't try to destroy morals, and just because you don't agree with their moral ideas, it doesn't make them wrong. You're saying that people who have different beliefs from you are irresponsible lazy idiots, the same kind of tactic used by Stalin. -- CHEESEFACE
Another contributing factor is the large number of war veterans who are hung out to dry by the very same people who send them to war. -- Miguel
We'd be better off not turning this into flame war and sticking to JoeM's article instead. It could easily become one if we start blaming for wars that led to homeless veterans.Ark30inf 01:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I mention veterans not to start a flame war, but because a large fraction of the homeless I see are veterans. I would assume that JoeM is not going to call them names like he does all other homeless in his version of the article. -- Miguel
That's because your kind of people (Communist-supporting traitors) were spitting on our heroes when they were returning from fighting for freedom in Vietnam. We support our troops. I have an MIA flag in my room even and give to veterans charities. JoeM
You plainly don't when you bring them back home to homelessness. -- Miguel
I was confident you would jump on this. My differences with Miguel on FOX or homeless veterans has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not you wrote an appropriate encyclopedia article. And thats the real subject here.Ark30inf 01:14, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I would bet that we are not so much in disagreement about veterans but about the governments that created said veterans. And I'll leave it at that. -- Miguel
JoeM said: "And BTW, do you want to know why homelessness is more of a problem in Europe? One thing: "social democracy." Maybe. Maybe not. High population density probably also leads to homelessness: Europe has 114 people per square km, while the US has 30. Thing is, you're just stating your opinion as if it were fact - if you have proof, give it, otherwise writing as "some people believe homlessness is encouraged by the welfare state because..." might be more suitable for Wikipedia. WikianJim

BS. The freer the market the lower the rates of homelessness and unemployment. The left is supposed to be the defender of "full employment" and poor people but Europe's unemployment rates are 4 times higher and so are their rates of homelessness. When the market is not contrained by big government, there is no shortage of housing and every able body person can get a job and earn enough money to have shelter. Minimum wages, liberal welfare laws, trade unions, employment regulations, and all the other regulations on the market place drive up the prices of everything and cause homelessness and unemployment. JoeM

Read Nickeled and Dimed: On Not Getting by in America, Joe. -- Miguel
Read Slander by Ann Coulter, Treason by Ann Coulter, and Bias by Bernard Goldberg. JoeM
Ann Coulter, voice of reason

Over and out. -- Miguel

I'm new to the Wikipedia community, and I really must tell you this discussion is about the funniest thing I've read in a long, long time. My sides ache.

Here's my 2 cents: The article does, indeed, need to tip its hat to Joe M's view because, like it or not, it is held by a significant portion of the working class, be it in America or abroad. I'd suggest something like this: "Complicating attempts to address the issue is the not uncommon belief that the homeless are responsible for their own plight, as a result of laziness or other moral failings... [yadda yadda yadda]."

But the hat need only be tipped. If Wikipedia were to dwell on Joe M's views, we might as well start including articles that suggest the terminally ill or diseased are being punished by God. So let's just tip that hat and keep moving.... --quark219.

There is nothing wrong with including the conservative view, in fact it should be included. Just not in the ham-handed, one sided, non-encyclopedic, insulting manner that JoeM keeps trying to do it. Come on people, the other view NEEDS to be included.Ark30inf 22:58, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Could anyone give the link to the specific source of those strange numbers about homelessness in Europe? I've always heard that there are more poor people (which, I know is not the same as homeless people) in US than in Europe, and I've read numbers confirming that in some sources (I can't recall them now) and these numbers seem to contradict those numbers. Maybe there may be more poor people, but at least they have a house? User:Marco Neves

There is a lot of sub-standard housing in the US of a kind (trailer parks and mobile homes) that is almost unheard-of in Europe. Maybe that has something to do with it, and it correlates with the argument that rent control reduces the availability of housing. Statutorily raising the lowest standard of housing, while intended to improve living conditions, may have the unintended effect of leaving more people unable to find housing. — Miguel 22:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if it has what you need, but its a startUNHABITAT doc Thanks, I'll read it and see what I may do with it! By the way, I remembered that probably poverty indicators are relative to the general wealth of the country, so saying there are more poors in US than in EU may be inappropriate. I'll check these things! Cheers! User:Marco Neves

healthafairs link http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.212/DC1 this link says it requires a subscription :/---Skuld 11:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Touching, really, but ...

Does the following paragraph:

There are things being done to help put an end to homelessness, but it is not nearly enough. Homeless people aren't just starving on Thanksgiving and Christmas. They aren't just without homes in the cold winter. Homelessness can happen to anyone, anywhere, any time. Just imagine the frightning event of having no where to go home to. If we all stand together as a nation, a world and as a human race, we can save an uncountable amount of lives. Because, in the words of two great Presidents "No one can change what happened, but we can all change what happens next.".Lets change the future, Together.

really have any sort of place in an encyclopoedia? Not only have many of the points been addressed before but it sounds so wishy-washy-let's-all-be-friends. I'm deleting this, anyone who thinks it should be reverted can just add it back in.

It sounds like an oral presentation on poverty.

Benji 16:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it should be deleted. Skinnyweed 17:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I agree with the POV personally, but it is still POV. This is not a book, it is an article. BlueGoose 05:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The pictures need to be removed. They're romantic pictures, designed to sell an idea. Instead, actual, normal, everday pictures of homeless people should be posted.
MSTCrow 21:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 15:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)With the pictures, could you put quotation marks around homeless, thus 'homeless'? You can't confirm that the people in the pictures are genuinely homeless (i.e. no home to go to) or NFA (e.g. choosing not to accept homes or other accommodation offered to them). == 82.143.162.72 13:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)What are the links for? For providing information about the article's topic or providing a platform for a particular political opinion on it?

[edit] Well done

I am pleased to see that this article has improved greatly since I last visited it. I was the author of that "oral presentation on poverty", and feel this article was going in a bad, bad direction. I'm happy to see that it is doing much better. Editor19841 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't come upon this article until today, and while I personally agree with the opinions expressed in the sections deemed to be POV I think it's important for the credibility of the article to keep it as neutral and to the point as possible. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a political manifesto.
I've sometimes attempted to refer to Wikipedia articles when discussing political issues with right wingers, and have been rebuffed with the argument that anyone can change the material herein at will, an consequently it can't be considered an objective and unbiased source. The splendid review work done on this article proves them wrong. Jonas Liljeström 12:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following language: '(if you have ever had one drop of alcohol on you tongue before the homeless industrial complex considers you an alcoholic in need of expensive 12-step religious cultism indoctrination)'

While I don't feel that the sentiment expressed is wrong, this sort of claim requires at least a couple sentences of clearer, less hyperbolic language.

[edit] Grade of homelessness

I removed this section. It is unreferenced and likely represents only the POV of a Wikipedian trying to illustrate what he/she considers "downward mobility". Please see WP:NOR. The self reference doesn't help. Please do not readd any section to this effect without a reputable source. It is reproduced below.

[edit] Grades of homelessness

Please note that this list could have many gradients; it is meant to highlight the downward mobility of homelessness.

  • Most secure: Those who always have shelter due to kindness of friends, and receive a government check or limited wages.
  • Less secure: Those who exist only on the kindness of friends with both food and shelter, no government help.
  • Less secure, still: Those who live in unpleasant long term "group shelters".
  • At risk of exposure: The "Motor Homeless", sleep in an unheated junk car that is drivable, many will die from exposure. There are also those who choose to live a nomadic lifestyle, and will not necessarily die from exposure.
  • Ongoing risk of illness from exposure: Those who spend at least 30 nights a year in open winter air, or rainy conditions.
  • Probable life risk: Those who have no family, no affluent friends, have no car, no food except donated charity goods.

[edit] San Fransico/Tokyo

When I think homeless, I think San Francisco, and Tokyo. Can we put information regarding Japan's homeless population here.

Sure we can. Have you got any data to hand? Pcb21 Pete 09:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law enforcement "poor folks" practices frequently trigger homelessness or worse

I deleted this section for a number of reasons: it clearly needs to be merged with the "Causes" section, second while I do not argue possiblity that events such as the ones mentioned occur dirrect anectdotes need to reference some kind of link, finally the title is unencyclopedic. Daniel J. Leivick 00:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Choice of words?

Reading a page like this one[1] makes me wonder if "homeless" is the right word. Many of these people live this lifestyle voluntarily. They don't like being called homless, because their home is wherever they go, whether it's a hideout in a park or a comfy spot under a bridge or whatever. Urban nomads or something. Is there a preferred term used by the people themselves? --Sonjaaa 00:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting Clothes

From the article:

Goodwill calls "sorting clothes" job training at a cost of $5,600 per trainee.

I removed this sentence from the "Income opportunities" section. If someone can cite a source--and relevance--feel free to add it back in. --192.234.13.40 19:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Piquisito and I will be helping to contribute to this article. I just want to say I acknowledge my view on this topic is not perfect, so I accept others' changes of my edits. Just a warning though, I will be changing the article a lot :)

[edit] Systemic bias in article

Please remember that Wikipedia does not revolve around North America, particularly the United States of America. Try to analyse homelessness in other developed nations, as well as in the developing world. A small section on Australia and a few non-American statistics is not sufficient. -- WGee 18:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not the Americans' fault; it's the fault of Britain and other countries for not putting their information in. Skinnyweed 17:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
All editors, no matter from where they hail, are obligated to represent the world view in their edits. So it is actually the Americans' fault for not including the international perspective on homelessness. But anyway, pointing fingers will get us nowhere; this problem must be fixed wih bold edits. -- WGee 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It's easy to deconstruct, revert and tag, but writing, reconstructing, and rebuilding is harder. The tag description explains that the burden is on the person who places the tag to "follow through and actually discuss your opinion on that talk page." You haven't done that in sufficient detail so that editors unfamiliar with the issue outside of their own domain can do that writing: you've only pointed a finger. So, I'll remove the tag until you explain in precise detail what you want the folks here to add, giving specific examples from the text, and comparing to other articles which do have geographic scope. Sandy 08:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I have discussed my opinion on this talk page, just not to your satisfaction. I admit that I have not gone into much detail, but what good will it do to remove the tag? Why not notify other editors that the article needs rectifying and let them formulate their own specific solutions? After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative project; the burden is never on one editor. And yes, it is easy to tag an article, but that is the first step in improving it. -- WGee 02:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The burden is on you to provide the detail you request, so that others can work effectively on the requested improvements. Perhaps the editors familiar with the topic are less familiar with the information needed for globalizing the topic. I'll leave the tag (for now), per your reasoning above, and in recognition that you are busy with exams. But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, it's a question of timing. If you are going to be tagging and reverting, it should be when you have time to be involved in the requisite followup. Sandy 12:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll keep in mind your sentiments, but I believe progress is good no matter its speed (at least on Wikipedia).
On a related note, I am glad to see that you have not reverted the Chavez article. Whether or not this is because you perceive progress is uncertain; however, I urge you to realize that SuperFlanker has updated and added numerous references. Part of the problem is that we don't all agree on what needs to be upgraded or rectified, so we have different perceptions on the current state of the article. -- WGee 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note (BTW, no he has not updated the references: he has deleted any references that were dead links. Not good. Reverted twice, since losing a well referenced featured article is not the way we want to go.) Sandy 01:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made a start in attempting to inject both some balance and some neutrality into the article. Also to give it a better structure. But this is a huge article with deeply ingrained flaws. I'm interested in this article and seeing it develop because, despite the flaws, there's some brilliant material here; however, I do get easily distracted and may not be back as often as I would like. It seems that there needs to be some structure imposed on the article to give editors an idea of what to work on. Two main sections could be Problems in the developed world - of which there is plenty of material; and Problems in the developing & undeveloped world - including natural disasters and political upheaval. This could become a brilliant article. It's certainly a major issue. Correctly and carefully written and edited this has the potential to be a featured article. SilkTork 00:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] untrue

some of what's in the article is untrue. I'm a security guard, and my main job is to keep the homeless out of the parking garage. It's always the same 15 people, who have some kind of major problem (chemical or mental). Pellaken 17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homelessness in the UK

As far as I am aware there is very little homelessness in the UK as every local government has a legal duty to house homeless people, and I think they usually anticipate homelessness so you're never actually sleeping rough.

I thought that the only homeless people were those who were homeless by choice because of alcohol etc. problems, but I have recently heard of a blogger called "the wandering scribe" who says she has been living in a car for a year, which surprises me a lot.

I wish someone with more knowledge of the subject in the UK would write more about it - especially the proceedure that takes place if you should find yourself homeless.

Someone above remarks "but Europe's unemployment rates are 4 times higher and so are their rates of homelessness" - ha ha ha! ROTFLOL! As far as I am aware in the UK at least, the unemployment rate is about the same or lower than the US. The minimum legal wage is equivalent to $9 or $10 per hour, plus free health care of course. (I was shocked to learn that the minimum hourly wage in some places in the US is about $3 or so.) People with low incomes also get extra money according to needs - including "Housing Benefit" to help pay their rent or mortgage.

The view that many people in the US seem to have of the UK reminds me of the old Soviet propaganda about the miserable living conditions in the West. I agree with someones elses comments above that there are less poor people in the UK than in the US.

[edit] Homelessness in the UK 2

Here are some links to articles people may find of interest

Of all the countries in Europe, the UK is considered to be the most similar to the USA, as the UK has the greatest unemployment rate and the greatest income inequality --- although the UK inequality is less than that of the USA, and unemployment is about the same.

The UK also protects less-well off people from poverty (including homelessness) by:

In Europe we find it shocking that the less able are neglected and left to suffer, with homelessness and especially lack of medical care.

I've written these comments not to boast, but in the hope it will encourage Americans to demand things like the free health care and an adequate minimum hourly wage that we regard as every citizens right.

It would be good to have an article that compares conditions for the less-well-off in all countries including the USA.

The above does not mean that you cannot be wealthy - there is nothing stopping you becoming a self-made billionaire if you can - see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/fullSearch/0,,2006-1-0,00.html There are a lot of wealthy Americans living in the UK, plus I've noticed a lot of American ladies on supermarket check-outs here.

[edit] Picture overload

Holy ****, how many pictures does this article really need? One or two were enough, it's always the same thing; someone sitting on the street. Stop trying to turn this into a a charity article. No one cares if you're a social worker, if you care so much there are thousands of charity websites out there. This is here for information.--80.227.100.62 08:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've spread the pictures around the article a bit, and reduced their size. SilkTork 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshit... 'Nuff said

"Homelessness or transience is a situation in which a person unwillingly does not have a long term residence. "

A person can easily be homeless (ie. without a home) of own free will.

[edit] Adding history section &c.

Hi all. I wrote a history section, which wasn't there before, and also a few other items in the article. I tried to add some material worldwide. More to come. Should the NPOV flag still be there ? Bests to all. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is an article, not a blog

People going to jail has nothing to do with them being homeless, and it is incorrect to put that information in an encyclopedia article. It is also innappropriate to use Wikipedia to publish your social theory that you have not sourced. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a persuasive essay. The best way to bring the article into compliance and to clean it up is by deleting all personal opinions and incorrect information. 70.191.174.29 00:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on general principles, but not as applicable to this article. There is a documented concern that homeless people are being treated as criminals, per se, due simply to their homelessness. There was a reference for it. Also, it is a documented fact that the homeless clinics are usually overburdened. Look, the article is now out of control, and I am going to roll it back to a sensible point where it was before all these changes happened, so it can be sensibly discussed and modified. Professionals in the field have read the article, contributed to it, and have found it to be a credible article on the topic. Anyway, let's all sort it out together, starting from a stable base. Thanks and Best Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sociology

While this is a good article in many respects, I can see two flaws as an outsider. One is the contemporary and U.S. bias, the latter part could perhaps be addressed by ensuring content is in Homelessness in the U.S.. The second is the forensic evidence of disputes, paragraphs seem to read, "on the one hand, on the other hand..". Perhaps help from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sociology would be good? Regrards, Rich Farmbrough 17:30 26 August 2006 (GMT).

I've been bold and asked. Rich Farmbrough 17:34 26 August 2006 (GMT).

Point well taken, Rich. I have always agreed that the article is largely from an American point of view. I tried to change that _a bit_ in the history section. Unfortunately, I didn't have good data or the time to find it all, for most other countries. I moved much into the article at Homelessness in the United States, Homelessness in Canada and the like. I hope other contributors will help to make it more universal, as I will endeavour to do, in future. Bests and Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Diego picture of homeless man

I edited out the photograph of a homeless man in San Diego, just added by User:Nehrams2020 to the article, Image:HomelessManWithSign.jpg ... It seemed to be very NPOV and also seemed to be in bad taste and poking fun at the homeless which doesn't feel right for the topic and article's NPOV. There are also too many images, as was argued by other editors over time. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Photos in general seem to bias the article one way or the other. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 22:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Care

Wikipedians who care about the homeless should add the userbox {{User care}} or [[Category:Wikipedians who care about the homeless|{{PAGENAME}}]] to their user page(s). Enjoy. Editor19841 (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The alleged problem in developed countries

Here are obvious things posted in this article that are not true:

1. Not all homeless people are without a telephone. http://www.payphone-project.com/news/archives/2006/03/cell-phone_use.html. Furthermore, through religious missions or charitable persons, some homeless people have access to shower and laundry facilities.

2. Show me where it is cited that there is a trend of homeless people being arrested for not committing a crime. Considering how this would be a civil rights violation, I'm sure you can point to one federal case where a law enforcement officer has been successfully sued.

3. Putting anybody in jail gives them a criminal record. Why is it any more germane for that fact to be in this article than in say the article for American Indians? This is a tautology that seems to be a tangent from the subject of homelessness. Perhaps, if it were reworded, it may become germane.

4. Government funding increases can increase availabilty of government aid just as validly as government funding can decrease availability.

WatchingYouLikeAHawk 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ya, about London bum #'s

The bit under "history of homelessness" that says London only has two hundred bums doesnt give a source for that info, and personally speaking, i just came back from london and that number doesnt match with what i saw... 71.55.169.217 01:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solution to homelessness

Phoenix rounds up their homeless people and sticks them on Greyhound buses! I like that idea. All cities should do it! Just keep all of the homeless on Greyhound buses at all times. That way they are always moving from place to place and not really bothering anyone except at the truck stops and who really cares about anyone at a truck stop! Welcometoearth 14:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't seriously believe this is a real solution, do you? WatchingYouLikeAHawk 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A general principle I propose for this article

It seems there are two camps in the study of homelessness ... those that wish to romanticize all homelessness and those that wish to think of all homeless people as criminals. (Source: Mayor Rudolph Giuliani) Whilst giving the appropriate times to the majority and minority views among social SCIENTISTS, I want to bring into question a few things.

1. All of the sources thus far have been from homeless advocacy groups who, in their opinion, think that government handouts are the answer. They don't hold certain homeless people accountable for their lethargy, drug use, and/or lack of initiative, they believe that the homeless people's problems are always because of somebody else, but the homeless can never be held personally responsible. They believe that homelessness is caused totally out of uncontrolled fate and the homeless have no control over their own destinies. They have an unreasonable hatred for police, who are merely enforcing the laws fairly for everybody.

2. The positions of these homeless advocacy groups are notable and should be included, but they need to be balanced with other authoritative perspectives (i.e. local government agencies, social science researchers, law enforcement sources, religious missions, etc.). This article should NOT pretend to have the answer for homelessness. I, as a citizen, do have my own opinion on my solution, but it is not right for me to post it unless it's sourced and appropriately noted as to what source it's from. Similarly, implying that the solutions of homeless advocacy groups are fact is not right either.

3. While keeping balance of the majority and minority views of social scientists (from all applicable branches, not just any particular one) (e.g. a anthropology or sociology professor is going to have a much different outlook on homelessness than an economics professor or a psychology professor), we need to make an active effort as editors to search out good sources that can create a balance for this article.

WatchingYouLikeAHawk 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who was homeless and never abused a drug worse than caffeine, I call into question your facts and unsupported naysayings. I've been laid off from dozens of companies whose CEOs took millions in bonuses for laying off thousands of workers ... this causes homelessness and its completely out of the hands of workers. CEOs get far more handouts than those they throw out on the street. Mental health is a serious concern, is that the victim's fault as well? --Chibiabos 06:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is virtually a mirror image of former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's point of view. A 1999 Address by the New York Mayor. Off the record, my belief set stems from work I have done with mostly young homeless people through church and religious missions. In general, I have much more sympathy for someone like you than I would for some 24 year old who merely says he is unemployable, usually in frustration, but spends most of his day watching the TV in McDonalds (instead of going door to door applying for jobs). NCH only claims that 25% or so of homeless people have mental illnesses. The mere fact one is homeless does not constitute any type of psychological diagnosis.
"To begin with, it's important to have a balanced understanding of this serious issue. Some advocates romanticize homelessness; at the other extreme, some people speak of the homeless as if they're all criminals. The fact is that people who are homeless are not at all alike. Homeless people are as complex and diverse as everyone else, and their problems deserve a complex response. Different depending on the nature of the problem they have, but they're all problems that we can and should address rather than ignore." - Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
As far as this article is concerned, however, I wholly support inclusion of the theories (such as Housing First) supported by NCH and other organizations. In fact, I relied heavily on these organizations' publications in my mission work. However, many of the homeless advocacy groups, especially some cited in this article, state as fact that certain factors are to blame for the condition of the homeless population (i.e. that police unfairly target homeless people or that economic conditions alone, as opposed to personal initiative, creates homelessness).
This material, if properly sourced and accurately presented, should be included. (i.e. UNICEF has called homelessness a problem, but the information presented under that section was about how homelessness was a vicious circle, which UNICEF has never articulated I don't think). However, we should give the appropriate time to other notable and verifiable sources that have a different viewpoint. This project will take some time.
Bear in mind that sociology is not the only social science field that deals with homelessness. Thus, I would shy away from pursuing this article from that "lens" alone. If you want to talk to me about my personal views, feel free to message me on my talk page.
WatchingYouLikeAHawk 09:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substance abuse

"An estimated 38% of homeless suffer from a substance abuse problem." Whith reference to what? Where does this apply? In my own experience, homeless people in for instance Oslo are almost exclusively hard drug users, while the US homeless seems to have a large segment of formerly institutionalized psychiatric patients. This difference can be attributed to widely different policies in different countries. Since the English language Wikipedia has readers from so many different places on earth, such a percentage would make little sense, especially when not knowing which population it represents. I have therefore decided to remove the exact figure here. --GSchjetne 14:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Romanticisation

"Transience, vagrancy, and poverty have been with society as long as there has been society."

Removed this sentence at the start of "History", due to the facts that first of all it's grammatically incorrect, and secondly it's completely unsourced and again, sounds like an oral presentation.

First ever edit with my account, woot! Previously I just cleaned up spelling errors, grammatical errors and vandalism. Wootcannon 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article in the autism category?

"WTF is this in the autism category?" ... (posting was by anonymous User:208.19.12.207, Revision as of 08:24, 10 December 2006)

There was once some unsubstantiated material in the article relating autism and homelessness which was removed as uncorroborated. This category is left over from that edit -- it was missed when the material was removed. I will remove the category from the article. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (talk)

[edit] Homeless man photograph Image:P7032101 small2.jpg at the top

This picture is an amazingly powerful photo of the plight of a homeless man in France. My question, and one which we have worried about on Wikipedia, and especially in the Homelessness article, is whether it is proper to show any faces of homeless people, except those who are well-known like the man pictured from New Zealand. We once removed all photos with faces other than the New Zealand man, for this reason. Another concern was privacy as stated above and that the homeless man, who presumably was compos mentis when the picture was taken, gave his consent by a signed release. Since someone has made the this photo the top one on the page, it is an important consideration. We have covered this topic already above in another section discussing a different photograph (Talk:Homelessness#San_Diego_picture_of_homeless_man). There also had been a problem with NPOV on unusually compelling photos, and also picture overload on this page (Talk:Homelessness#Picture_overload). I think we have gotten the photos down to a reasonable number. But does this excellent and compelling photograph bias the article from the top ? Unsure how to edit this again. Thoughts. anyone ? Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Well, I don't think the picture should be taken away
1) There are thousands of pictures of homeless people on the internet. Do you really think they signed release forms? Not to mention all the photos of people on the internet, again, no release form. I mean, the page on making-out, and mosh pits are just two I know of which have pictures which don't seem to have had a release form signed.
2) Do we really need a release form if it's a homeless person? I can't see him complaining, or even finding this.
3) Does the fair use policy account for this? (Off-topic, does that policy have any legal grounds whatsoever?)
As you said, it's a powerful photo. Do we need to lose it to bureacracy like so much else on wikipedia? Wootcannon 16:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points and comments, Wootcannon. I still do feel uneasy about the use of it on top. But your comments make it a bit more palatable for argument's sake. When dealing with homeless having access to computers and seeing this picture, one might be surprised as to computer access in day centers and libraries. People go homeless for many reasons. Also, the relatives of a homeless person might see a photo and get quite disturbed if they have lost contact with an otherwise forgotten loved one. A lot to think about. Best Wishes and thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (talk)

[edit] 'type of homeless' university students

I removed this "* University Students: It's not at all uncommon for university students to live out of offices, lounges, classrooms, and/or libraries. Some have done this for years at a stretch, and they are often "invisible", in the sense that only their close friends are in on the secret."

because it has no citation and I am completely unconvinced that this is 'not at all uncommon'. Also, it doesn't seem well defined: people who are studying experience a different 'type' of homelessness?

12:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)~Jac


Ha! I lived like is discribed above for a short time (about a week). Although, I have never known anyone else who has done it. I'm glad at least I'm not alone--205.133.240.254 17:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Breakup?

I feel that this article should be broken up into two different categories - General Homelessness and country/region-specific homelessness. Every country will have a different approach to homelessness, and the different histories and policies should be given their own pages in my opinion, leaving this page to discuss homelessness as a general topic. How do other users feel about this? rakkar 06:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German term

The German term for homeless is not "Obdachlosigkeit" but "obdachlos". "Obdachlosigkeit" is a noun meaning "homelessness". Also, it is important that "obdachlos" be written with a lowercase "o" thus rendering it an adjective. "der/die Obdachlose"/"ein Obdachloser/eine Obdachlose", with capital "O"s would mean "The homeless man/woman"/"a homeless man/a homeless woman". I have changed it in the article, and have only included this an an explanation.

Just a note for German learners: "heimatlos" can also mean "homeless" as "Heimat" means "home", but it refers to a mental state, rather than a literal lack of a home. For example: "As an American living in Europe, I never quite felt accepted, but rather "heimatlos". In English, it would probably be rendered "without a home".

00:28, 17 January 2007 User:149.101.1.131

I had put the term in because it is the entry in the German Wikipedia for "Obdachlosigkeit": See this link. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obdachlosigkeit --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)

You are correct that "Obdachlosigkeit" is a German word, but it is a noun, whereas the other terms you have listed (except for the Spanish, where you use the noun for a homeless person) are adjectives. "Obdachlosigkeit wird definiert als Zustand..." begins the article. "Homelessness is defined as a condition...". This is clearly a noun. The other terms you have listed are adjectives (except for the Spanish). Please either nominalize all the other ones or retain the adjectival form for the German.

One last thing: "obdachlos" is made of three parts. "ob-", "dach" and "-los". Dach is the main component, meaning "roof". "-los" directly correlates to the English "-less". So, we have "roofless", and "ob-" in an archaic form of "above", such as the Austrian "Obmann" for "leader" or "head". So, the word in no way means "unsheltered", but rather "above-roof-less" or "without a roof above". That's the reason I changed it.

18:15, 18 January 2007 User:149.101.1.131

Understood. Good change to the article. Thanks very much. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)

[edit] s-protected

Temporarily, to see if it helps. Rich Farmbrough, 14:55 29 January 2007 (GMT).

OK, back to normal now. Rich Farmbrough, 10:47 31 January 2007 (GMT).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/m/Talk%7EHomelessness_5a94.html"