User talk:FargoWells
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, FargoWells, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Signaturebrendel 07:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputes info
The heritage Foundation is kind of biased source. I'm going to leave your edits in for now, but if you have netural sources (such as a college textbook) that would be better. Signaturebrendel 07:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is reporting the figures from the U.S. Census Bureau and other government agencies, which they provide. They numbers aren't from Heritage. FargoWells 07:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'll read the report tomorrow- Census figures will stay. I may however move the paragraph to the controversy "Overstating poverty" section. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with you doing that. "Poverty" brings up images of destitution. If it's said it has one of the highest poverty rates in the Western world in the intro, that is very misleading, because poor in one country does not equal being poor in another. The poor in one country can be considered rich in another country. FargoWells 07:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll read the report tomorrow- Census figures will stay. I may however move the paragraph to the controversy "Overstating poverty" section. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "The poor in one country can be considered rich in another country"- most certainly. But the poor of Austria, Swtizerland and Canada are as well off as those in the US (slightly better actually). Remember that the article is not stating the US to have one of the highest poverty rates in the Western World (which would include Mexico, etc...), but the rich 1st world- where poor doesn't mean lacking clothing, food, housing, etc... But as I said, Census figures will stay. Signaturebrendel 07:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have proof for that claim? (The Guardian is a terrible source. It's just reporter who is not saying where he's getting his numbers. It should be removed). FargoWells 07:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- "The poor in one country can be considered rich in another country"- most certainly. But the poor of Austria, Swtizerland and Canada are as well off as those in the US (slightly better actually). Remember that the article is not stating the US to have one of the highest poverty rates in the Western World (which would include Mexico, etc...), but the rich 1st world- where poor doesn't mean lacking clothing, food, housing, etc... But as I said, Census figures will stay. Signaturebrendel 07:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, a college textbook and the HDI as well as the UN poverty index. (also you really think Canada's poor are worse of then America's- Canada?) Again you are right on one thing-the Guardian is a terrible source ;-) Signaturebrendel 07:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Worse in what way? It's easier to get rich in the U.S. than in Canada. So, their future isn't as bleak in the U.S. FargoWells 07:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- UN poverty index is measuring inequality isn't it? You have to be careful because a lot of these measures are just measuring RELATIVE poverty. The "poor" can have the same amount of wealth next year, but if the "rich" increase their wealth then the poverty rate rises even though no one is worse off. FargoWells 07:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sure this is a subjective topic- there are lot of discussions on what is poor? America's poor are worse off as they (for exmaple) tend to have less access to high quality health care. UN poverty index is the most reliable measure we have for measuring poverty across the boundaries of nations. We could argue about this all night. Let's just stick with the source and not try to make arguments. The poverty index and the CIA factbook are my main indicators for international comparison-they are the most neutral and objective sources. Whether I or you personally agree or not. As your data is indeed Census Bureau based-its going to stay. Just please don't incorperate any points the Heritage Foundation is trying to argue (that's when it get's iffy). As of now we don't really have problem. Thus I bid you good night (here in CA it's midnight). Signaturebrendel 08:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Heritage foundation can be used as a source for an argument. All you have to do is say "A study from the Heritage Foundation argues that..." FargoWells 08:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sure this is a subjective topic- there are lot of discussions on what is poor? America's poor are worse off as they (for exmaple) tend to have less access to high quality health care. UN poverty index is the most reliable measure we have for measuring poverty across the boundaries of nations. We could argue about this all night. Let's just stick with the source and not try to make arguments. The poverty index and the CIA factbook are my main indicators for international comparison-they are the most neutral and objective sources. Whether I or you personally agree or not. As your data is indeed Census Bureau based-its going to stay. Just please don't incorperate any points the Heritage Foundation is trying to argue (that's when it get's iffy). As of now we don't really have problem. Thus I bid you good night (here in CA it's midnight). Signaturebrendel 08:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, a college textbook and the HDI as well as the UN poverty index. (also you really think Canada's poor are worse of then America's- Canada?) Again you are right on one thing-the Guardian is a terrible source ;-) Signaturebrendel 07:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- You got it. You must say who is arguing what. My problem is that many users use data from sources such as the Heritage Foundation to support their point and go on to present it as though it was fact. But be careful to keep the balance between left and right. Let me illustrate: you can say that "46% of poor households owned their own home" or you could say that "the majority, 56% did not own their own home, comapred to less than a third among the general population."- both statements feature the same data, yet present it in completely different ways leaving two distinct impressions on the reader. Please mind the balance. Remember that Census Bureau data doesn't have an opinion and can often be used to support contradicing viewpoints. I did need to take out this section stating
"Therefore, if this is the gauge used, the poverty rate can increase without anyone becoming poorer simply by the wealthier members of society getting wealthier. Or, the lower income brackets and the higher income brackets can both become wealthier, with the wealthier brackets increasing their wealth by a larger percentage than the lower bracket."
- this obviously argues a point (as does the Heritage Foundation) fitting that of a conservative agenda (the point that "poverty ain't that big a deal"). Of course you could re-phrase that statement so it becomes neutral and no longer serves a conservative agenda. But as long as it does support a conservative POV, please tell us who is arguing this point. I have replced it with the neutral statement that:
"Relative poverty is reflective of income inequality; thus growing income inequity may translate into rising rates of relative poverty."
I want to re-word that statment to fit a conservative POV, please give us the name of the author and the institution that published his viewpoints. As you said "All you have to do is say "A study from the Heritage Foundation argues that...""- please live up to your own standard. Thank you, Signaturebrendel 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)- The Heritage Foundation publication doesn't mention anything of the sort. Those statements are simply my attempt to explain the difference between relative poverty measurements and absolute poverty measurements. They're not arguments at all. They're just technical explanations which are self-evident from the definition "relative poverty." If one person is poor and the other is rich, then if the richer gets richer, relative poverty has increased. It doesn't require that the poor get poorer. The whole paragraph is unsourced so I don't understand why you would take out my lines. They're not arguments but explanation of the definition.FargoWells 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Come on, the way the Heritage Foundation presents the data clearly has a conservative POV to it. Also, if the standard of living among the middle and upper classes rises but remains stagnant at the bottom, the poor are getting poorer, that's why it's called relative. If you were making the exact same amount of money as your father did in 1950, then you'd be poor by now. Your rhetoric sounds as though you want to discredit relative measures of poverty- you make that clear when you say that: "It doesn't require that the poor get poorer". It does in the eyes of those who beleives in using a relative measure of poverty! That "It doesn't require that the poor get poorer" is the opinion of a conservative which is fine as long as you state whose opinion it is. It is debateable whether or not a stagnant standard of living can make a person poorer. There is a difference in saying that 'someone is becoming poorer and that someone has a decreasing income- at least in the minds of those who devised a relative measurement of poverty as well as those who use it-and it is not up to you to say they are wrong. So please, the relative measure of poverty is a vaild theory and deserves to be treated in the same manner as the section discussing absolute measures of poverty. The statement above is clearly aimed at discrediting relative measures of poverty. I'm sorry but you need to put in more neutral terms and respect the theory that poverty ought to be defined in relative terms. I know you are trying to just explain the difference but please be careful of the way in which you chose to give that explanaition. Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- My edits in that section have nothing to do with the Hertiage Foundation report. As far as I know, no description or explanation of a relative poverty measure is made in that document. Those are my own words and my own explanations that "poverty" can increase even if the lower income people have not any less wealthy. It's pretty indisputable. I didn't make a value judgement at all. I didn't criticize the measure. FargoWells 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- By saying that "a relative measure of poverty... doesn't require that the poor get poorer"- you made a disputable statement. Yes relaitve measures of poverty do not require a decrease in income for the poor to "get poorer." A widening income gap can also cause more people to fall below a relative treshold of poverty. You did not mention that such a rising income gap can effectively drive up the prices of consumer goods and thereby lower the standard of living for the poor by "pricing them out of the market." Your explanation is somewhat one-sided. It does convey the concept correctly but in a conservative POV manner (interestingly enough you revert my edits which used the term "income inequality- though Obviously if the poor see their income stagnated or rise significantly slower than that of the more fortunate, there is a rising income inequality; removing that is a "value judgement"). I have re-worded the statement in a neutral manner that does not attempt to discredit the relative measure of poverty or state that it includes people who are according to conservatives "not really poor." That said, I am glad to see that you have not taken out the word "income inequality"- to me that is a clear sign of NPOV effort. Regards, Signaturebrendel 22:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- My edits in that section have nothing to do with the Hertiage Foundation report. As far as I know, no description or explanation of a relative poverty measure is made in that document. Those are my own words and my own explanations that "poverty" can increase even if the lower income people have not any less wealthy. It's pretty indisputable. I didn't make a value judgement at all. I didn't criticize the measure. FargoWells 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Come on, the way the Heritage Foundation presents the data clearly has a conservative POV to it. Also, if the standard of living among the middle and upper classes rises but remains stagnant at the bottom, the poor are getting poorer, that's why it's called relative. If you were making the exact same amount of money as your father did in 1950, then you'd be poor by now. Your rhetoric sounds as though you want to discredit relative measures of poverty- you make that clear when you say that: "It doesn't require that the poor get poorer". It does in the eyes of those who beleives in using a relative measure of poverty! That "It doesn't require that the poor get poorer" is the opinion of a conservative which is fine as long as you state whose opinion it is. It is debateable whether or not a stagnant standard of living can make a person poorer. There is a difference in saying that 'someone is becoming poorer and that someone has a decreasing income- at least in the minds of those who devised a relative measurement of poverty as well as those who use it-and it is not up to you to say they are wrong. So please, the relative measure of poverty is a vaild theory and deserves to be treated in the same manner as the section discussing absolute measures of poverty. The statement above is clearly aimed at discrediting relative measures of poverty. I'm sorry but you need to put in more neutral terms and respect the theory that poverty ought to be defined in relative terms. I know you are trying to just explain the difference but please be careful of the way in which you chose to give that explanaition. Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation publication doesn't mention anything of the sort. Those statements are simply my attempt to explain the difference between relative poverty measurements and absolute poverty measurements. They're not arguments at all. They're just technical explanations which are self-evident from the definition "relative poverty." If one person is poor and the other is rich, then if the richer gets richer, relative poverty has increased. It doesn't require that the poor get poorer. The whole paragraph is unsourced so I don't understand why you would take out my lines. They're not arguments but explanation of the definition.FargoWells 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
