Talk:Poverty in India/Archive 1

Agents

Some Agents of Foreign tourist give the gloomy picture of India to invite them in India. When tourist came in India, they see the reality and find what is the difference between Babri Masjid Dispute and Ram Janma Bhoomi. Babar, Humau and All Englishmen from UK were hardly 1,00,000 and controlled the entire country with population of many Millions, Billions and no body know how many Mir Jafars are there?

Article quality

This is not even an article. It's a bunch of half-facts haphazzardly thrown together. This is an important topic and should be addressed appropriately. That image of the slumbs in Bombay is unsourced and should/will probably be deleted. There are many CreativeCommons licensed images of slum dwellings in India on Flickr; the author should probably utilize those. AreJay 17:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC) In the article it says "India has more than 836 million people living on less than 50 cents ($2 in PPP) a day according to a recent report". That means more than 80% of indian population is well below poverty, which is completely wrong. Also it says "Official figures estimate that 27.5% [4] of Indians lived below the national poverty line in 2004-2005." which is about right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.129.111 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=72099

India 6th most dangerous country for kids: Poll

New Delhi, August 7: India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country for children in the world, according to a recent poll. Afghanistan, Palestinian territories, Myanmar and Chechnya were placed better than India in the poll conducted by Reuters Alertnet, a humanitarian news website run by Reuters Foundation, Rajya Sabha was told today.

During the survey, the website asked more than 110 aid experts and journalists to highlight the most dangerous places for children. The first five dangerous countries are Sudan, Northern Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Somalia, Minister of State (independent charge) for Women and Child Development Renuka Chowdhury said while replying to a written question.

The facts that have been taken into account for the poll survey include the children involved in armed conflict, the psychological trauma experienced by children caught up in violence, the children living in poverty and forced to work to support themselves and their families and malnutrition among children, the minister said.

vkvora 14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article, together with Standard of Living in India are disgusting and offensive. They are completely out of proportion with reality. Granted, there is a lot of poverty in India, but why is INDIA singled out? Why isn;t there a "poverty in Lesotho"? Poverty in Guatemala, or poverty in New Guniea????????How many Indians will it take to bash our country into the ground?????Hkelkar 13:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

The speedy deletion reason given does not fall within the criteria for speedy deletion. I am converting the tag to a {{prod}} tag. If the proposed deletion tag is removed, the next step is to take it to AFD. — ERcheck (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the prod tag

Thanks ERcheck - I've already removed speedy tags and notified the user for the same reason - though apparently he didnt believe me. I've also removed the prod tag. The rationale for the prod seemed to be 1) That India was being singled out with this article, 2) the article had had no significant edits in months and 3) it is unsourced. I removed the tag as

India is not being singled out at all (see Poverty in Australia, Poverty in Africa, Poverty in the United States, Poverty in Appalachia etc etc...)
This is blatantly false and even if true is hardly a rationale for deletion and
The article is sourced

I am not advocating the article in any way other than I believe the speedy tag was misplaced and the prod reasoning either made in bad faith or (most likely) simply misguided. Please take to WP:AfD - Glen 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies???

The section is laughable. It cites ONE opinion from some obscure author as fact. YOu need MULTIPLE SOURCES to establish a "controversy" per WP:Reliable Sources (see multiple sources part).Please find multiple sources to establish this as a "controversy".Hkelkar 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that the section is "laughable". First of all, I'm not convinced that the authors are "obscure". One of them is from the World Bank. Secondly, the text does not assert that one side of the controversy is right or wrong. It simply asserts that there are differing opinions. Thirdly, it seems quite reasonable to believe that this controversy exists in India. As the authors say on page 3 of the referenced paper, "This debate is far from unique to India. The worldwide controversy about globalization and its effects on poverty and inequality has followed much the same lines as the internal debate in India."

I can look for other sources but I think you are misunderstanding what is being said. I can easily believe that one side of the controversy (the government, no doubt) argues that poverty has been reduced significantly whereas the other side (presumably the opposition) argues that parts of India have left the rural and urban poor behind.

We have this sort of debate here in the United States. Why wouldn't a similar debate exist in India?

I have to admit that the "poverty increased or decreased" is my wording and might not be accurate. The debate may not be so much about poverty increasing or decreasing so much as it is about whether poverty was ameliorated as much as it "should have been" given the spectacular growth of the Indian economy in the 1990s.

--Richard 20:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Then plz find multiple sources that attest to a "controversy". Both sides of the debate (including that of the gov'min') needs to be represented, including those that debunk these (frankly ridiculous in my opinion) claims. It is true that the poverty issue in the United States is contentious. However, I point you to the section Poverty in the United States#Controversy. You will see that the section is MUCH MORE NPOV with all sides presented dispassionately. In contrast, this section is a sad stub with a single POV, taken from a single source, touted as fact. I cannot believe that this can be accepted.Hkelkar 20:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the text of the section is POV but I do agree that it could be worded better. I looked at the Poverty in the United States article and I agree the treatment there is much better. I'm playing with the idea that there needs to be a generic article that talks about the general controversy (i.e. the one that exists globally across nations). Each "Poverty in X" article could then discuss the special characteristics of the controversy in that particular country. For example, it's interesting to note that India is considered to have the some of the best statistics on poverty. Thus, discussions of statistical problems with poverty data can become quite involved since there is so much data available. As a parting note, I present here another source which describes the controversy as the "well-known poverty trend controversy" (third paragraph).

[1]

--Richard 21:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't go away yet. If you have good sources to attest to the controversy then please put them in. You've got me intrested and I'd like to present as much reliable information regarding this issue from all sides of the debate. IF you find anything else then I'd be grateful if you could send me a holler and we can talk here.Hkelkar 21:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65.218.132.157's recent edits to this article

My view is that Proverty in India should not be the page where we discuss Economic Liberalization and its imapct on poverty of a country. We need to concentrate more on socio-economic condition of India part of which is still poor. Debate about Economic Liberalization in India can be a totally new page. : --apurv 12:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65.218.132.157, please sign your comments on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

I have been watching your recent edits and I was trying to guess at your motivations since they were obviously not mindless or POV vandalism. Thank you for the explanation, I understand better what you're driving at. I don't disagree. However, it is a bit rude to delete large portions of text without explanation. A better approach would be to leave a note here first and then wait for objection or discussion before proceeding.

Even if you wish to be bold, it would be kinder and gentler to copy the text you are deleting to this Talk Page so that others can evaluate what has been deleted and either re-insert it, re-use it elsewhere or accept the deletion.

Nobody owns this page. I cannot insist that the text you deleted be restored but neither can you insist that the text be deleted. Wikipedia operates by consensus. Let us discuss your edits and reach consensus on it.

BTW, would you be interested in helping to start an article on Economic Liberalization in India if it doesn't exist already?

--Richard 17:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First let me thank you Richard for guiding me on how to do an edit. I am new to wikipedia and appreciate your help. Now. I have created a user for me to keep things simple. And I do not meant to be rude at all. What I did was little bit of cleaning and formatting as the article is very verbose and poorly formatted. Also i felt that we are trying to cover to many debates just in one article. Lets try to keep things simple. And we can discuss Ecnomic Liberalization and similar intresting topics on a new page.

--apurv 19:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty in India

The high level of corruption found in government offices in India, including the police and judicial services largely affects the poor, director of the Tamil Nadu state judicial academy S Vimala said on Tuesday 7th November, 2006. vkvora 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One opinion. There are countless opinions regarding this. Are we to list them all???We should put in a representative and notable cross-section only and that has been done. The issue of poverty & corruption has been discussed.Hkelkar 21:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, the point has been mentioned. Could you provide the exact citation?Hkelkar 21:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One third or over 200 Million People of rural India lives on Rs 12.00 NSSO

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=33508

<<Removed copyrighted text added by User:Vkvora2001.>> — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not copyrighted. Poor knowledge of NSSO

vkvora 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Poors secrifice their children for Prosperity.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=79072

Parents sacrificing sons to be prosperous

Press Trust of India Posted online: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 at 1643 hours IST

Baripada (Orissa), January 3: Lured by promises of prosperity, a couple has allegedly sacrificed their two sons in Orissa's northern district of Mayurbahanj Padmalochan Gan and his wife Tuni had been advised by a 'tantric' to sacrifice their sons Harish (9) and Dipu (7) and hold a puja to set themselves on the path to prosperity, police said on Wednesday. The couple sacrificed their sons at their home at Tilapada village, about 55 km from here, after observing some rituals in the presence of the tantrik, identified as Jagannath Tudu, police said. Though the incident had occurred about a week ago it came to light only this morning, when the foul smell emanating from the decomposed bodies alerted the local people. They found the bodies of the two boys and informed the police, which have arrested the couple. The tantrik is absconding. The couple also has a two-month-old daughter, who had been spared, police said.

vkvora 04:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India’s losing battle against hunger.

In the Global Hunger Index, India ranks 117th for the prevalence of underweight children. Only Bangladesh and Nepal are worse-off. vkvora 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The report was released by Keshav Desiraju and Subash Chandra Khuntia, Joint Secretaries in the HRD Ministry in presence of UNESCO Director Minja, who said that India has shown political will

There are 28 developing countries with over half a million out of school children each. Nigeria, Pakistan, India and Ethiopia are home to the largest number of 23 million," the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007 said. vkvora 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCEUS report

I see a contradiction in the recent report on the unorganized sector : A 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) found that 77% of Indians, or 836 million people, lived on less than 20 rupees per day (USD 0.50), with most working in "informal labour sector with no job or social security, living in abject poverty."[9]

It doesn't specify whether they are measuring the earnings in absolute terms or purchasing power. If we assume that it is in purchasing power, it grossly exaggerates the current poverty level of about 27%. also the middle class is estimated to be atleast 300 million with purchasing power greater than 2. The number quoted in the report doesn't give scope for the presence of 300 million middle class. I would suggest that this entry be deleted.

Pionshivu —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:12, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Since the primary number that is quoted, "20 rupees", is in the national currency (Indian Rupees), the question of absolute versus PPP exchange rates does not arise (unless you are talking about intra-nation price disparities). The poverty level as per the Government of India is computed on the basis of money required to supply ~2200¹ calories worth of food per day and corresponds to a per day income of ~Rs. 10 - by that standard it is true that India's poverty level is around 25%. The World Bank uses yet another standard of poverty and comes up with another set of numbers. Of course there is no contradiction between these figures, since they are just using different income levels and not surprisingly ending up with different numbers.

By the way, you can access the executive summary of the NCEUS report and see the cited statistic on page 2 (bullet point 7). I'll add that reference to the article too.

¹:Actually 2400 and 2100 calories in rural/urban areas respectively Abecedare 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NECUS report is down. I am getting a "No web site is configured at this address". I agree with Pionshivu that this report seems to contradict a lot of figures. Does anyone have a mirror? I would like to read it. --61.12.4.26 22:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The report is available here, if it moves again, try looking at the main NCEUS website:http://nceus.gov.in/ -- SiobhanHansa 14:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Despite a veneer of expansionist, "superpower" government priorities like nuclear weapons and a space program, India has more than 836 million people living on less that 50 cents a day according to a recent report. statement in the lede also needs changing or deleting. It's currently an editorial expressed in very POV terms. I should think we can find notable experts on India's economy who express similar views, but we need to put any such statement in context (appropriate weight with other experts' views) and attribute it appropriately. -- SiobhanHansa 14:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

error (deliberate or stupid) in NCEUS report

I pointed that NCEUS report mentioning that 77% of Indians spend less than Rs 20 per day, was wrong. The correct figure is 62%. I attached my computations with the correction. But still my contribution was deleted. Spain001 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)spain001[reply]

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's Misleading Images and Rash behavior

First,I would like to say that Otolemur crassicaudatus did not ask me to discuss this on the talk page. He also did not leave me a note telling me that this discussion was going on. He has tried to delete my userpage because I said "Being an American is priceless"

User Otolemur crassicaudatus keeps deleting my contributions without giving a goood reason as to why. Any edit that ihave made to this page or another is always reverted by him. This is getting tiring for me and is hinderin my efforts on Wiki.

Poverty in India is mostly rural. Most people who live under the poverty line live in rural places. No other picture on the povetry in India page shows rural poverty which dominates over urban poverty. The picture of homes represents poverty in rural India, because these homes are where poor farmers live. I have travelled in poor parts of India and I know firsthand that these homes house people under the poverty line. Not having an image of rural poverty is wp:undue since all the images show urban poverty which is only a fraction of poverty in India.

I have explained this many times to Otolemur crassicaudatus but he still keeps removing my image with an excuse that "no place is mentioned"

The beggar in Bodhgaya image does not accurately depict poor people in India because they do not look like this. This man is an exception To say that this man represents all poor people in India is very wrong. A small minority of Indias poor are disabled. Most work long hours fishing, farming or as construction workers or beggars. This picture shows a man whose legs have been broken. Unless a majority of indias poor have legs like this, the image is irrelevant and undue to the poverty in india page.

This is just another attempt by Otolemur crassicaudatus to make India look bad. This user bears a strong hatred towards India and would like to deride the country as much as he can. Before, he has tried inserting an image of beggars washing their clothes in a puddle in the economy section of the India article which is featured. He still kept doing this even when I told him that the image represents the poorest of the poor in India and that every country has poor people, but most do not show an image of the dirt poor on their economy sections.

Because the beggar in Bodhgaya image doesnot show the truth of Indias poor, andbecause user:otolemur insists on having a beggar image,i haveuploaded Image:India poor.jpg which is more representative of beggars in India rather than a man with broken legs

Also, when I say low income housing, i do not mean housing for the lower class. I should have made it clear that these homes are of poor farmers who live below the poverty line. Hence, the image is appropriate for the page. It also shows rural poverty which is significantly greater than urban poverty Nikkul (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikkul's disruptive edits

I nominated this user's userpage for deletion because he said "Being an American is priceless", I was not aware of the meaning of "priceless". I thought "priceless" is synonymous to "worthless". I was not aware that "priceless" means "invaluable". I was not aware of the meaning. That was my mistake.
Off couse the begger image represent poverty. Many beggers have disabilities like that, this user cannot remove the image with useless excuses. Many beggers in India live worse condition than depicted here. Many beggers have no eyes, many beggers has no arms, many beggers have no limbs, it the truth, it it the reality. It is not right to conceal the situation of the poor people.
The edits of this user has a strong anti-poor bias. The edits by this user always try to conceal the situation of poor people. It is not right to hate the poor.
The farmer image is not well-indicative to the subject, because in every country around the world, rural people has low per capita income than urban people. An image of homes of farmer is not well-indicative to poverty, it do not representative for what "poverty" stands. "Poverty" means "condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water". In an article depicting poverty, only those image should be present which describe this.
Calling the begger image WP:UNDUE is blatant wikilawyering. Many beggers live worse condition than depicted. Begging is well-representative to poverty and the image is terribly appropriate.
Many of this user's edits are very problematic. See [2]. This user is continuously deleting the begger image with useless excuses that "since all beggars do not have messed up legs, this image is undue". It is ridiculus argument and applying undue here is blatant wikilawyering. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think both images should be kept.Bless sins (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd like User:OC to prove that many beggars have no eyes, arms and limbs. This is your POV. There is no source that will say most people living under the pov line are disabled

You have blamed me of hating the poor? I have made schools for slum children. I have distributed clothing to slum dwellers. I have started guidance centers for the poor. DO NOT tell ME that I hate the poor!
Since most of Indias poor live in RURAL areas and since MOST of them are in the AGRICULTRE industry, it DOES MAKE SENSE to have my image!
If you want a picture of a beggar, I will find you one of a normal beggar. This beggar pic is irrelvant and undue. Nikkul (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Nikkul, calm down. Debates in wikipedia can get heated. I'm sure OC didn't intend to hurt your feelings (and it may be his feelings are equally hurt).

Both you and OC need to be very, very polite.Bless sins (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, I wasnt yelling. The capital letters are meant to highlight. I am very polite until a user accuses me of hating a group of people for whom I have spent valuable time and money in helping. Nikkul (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was user Nikkul who started the incivil and impolite accusations on me. He called me "This is just another attempt by Otolemur crassicaudatus to make India look bad. This user bears a strong hatred towards India". In response to his comment, I made my comment. User Nikkul should comment on the edits, not on the editor. But this user directly made wild accustions on me. Otherwise I am polite until a user accuses me of hating India. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user called me "This user bears a strong hatred towards India and would like to deride the country as much as he can". I am polite until an user accuses me of hating India. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Begger image

The black and white begger image should be removed. The reason given for inclusion of this image is "added a more representative pic of a beggar". How this can be more appropriate? The Bodhgaya begger image is colour and will be good in this article. Bodhgaya begger image is more appropriate. Not all poor people live like this, this is ridiculus argument. Some poor people has TV on their home, so should we include an image of a TV in this article with a caption "A television in a low income home in India"? In an article for poverty, the Bodhgaya begger is terribly appropriate which depict what poverty stands for. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some images [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The people in these images shown are living worse condition than the Bodhgaya beggar image. The reason given for deletion of this image is "since all beggars do not have messed up legs, this image is undue and inappropriate". This is a fallacious and anti-Individualistic argument and logical fallcy. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an article depicting poverty, those images should be given which clearly illustrate "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARE ALL BEGGARS LIKE THE MAN IN BODHGAYA? DO MOST OF THEM HAVE BROKEN LEGS? Is the fact that their legs are broken make them poor? Is the definition of poverty "a disability"? No! A disability does not have anything to do with poverty. There are so many rich people who are disabled. Disability does not show poverty! Nikkul (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the old man does not really portray poverty in India. Its not obvious enough that this man is a poor beggar on the street when the young child with the twisted legs makes this quite obvious. The image of the young boy should remain, its symbolic of India and its a very touching image that reaches out to the reader and shows us what poverty in India is like at its most extreme. Its also relevant to text. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this fuss about a picture

Give it up, guys. It is folly to think that one picture can be representative of "poverty in India". Poverty in India, as in any other large country, must be multi-faceted. There are urban poor and rural poor. There are disabled poor and able poor. Poor children, poor adults and poor elderly.

If you wish to add more pictures to depict the various aspects of poverty in India, please do so. However, please do not attempt to find one single image which represents all of the aspects as this is an impossible task which will only lead to edit wars and disputes like this. I urge you to focus first on getting the article text to provide a wide-spectrum description of the causes and conditions of poverty in India and then try to find images which illustrate the points made in the text. Thus, if you have a section on "Rural poverty", a picture capturing that idea would be appropriate. Similarly, for "Urban poverty". Etc.

Hope this helps.

--Richard (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true poverty is multi-faceted. Disabled poor, able poor, low income people having television in home, low income people having mobile phone, low income people having motocycle. But there are some judgements in adding image in an article which depict poverty i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water". And only those images should be given which illustrate this. Not an image of a television on a poor people's home with a caption "Shown here a television in the home of poor people. In X country, Y% people has television like this". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never supported an image saying "Shown here a television in the home of poor people". You are putting words in my mouth. I am very opposed to this image because it is WP:Undue. If you want an image of a beggar, I will get you one. But this image implies that this is the state of beggars in India, which is not true. This is an exception.

Poverty is not related to disability. There are people who are super rich who are disabled. There is no clear relation between poverty and disability. Nikkul (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty in Canada, Poverty in UK, Poverty in US have 1 image showing poverty and a bunch of graphs. NONE of them have an image of disabled poor. I have replaced that image with an image of a girl begging. This represents beggars more than the other image. Nikkul (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making these useless excuses. You are just repeatating your flawed arguments. The image is appropriate as discussed above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected to stop edit warring over image

If I had an option, I would not have protected this page with the disabled beggar image. However, admins are not supposed to pick the revision of the page to protect. Protection of the page at its current revision IS NOT an endorsement of that particular revision. It is simply a recognition that edit warring is in progress and that this should stop.

Please reach a consensus as to what image(s) are appropriate for this page. You can then leave a message on my Talk Page or at WP:RPPP requesting unprotection.

--Richard (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very opposed to having the Bodhaya image there. It is wp:Undue. I have brought numerous images into wiki to satisfy OCs urge of having a beggar. This user WILL NOT COMPROMISE. He has made useless excuses like saying that since Ladakh is a small region, a beggar from ladhak would not qualify as poor in India. WHAT LOGIC IS THIS? Are some parts of India more Indian than others? Are indians from some parts more important than others? Is not an Indian from Bohgaya same as an Indian from Ladhak. This whole argument is baseless and is an effort by OC to portray Indophobia, of which he has been accused of numerous times on Wikipedia. I am truly offended that no one seems to recognize that the user is only trying to make India look bad by adding images to it that do not show a majority. Nikkul (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"of which he has been accused of numerous times on Wikipedia" who? who accused me? Only two users accused me. One is this. This is another false claim by this user. This user has previously made several false accusations on me. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. In defence, you are echoing my comments. It is you who are making useless excuses. The Bodhgaya beggar image has nothing undue. It is you who are making fallacious reasonings. The whole argument of your is baseless and your repeatatve accusation of Indophobia on me is also without foundatation. I wonder that this user is continuously making the same falawed argument and his ad hominem attack on me. I am going to issue this user a no personal attack warning. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has now chosen to defend his flawed argument by his ad hominem attack on me. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhgaya Image Problem

I feel that the the Bodhgaya Beggar image does not represent poverty in India correctly because:

The beggar in Bodhgaya image does not accurately depict poor people in India because they do not look like this. This man is an exception. To say that this man represents all poor people in India is very wrong. A small minority of Indias poor are disabled. Most living under the poverty line work long hours fishing, farming or as construction workers. This picture shows a man whose legs have been broken. Unless a majority of India's or even a fraction of the poor have legs like this, the image is irrelevant and undue to the poverty in india page.
Poverty and Disability are not connected in any way. There are thousands of super rich people who are disabled. There is no connection between disability and poverty. Just like color of skin does not have anything to do with poverty, disability does not either
There are 11 country articles on poverty

These have NO images: Poverty in Pakistan, Poverty in Africa, Poverty in China, Poverty in Australia, Poverty in Canada, Poverty in Malaysia, Poverty in Switzerland, Social issues in Brazil,
These have 1 image Poverty in the United States, Poverty in France
The Poverty in India page is the only one with more than 1 image. And the only reason for this is because User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has brought more and more images onto the page.

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has insisted that a beggar image be used on the Poverty in India page. His initial reason to keep the Bodhgaya image was because he felt that beggars represent poverty. Since he insisted on a beggar image, I brought an image of a more typical beggar onto the page.[9]. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus then complained that the black and white made the image unclear. I then added a color image of a beggar to satisfy this user.[10] This image shows a beggar in ladhak. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus undid my revision because ladakh a tiny part and very diff. from rest of India What logic does this follow? Are certain places more Indian than other places in India?? This just goes to show that this user is unyielding.
This user is being uncivil and unyielding. First of all, this user reported me to WP:ANI. The administrators reviewing his comments agreed that there was nothing wrong with what I was doing or saying and that the actual problem was the content. During this time, User:Otolemur crassicaudatus undid my picture and left his image there. I then removed his image and left mine out as well. I told him to hold off on adding either image because there was a discussion regarding the images on WP:ANI. Still, instead of yielding and having none of the disputed images, this user went ahead and added his image while leaving mine out. His reason for this was rv. blatant content blanking can be considered vandalism by POV editor. [11] He has accused me of vandalism! This shows that this user is not interested in dispute resolution, rather, this user wants his way and will engage in uncivil behavior in order to get his way.
This image is being used by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus to display his dislike of India and to mislead people into thinking that this is the plight of millions of poor Indians. This user has often added images showing extreme poverty to many India relating articles.[12] Even though this user knows that poverty is present in every country and that extreme poverty is not a fair representation of the Indian economy, this user has previously tried to add an image of children washing their clothes in a mud puddle to the economy section of the India page. This user has added this image to the poverty section of the Economy of India page, when a graph showing poverty would make more sense.
WP:Undue says:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

This can be applied to this because a very tiny fraction of poor people in India are disabled. Most work very hard trying to make a living for themselves. This image is misleading. Nikkul (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Please look at Poverty in the United States (check the image homelessness living in cardboard boxes in Los Angeles). All WP articles should have NPOV and FACT. Therefore, I couldn’t find any problem adding the Image Women washing cloths in Mumbai (in India article) and of course with disputed “Bodhgaya Image” as it is a FACT or TRUTH, why should we oppose it? I therefore am giving support. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 05:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are the poor in India all beggars nor, for that matter, are the beggars in India all poor. Confusing poverty with beggary is bad enough, failing -- or refusing -- to grasp the purely sensationalist nature of this image is worse. It does not inform, it does not educate. It shocks and disgusts. It's like adding pictures of dismembered bodies on a battlefield to a Military History page. And whatever Nikkul's faults, he is absolutely correct here that poverty in India is mostly rural. A crippled beggar on a city street is so far from being representative of "poverty in India" that I can't help thinking that this discussion is basically the result of an elaborate troll. Pertinence and encyclopedicity, anyone? rudra (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some clear differences here. Image:Homeless - American Flag.jpg doesn't give closeup of the face of the person concerned. Image:Homeless in LA.jpg shows examples of poor dwellings, not portraits. Whether the Bodhgaya pic is representative or not, leaving aside the ethical considerations, well, it is representative of how Western tourists perceive poverty in India. --Soman (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Katherine Mayo wrote Mother India in 1927, Mahatma Gandhi considered it a drain inspector's report. I suppose that as long as drains are there, drain inspector's would also be there but are we going to fill Wikipedia with such stuff? - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for inclusion of Bodhgaya beggar image

User Nikkul in defence of his argument is continuously making personal attacks against me, giving examples from other articles. This user is making wild accusations on me. I will request the editors please read the relevant sections on this page to give an inside in this user and to understand who is incivil. Editors please read the texts like these [13], [14], [15]. The Bodggaya beggar image is more appropriate than others because:

You may know, many beggars live a condition like this, many of them have various disabilities.

There is no "typical" definition of poverty, or beggar. There are abled beggar, disabled beggar. The purpose of the article is depicting poverty. The other beggar images which this user want to place deleting the Bodhgaya beggar image are not good quality, one is B&W, and the other depicting a beggar girl in Ladakh. But my objection here is that Ladakh is quite different from rest of the country because of its geographics. Majority Indians live in plain. And this Bodhgaya beggar image is showing poverty at its most extreme level. It is not right to conceal the situation of poor men like this, it is the truth, the reality. This image touches the heart of the reader, which is a real situation. Yes not all beggars are disabled, but is this an argument? On the other hand it also can be said that not all beggars are abled. Our job here is not to understand who is abled, or who is not. But to find a good image which is representative of many.

This user is repeatating his arguments and has taken a densive position by his ad hominem attack on me. This user has informed many partisan editors, like User:Hkelkar socks about the image. Any one do not agree with him, here I am trying to depict poverty, and he is labelling me as Indophobic. The only reason given against this image that "since all beggars have not messed up legs, this image is undue". But it is an anti-individualistic argument. So what if not all beggars do not have messed up legs? The fact is that such secenes is a reality and it would not be right to conceal it. Such scenes exists, it is the truth. If it is reality, if such scenes exits, then an article depicting poverty i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water", only those images should remain which clearly illustrate this fact.
Please remember the article is not about India, but the article is about poverty. This article is not depicting India, depicting poverty in India. So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India. There are other images in the article depicting other types of poverty. Such scenes also exist, this image will be appropriate, giving all possible approaches. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Poverty in the United Kingdom article does not have pictures of beggers or people sleeping in cardboard boxes, though this is a common site in cities. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's statement You may know, many beggars live a condition like this, many of them have various disabilities.

There are many rich people who live in a condition like that too! What does that prove? Disabilities are not related to poverty. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has no sources to prove that a significant number of beggars in India are disabled or that this person's disability is related or caused by poverty.

Regarding User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's statement But my objection here is that Ladakh is quite different from rest of the country because of its geographics. Majority Indians live in plain.

One part of India is no less Indian than another place. I dont see how anyone can argue that a beggar from Ladakh is not as Indian as a beggar from Bodhgaya! This user has said that the Ladakh beggar image should not be included because ladakh a tiny part and very diff. from rest of India I fail to see how an image from Ladakh is less Indian than an image from any other state.

Regarding User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's statement Yes not all beggars are disabled, but is this an argument?

Ofcourse its a valid argument. A very very small fraction of poor Indians are disabled. And an even smaller fraction of them are disabled to that extent. Please read WP:relevance and WP:undue.

Regarding 's statement this Bodhgaya beggar image is showing poverty at its most extreme level.

I agree! This is an extreme and not the norm. This gives too much weight to a very small fraction of the topic. WP:undue.

Regarding User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's statement But to find a good image which is representative of many.

Who says that there is an overwhelming rate of disability in the poor people of India? One is born with a disability, it isnt caused because of poverty. Just like color of skin doesnt make a person povertized, disabilities do not make a person poor. It is not like most poor people in India are born with disabilities.

Regarding User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's statement "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water", only those images should remain which clearly illustrate this fact.

How does this image show that this person does not have food, shelter and drinking water? As shown here and here, beggars can not only have homes, water, and food, they can also have "a wife and two married sons at an Amboli flat and a rented out flat for Rs.8,000 a month." This is an exception and this should not be listed on this page, but Im just pointing out that you can never take anything for granted. Hence this image does not show that this person does not have a shelter, water, and food. You never know, this beggar could be paying an annual insurance premium of Rs36,000 like Sarvatia Devi from the second source.

Regarding User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's statement the article is not about India

...huh? This article is not about India? then why is the word India in the title? This article is about one type of life in India, but this image is a poor representation of it.

Regarding User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's statement So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India.

If you do not intend to deride India, than why are you opposed to the more representative image of a beggar in Ladakh which better portrays begging rather than an image which shows a very very small fraction of people who do not represent beggars in India nor the poor in India. Nikkul (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users For Bodhgaya Image

Wikipedia is not censored.Bless sins (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Avinesh Jose T 05:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xdenizen (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users Against Bodhgaya Image

Nikkul (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indiandefender2 (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarvagnya 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC). came back to add my comment... but just saw that rudra (and Soman) had beaten me to it. Sarvagnya 17:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per my comment rudra (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Q Chris (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with rudra's argument, and I am at least opposed to the image's use in the lead. If somebody compiles a section on poverty and disability, it may be appropriate in that section. dab (𒁳) 08:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shyamsunder 21:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we voting on this? I thought Wikipedia doesn't encourage voting but encourages discussion. I find Rudra's argument to be most reasonable. All begging images should be removed from the article and may be placed in a new article on Begging in India if someone wants to start one. Begging is a kind of activity when the beggers often intentionally exaggerate their poverty / helpless situation. That is why these images are not appropriate. (For an analogy, In the article on "Economy of India", it would not be appropriate to show off the luxurious houses / automobiles of the richest people.) Pictures depicting rural and urban poor living in dire conditions may be appropriate for this article. And one or two such images should be enough. The article should rely more heavily on graphs, charts, statistics and of course text. Arman ^(Talk) 08:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kensplanet (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC) --->> against the image[reply]
Soman - One must differentiate between rules and good practice. Wikipedia is not censored, but on the other hand that doesn't mean we are compelled to publish every photo possible. We should not include images without considering asking if there are any ethical limitations. Has this guy asked to be the posterboy of misery? Probably not. I have raised similar objections regarding portrait photos of Indian prostitutes at wikimedia commons. I feel there is a systematic bias here, its ok to use images of anonymous third world people in a way it would never be tolerated if it was white westerns. Moreover, poverty is a social and structural phenomenon, if we want to illustrate in photographs we'll have to come up with pictures that is not limited to a portrait of an individual. --Soman (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chanakyathegreat I agree with the addition of the images provided the Wiki policy is to have beggers images in all the articles of various nations from U.S.A to Somalia. By doing so we will have only beggers pictures all over Wikipedia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC) An Image on poverty should represent economic poverty, not bodily defects at a personal level. An ideal image would be slum, that too, a far shot.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~ priyanath talk 17:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC) OC is bringing tabloid journalism standards to Wikipedia. The photo is neither representative of poverty in India, nor encyclopedic, but is the worst type of pandering sensationalism. It's also an insult to the subject and to others with a crippled body.[reply]

This particular beggar is apparently well known in Bodh Gaya, and "pulls in a few hundred rupees a day", which definitely is not representative of poverty in India. Here's a description of him:

There is one beggar in Bodh Gaya who pulls in more money than anyone else and that is this gentleman. This guy has nerves of steel to sit where he does on the pavement hoping that no speeding car, motorcycle, or truck hits him. He told me that he pulls in a few hundred rupees every day. When I got to know him socially I found that he was really not any different than anybody else. He was aware of both his crippled body and his handsome face. Like almost every Indian I've met, his self-image was excellent and if anybody bothered him, the guy really could pack a punch.[16]

And here's a beautiful photo of him that apparently is more representative of who he is.[17] I'm posting these things because it shows that he is not a typical representative of either poverty or begging in India.~ priyanath talk 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lquilter (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC) - I came to this discussion from seeing a message posted on a talk page that I was posting to. It is my belief that this photo is unnecessarily graphic, in the sense of startling or sensationalistic, for the article. I am also swayed by the arguments about non-consensual use of the image of an individual in a graphic context, and by the importance of ensuring that we do not perpetrate an all-too-common pattern of objectifying non-white/European people. That said, I am concerned by the arguments that Nikkul has posted about villifying India. That is not WP:AGF, I saw no evidence of it, and it suggests a strong sense of "protecting" content that is, itself, not WP:NPOV. So I think it's important to clearly state that I do not support Nikkul's reasoning. --Lquilter (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. This article is about Begging in India and not about Poverty in India? Ladakh is not representative of India whereas Bodhgaya is? censorship?? Come on. I think Soman has put it best, above. - KNM ^Talk 18:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are certianly much better images that represent the topic. Yahel Guhan 06:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are other images that you could use that more accurately demonstrate poverty, instead of using some attention-grabbing picture of a beggar who seems to have some sort of physical condition. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus here?

By my count, the !vote is running 12-5 which is more than a supermajority but not necessarily a WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus means unanimity or near-unanimity. Or, at the very least, it means that the minority agrees to abide by the majority decision. Has consensus been reached here? If so, I will unprotect the page. If not, well, further discussion is needed. --Richard (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus or not, the links I provided above show that this beggar is making nearly ten times the poverty level listed in the article. Further, the image does not meet WP:RS as a representation of Poverty in India and should be removed for that reason alone. It was taken from Flickr, for goodness sake. Even if there were consensus to keep the image, it still does not meet WP:RS. I request an administrator to remove it for that reason alone. ~ priyanath talk 00:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't seem likely. rudra (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are reminded that wikipedia is not censored. If an image is a "disgrace", sorry but wikipedia is not here to consider other's sensitivities. This was the case on the article Muhammad, where many editors felt that portraying Muhammad offended Muslim sensitivities. Nevertheless, the images were kept.Bless sins (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are reminded that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This isn't an image of someone who is living in poverty, as the links have shown. If the Muhammad article had an image of someone that actually wasn't Muhammad, it would have been both a disgrace and unencyclopedic, and been removed. This image is factually untrue, and patently dishonest, and therefore unencyclopedic — so it should be removed. It's not a matter of consensus, censorship, or what some people see as a disgrace, but a matter of getting it right. The fact that an image is being dishonestly used to pander to people's lower emotions is a disgrace, however, in addition to being unencyclopedic. ~ priyanath talk 04:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for the Muhammad image. The image was not at all Muhammad's but of a painter's allegations against Muhammad. (The same can be said for cartoons of Muhammad, where Muhammad is depicted as a terrorist.) These images (of Muhammad) are factually untrue and pander to people's hatred or ridicule that people have for Muhammad. The images were also unrepresentative: Muslims portray Muhammad using Islamic calligraphy, not face portraits. However, wikipedia made it crystal clear, that the images would stay, no matter how false, dishonest or unrepresentative they were.Bless sins (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, so nobody gets the wrong idea from Bless sins' comment, the images in the Muhammad article were paintings by Persian muslims, and they depict Muhammad in a favorable light. They are not necessarily untrue, as they, like all artworks, are interpritations of what Muhammad looked like. and there has been a long dispute over this, which I do not whis to fully reiterate. You can read the discussion in greater detial here, here, and here if you are intrested. Yahel Guhan 06:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Islmic tradition, these images are blasphemous, so I'm not sure my Yahel Guhan equates blasphemy with "positive light". ANd they are certainly untrue. Neither Yahel Guhan, nor the artists ever saw Muhammad; thus neither can make any claims of accuracy. And yes, please follow the links to see how pleas of inaccuracy and dishonesty fell on deaf ears.Bless sins (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat the long discussion all over again. Anyone who wishes to judge the value of your comparision can read the archives and make a fair judgement themselves. I'm just making sure they get the full story. Yahel Guhan 06:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse I encourage everyone to read the full story - though it'll probably the longest one you've ever read.Bless sins (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it proves that wikipedia cannot and should not be treated as a source which can be trusted as true to facts.Ajjay (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means that wiki policies specific to images and censorship may need reforms.Bless sins (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing that the policies are not correct in their present state.Further it serves no point in comparing two different articles on religion and economics.Ajjay (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not comparing them content wise but in terms of notable precedents of wikipolicy. Secondly, while the policies, in my opinion, need reforms, they need to be obeyed until reforms are made. Bless sins (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could go on and onAjjay (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

voting!!! is wiki a republic or what?

I am not in favour of voting.A view might be held by a majority of people, but it must not be necessarly right.

But the image of the disabled person does not belong here.

It is an individual case and there is no mention of the background to his condition.
Was his condition because of the disability or was his disability due to lack of care.
Since his picture is there, anybody who sees it will associate it with the entire people living under the poverty line, which is not the case.
If the income of poor people in India is compared with that of the developed countries, than any economist will know that their condition is not due to lack of income, but due to lack of purchasing power of the Indian rupee.
The disability of the child can be attributed to lack of health schemes in India, but the same exists in U.S too.
The article should address general condition and not individual cases.
The person who has put this picture,if he wants the picture to remain, must also classify the poor people in India according to their health conditions,their income groups,education,job opportunities instead of including isolated cases.Ajjay (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's known as a straw-poll. It is useful instead of having a discussion going round and round in circles to see which side of the argument is seen as most convincing. As it turns out, rudra's argument seems more convincing than the stock phrase "WP is not censored", which is true but beside the point. Since the straw-poll is going your way, I don't see why you don't just add your name in support instead of rehashing points that were already made. There may be an encyclopedic use for this image. Gracing the top of this article isn't it. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in favour of poll, straw or not.It might reduce the strain for discussion,but also entitles someone with no knowledge of the subject to influence the decision.That is why i did not vote, even-though i am against the picture.Ajjay (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

I can see there is a systematc "fasconationalist" bias in wikipedia.

Statement:"Regarding User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's statement So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India.

If you do not intend to deride India, than why are you opposed to the more representative image of a beggar in Ladakh which better portrays begging rather than an image which shows a very very small fraction of people who do not represent beggars in India nor the poor in India."

- Comment: Here the users are giving importance to nationalism, instead of individualism. The conflict here is between nationalism and individualism. All the editors are giving importance to the state first, then to the beggar, while individualism is giving importance TO THAT BEGGAR FIRST, THEN TO THE STATE. The problem here is in the fundamental structure of wikipedia. The article is about poverty in India, i.e. poverty in a specific country, poverty within a particular "geographic boundary". There is an objection with this "geographic boundary". This is a fundamental problem is being faced here, i.e. the "state" is taken as the normal situation. And the concept of "poverty" is also based on taking the state as normal situation. I am more or less anti-state (and probably "anti-Bourgeoisie"). Now how to combat this anti-antistate bias? The beggar image is not being supported with keeping in mind the "geographical boundary" thing. Due to this fundamental problem, the beggar image will be deleted. My logic on inclusion of the image was based on the theory of individualism and anti-state. But that was my fault, I forgot the title is based in keeping the "state" as normal. So if the state is taken as normal, then the definition of "poverty" will also be changed, and beggar image will be deleted. Anyhow, keeping in mind the "state" as normal situation, the beggar image in Ladakh is also not "more appropriate". There are objection in the statement "more representative image of a beggar in Ladakh". Poverty is multi-faced. There is no "more representative image". This is a wrong term. I agree that the other articles on poverty has no beggar image, it is not right, and I also agree that all articles should be uniform. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.c. (if I may call you that), I don't think I understand this argument, or, if I do, I don't agree with it. It seems to me that even if we understand this article to be about the state "India", that doesn't support (or weigh against) using a particular photo of a particular individual. If the answer isn't relevant to this discussion, feel free to respond on my talk page. --Lquilter (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OC's argumentation can of course be twisted the other way around. If there is no "more representative image", then by default there is no "less representative image" (unless you want to enter in a neverending argument on whether J&K rightfully belongs to India or not...). If any example of poverty can be summed up in a photo, then we have an endless variety of choices when chosing a picture for the lead section. Thus we can then move on to selecting image on both ethical and stilistic grounds. My position is that no individual portraits should be used in the article. I do feel that there are clear nationalistic overtones in the debate, seeking to downplay the gravity of economic misery of 100s of millions of Indians, but one could likewise ask why you are so keen on using the by far most sensationalistic photo available in the lead? --Soman (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the beggar is relevant to the article and should remain. The image is relevant to text and gives a clear description of what poverty in India (at its most extreme) is like, especially to those unfamiliar with the subject of poverty in that country. I don’t think the picture of rural homes in the countryside really portrays poverty at its most extreme. The photo in question looks more like and old country town in a rural setting where the inhabitants would not be rich or to poor, but would be able to support themselves by living off their own crops and lives stock and fend for themselves by living off their own land, unlike the poor beggar with broken legs begging in the streets to make a living. To someone unfamiliar with the subject this picture does not portray poverty but a rural lifestyle.¶

¶ The user in question seems to have a bad habit of wanting to get his photos into articles regardless of relevance or quality. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any images used in this article to represent poverty in India should come from a Reliable Source (WP:RS) — i.e., from an article or academic work showing that the image is 1. what it claims to be, and 2. is truly representative of some aspect of Poverty in India. The image in question 1. does not come from a Reliable Source, 2. is not what it claims to be (i.e., someone living below poverty level, since that would be about Rs 40 per day, according to the article, and this person apparently makes nearly ten times that much), and does not represent anything except the bias of OC and others (speaking of bias) who want want to pander to people's emotions. ~ priyanath talk 22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is typical and symbolic of India (Poverty in India). Its Indian, its poverty, the image is not offensive, its moving and thats all there is to it. The article Poverty in Australia has no photos in it. If I want I could go out right now and find the scummiest looking homeless people that I could, take photos of them and add it to the article. The only thing the motivation isn't there for me to take pictures of this kind of thing. But if it is really necessary to prove that this is not bias I will do so and post the picture here of poor people in Australia but I don't think to many people would want to see it. This picture is already here, its plain to see that he is a beggar, he is poor and that he comes from India. This should stay. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other classic images of "poverty" that avoid the issues that come with close-ups of individual people, for instance, wide-angle shots of impoverished neighborhoods. Let's set aside people's accusations of bias and simply focus on getting a representative and evocative image that does not present issues of personal dignity. --Lquilter (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam.J.W.C. - but the image is not poverty, by the very definition of poverty in the article. The subject earns nearly ten times the poverty level through his begging. Therefore the image is a deception, and one that is beginning to look like an intentional one. Let's get an image that comes from a Reliable Source and actually shows poverty, rather than an image that evokes feelings of poverty. This is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. ~ priyanath talk 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really dont think having pictures of actual people in poverty is a good idea. First of all, most other pages like this have no images or one, unclear image like Poverty in the US,which has an image of someone sitting down, looking at the ground. Showing someones pain on wikipedia is unnecessary. And generally, encyclopedic articles do not show pictures of a single person as a representation of a broad topic. I like User talk:Lquilter's idea of having only one or two images of povertised neighborhoods, not of people. Nikkul (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with this photo is that most of the people who are opposed to this photo are people from India who are embarrassed about this being here. This is just a photo of one cripple on the streets of India, when in fact there are hundreds or maybe even thousands of people like this on the streets of India. This photo should be here but not in the intro, thats actually my fault but now I cant change this. Its obvious that this guy is a poor beggar from India. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an information I am not an Indian and still opposed to positioning this image in the article simply because it is an inappropriate image for this article. Where it has clearly been shown that this person (in the image) tries to exploit his poverty and disability by exaggerating his helplessness at the time of begging, I am very surprised how still some editors are insisting that this picture is a represntative image of poverty in India. Arman ^(Talk) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes editors may have reasons not to pay attention, such as the file histories here, here, here and here. rudra (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanath and Arman have it on the mark. Beggars in India are rich compared to actually poor people. An image of a slum would be the obvious solution.Baka man 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editprotected

{{editprotected}} Please add the protection template to the top of the page. Yahel Guhan 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove image (lead image) till discussion is complete. Since a majority of editors wish to not have the image there, it makes sense to not have it in the article until discussion is complete. Nikkul (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason people are voting against is because you went and informed about thirty or so other editors who you knew would side with yourself. This is actually bias and should be disregarded due to that fact. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No,i dont think so. I informed people who I felt edit India related articles. To tell you the truth, I dont really know any editors well enough to know where they stand. Some editors have chosen to not side with me like User:X. Also, user:OC went and tried to get people to support him and tried to get me blocked on ANI because he felt I was being disruptive by not including his image. The only reason you are saying this, user adam, is because you have no other excuse to leave this image on the page and all your other efforts have been exhausted. What it all comes down to is that this image is in no way a representation of beggars, beggars in India, the poor, the poor in india, poverty, and poverty in India. I would support having this image on an article Begging and Disability, but it is certainly undue here. And I think the vast majority of people who have voted makes this clear. Nikkul (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adam.J.W.C.'s previous comments make it clear that this user is not willing to yield and that he does not feel like discussing the issue. It also makes it clear that this user has no valid argument other than accusing others. There is no point of having a concensus if users like User:Adam.J.W.C. are going to wait a month and then put the image back up. The whole point of Wikipedia as an open,honest source where editor agree on something is undermined by User:Adam.J.W.C.. If this is whats going to happen, then why are we wasting all of our time trying to gain consensus?

"If he photo is removed, just weight a month or so then re insert it, if it is removed again then do one revert per day after that, I don't think you would be breaking any law by doing so. I could step in as well. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)" [18]

Why editprotection? there is hardly an edit war in the article at the moment. --Soman (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some users so desperately want the image removed (with equally passionate feelings on the other side) demonstrates the need for the protection.Bless sins (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editprotection should not be overused. The editors in question have brought the issue to the talk page, and shown willingness to engage in discussions. There's no warrant for editprotection at this stage. --Soman (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that editprotection should not be overused. That's why I only left a note here the first time this article was drawn to my attention. However, after I left my note, there was a subsequent repetition of the edit/revert cycle. Just because the edit war is not "hot" doesn't mean it isn't happening. In fact, it has been running over several days. I protected the article to encourage real discussion, negotiation and compromise rather than just polemic.

--Richard (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a protection tag. No admin will remove the image while the page is protected; that's the point of protection, to stop the page being edited. Please take some time and find a resolution to the situation (perhaps you could compromise by moving the image lower?). — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

I think we have achieved as much consensus as we are going to achieve. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus has agreed that having a beggar image is not right. I do not know what his reasoning behind keeping it is now, since it tends to change as time goes by.

"I agree that the other articles on poverty has no beggar image, it is not right, and I also agree that all articles should be uniform" [19]

User:Adam.J.W.C. doesnt seem like he's ever going to yield. Since he always tends to wait for the discussion to be over and then just inserts the image again. As he has done here], here

"If he photo is removed, just weight a month or so then re insert it, if it is removed again then do one revert per day after that, I don't think you would be breaking any law by doing so. I could step in as well" [20]

There are somethings about which not everyone will agree. I think we have enough people agreeing that the image should be removed as it is not an appropriate portrayal of poverty in india and an exploitation of one's "poverty and disability by exaggerating his helplessness at the time of begging"

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's Misleading Images and Rash behavior

First,I would like to say that Otolemur crassicaudatus did not ask me to discuss this on the talk page. He also did not leave me a note telling me that this discussion was going on. He has tried to delete my userpage because I said "Being an American is priceless"

User Otolemur crassicaudatus keeps deleting my contributions without giving a goood reason as to why. Any edit that ihave made to this page or another is always reverted by him. This is getting tiring for me and is hinderin my efforts on Wiki.

Poverty in India is mostly rural. Most people who live under the poverty line live in rural places. No other picture on the povetry in India page shows rural poverty which dominates over urban poverty. The picture of homes represents poverty in rural India, because these homes are where poor farmers live. I have travelled in poor parts of India and I know firsthand that these homes house people under the poverty line. Not having an image of rural poverty is wp:undue since all the images show urban poverty which is only a fraction of poverty in India.

I have explained this many times to Otolemur crassicaudatus but he still keeps removing my image with an excuse that "no place is mentioned"

The beggar in Bodhgaya image does not accurately depict poor people in India because they do not look like this. This man is an exception To say that this man represents all poor people in India is very wrong. A small minority of Indias poor are disabled. Most work long hours fishing, farming or as construction workers or beggars. This picture shows a man whose legs have been broken. Unless a majority of indias poor have legs like this, the image is irrelevant and undue to the poverty in india page.

This is just another attempt by Otolemur crassicaudatus to make India look bad. This user bears a strong hatred towards India and would like to deride the country as much as he can. Before, he has tried inserting an image of beggars washing their clothes in a puddle in the economy section of the India article which is featured. He still kept doing this even when I told him that the image represents the poorest of the poor in India and that every country has poor people, but most do not show an image of the dirt poor on their economy sections.

Because the beggar in Bodhgaya image doesnot show the truth of Indias poor, andbecause user:otolemur insists on having a beggar image,i haveuploaded Image:India poor.jpg which is more representative of beggars in India rather than a man with broken legs

Also, when I say low income housing, i do not mean housing for the lower class. I should have made it clear that these homes are of poor farmers who live below the poverty line. Hence, the image is appropriate for the page. It also shows rural poverty which is significantly greater than urban poverty Nikkul (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]