This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This will very likely be reverted, but I removed some content under the heading "Relative poverty versus inequality" and changed the name of the section. The removed text did not appear to be sourced to the World Bank reference. The content regarded some absurdities such as the fact that a household earning $100,000/year in a district where the median income was $1,000,000/year would be considered "poor." The highest income counties in the US have a median income of about $120,000, so a household earning 10% of the median income would still earn only $12,000/year.

Then it explains how that if society changed in a way that hurt the wealthy more than the poor, everyone would be worse off. I'm not certain as to how reducing income inequality would harm low-income people; perhaps the idea is that the redistribution would harm median earners as well as the wealthy. It is at best a parlor game and a diversion from the theme of the article. We have just read about people with no access to drinking water, and then are told that somehow even these people would be "worse off" if the wealthy were bereft of some of their income. Roches ( talk) 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Because if so wikipedia is immediately worthless. How is that not an instant revert and IP ban? We just have to pretend Heritage Foundation spammers are behaving in good faith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.79.235 ( talk) 03:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ 173.68.79.235: I assume you're talking about the Heritage Foundation opinion that was added in 2006 in this edit and removed in 2017 in this edit.

The Heritage Foundation is a prominent conservative think-tank. It seems like a perfectly reasonable source to cite for an economic criticism of the way poverty is calculated. The criticism itself seems factual and logical, and it does not look like "spam" to me. The fact that a criticism is coming from a particular point of view isn't a reason not to mention it, but it is a reason to make sure that critics from other points of view are represented in order to produce a balanced article. -- Beland ( talk) 17:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC) reply

This article is more a description of the World Bank's IPL than "poverty threshold" as a concept. The lede is biased towards the World Banks' definition and needs to be re-written more neutrally to take into account other economists' views of what the IPL is. Egaoblai ( talk) 19:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

We could use some more eyes on this: Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#poverty. Also, there is the question of whether the proposed misconception should be added to this or another article on poverty. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply

It is a concept that clearly has stand-alone notability. It can be mentioned and summarized here, but should be discussed in-depth it its own article. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I would say Nah, or at best not yet. We need sufficient detail here to contrast with absolute, which is very important in light of the fuzziness of the whole concept (e.g., number of people per household varies widely). How much more depth do you suggest? Martindo ( talk) 03:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mzk224.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 12 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leylabey, Gmorais21, Erbjake1, Mvansch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 28 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AIsufi80.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Makenna Williams.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Going by the linked sources, the article improperly confounds data from different eras, partly ignoring the current situation mentioned in those sources, while acting it would all be data from the same time period, i. e. today.

At first, the average poverty rate for all Americans in 2018 is listed, which was 13.1%. This is then followed shortly after by contrasting the average poverty rate in 2008 (12.3%) with that of women (13.8%) and of men of (11.1%), without giving any year at all for those latter figures within the article text itself, which also cannot be discerned from the given sources, while acting like all those figures would date from the same time period and even talking in the present tense, as if it would be referring to the current situation throughout, stating (without proper evidence in these sources) that the current average rate would be higher for women than for the average American.

Furthermore, one of the three sources given for the above has been permanently depublished and the entire website (which, according to the footnote, dates from 2008) closed down, while the other source that is still available has data from 2020 instead that looks very different, with 12.6% for women, which is decidedly *BELOW* the average powerty rate for all Americans mentioned in the third source referring to 2018. -- 2003:EF:170A:9264:AD00:5B17:72A9:6BA0 ( talk) 13:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The bot restored <ref name WBPL> and <ref name PLWB> but those are both outdated, accessed Jan 2022 when the actual report was issued later in 2022 with higher figures. See WB Fact Sheet cited before "(in PPP)" earlier in the second paragraph. It contains a link to this report with detailed stats including lower-middle and upper-middle "lines": https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/353811645450974574/assessing-the-impact-of-the-2017-ppps-on-the-international-poverty-line-and-global-poverty

I hope a human can straighten out the citations along with updating the remaining data. Martindo ( talk) 07:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) reply