Talk:Welfare

message: I think it's an important distinction that money given voluntarily to a charitable organization is far different that money being taken from you with the threat of violence.  I think the reference to the Catholic Church needs to be removed from this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontier teg (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Welfare vs Charity

message: Could this be merged with Social welfare? -- Zoe
Isn't the "productive/unproductive" comment a little contentious? A working man with a low wage may be more "productive" than a man living off inherited wealth. Exile
Just to clarify that comment - not all welfare payments go to the unemployed.
Also, some welfare is "in kind" eg free health care and education. In the UK, the majority of the population both pays taxes and receives welfare. Also, most people in the UK, regardless of circumstances, will be net gainers from the welfare system when in childhood, in old age and in periods of illness and unemployment, and will be net losers during periods of paid employment. Welfare acts as a kind of socialised insurance scheme. So, to characterise welfare as a payment from the productive to the unproductive deserves deletion, or at least putting in quotes, I feel. 
Exile
Don't forget childcare, at least in the US. Hyacinth 04:12, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: I thought I would split the article welfare into welfare (disambiguation) and welfare (financial aid). The reason is that I thought the description of different possible things that welfare could mean was beginning to get a bit long, and that welfare as financial aid is a big enough subject area to deserve a separate article to general welfare.
Okay I know there's already the Social Security (United States) - but I think that a separate article about welfare can be expanded to compare different welfare and financial aid systems in different countries - or, rather, the things in other countries that might be called welfare in the US.
However - admittedly I didn't look at the list of articles that link to welfare before making the split. And there's loads of them. Checking the relevancy of all the links and editing them will be a lot of work. I've changed a handful already but before doing lots of them, I want to get some feedback to see if people think this is a good idea, or if we should just go back to the single article we had before. Thanks. Squashy 23:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah - the original article at welfare has got a very long edit history. By rights I should have moved that over here - I realise that now but didn't at the time. Whoops. Sorry. Course, I've also created a talk page here, so I can't do it myself now. So I shall be requesting a administrator manual move of the welfare history to here. Squashy 10:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  article split 

message: Corporate welfare is not a pejorative to everyone -- just to anarchists and few joking conservatives.--Chuck (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate welfare  

message: I've turned this back into an article, merging content from welfare (financial aid) and social welfare provision, which are now both redirects. This article is still in very basic shape, but the previous situation was an absolute mess, with terrible duplication across multiple articles. There is still social security to merge into this.
This is still missing a theory and policy section to discuss sociological and public policy approaches to welfare, and similarly the history section needs expanding. Summaries of various national welfare systems should help to flesh out the general overview sections also. A terminology section might also be useful to discuss some of the various names that are used, as well as specialised terms like welfare state (which can probably exist as a separate article but also currently duplicates much material and should be trimmed and then summarised here).
The disambiguation material is now at welfare (disambiguation), which was previously a redirect. Once you take out the duplicated articles and the dicdef stuff, all that's left is the movie, the ships, the economics topic (which is unrelated to this topic) and animal welfare, which is related to a different dicdef. This topic is appropriate for primary disambiguation, those other topics beng not sufficiently important to dislodge this one in my view. --bainer (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good bold move, but though you apparently incorporated almost everything from one article, you incorporated almost nothing from the other, whose last version is here. --Espoo (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was mostly unsourced generalisations (on forms of welfare, and on circumstances in which it is provided), not that they were incorrect but it would probably be better to start from scratch. --bainer (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation 

message: I like typing odd-sounding and (often) made-up words into the wikipedia search function just to see where they take me. I was redirected to this page when I entered "pogey." I could find no reference to "pogey" at all in the article. Can anyone here tell me what the connection is?165.91.65.2 (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this prior revision in the redirect's history, apparently it is "A Canadian term used to describe unemployment payments." The Wiktionary entry for the word also says the same thing. Although I'm Canadian myself but have never heard of the word <shrug>. Anyways, I've decided to redirect the word to Social welfare in Canada instead and tagged the redirect with . -- œ™ 05:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pogey]]?

message: "In requiring reports of a beneficial interest in Trust funds and of holdings of a trustee, the law reveals a portion of the social security system of the rich.  It is an excellent system, and provides much security for its beneficiaries.  But in considering it, one wonders about the oft heard thesis of many conservative and ultra-conservative spokesmen and newspapers that the federal Social Security System, the Family Welfare System and the trade-union system all carry great danger of destroying the characters of the participants. They might, among other things, become mercenary or lazy.  The rich themselves very evidently do not believe that being the beneficiaries of huge trust funds has undermined their characters, or that establishing trust funds for their children will distort the children's characters.  No case has come to light where the children of the wealthy have been left penniless for their own benefit... Why, if drawing benefits without labor from a big trust fund does not destroy character, will drawing benefits in old age from Social Security or a pension system do so? Why would a true Welfare State be injurious to the general public when a private welfare system of trust funds is not apparently injurious to its limited number of beneficiary heirs?" Ferdinand Lundberg, "The Rich and the Super-Rich"  Stars4change (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Add this?

message: is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85.  That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the Welfare (financial aid) page history, and found 4 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misusing of refs 

message: The welfare discussion under the subsection of the United States is very minimal and simplistic.  Unlike other countries, the U.S. is an extremely diverse country, with many different languages, ethnicities, and immigrant groups.  This diversity makes the welfare system very complex and, particularly, racialized.  Therefore, it is imperative that a discussion on misperceptions of welfare be included, as well as a presentation of how welfare, a program designed to assist the neediest, has become to be closely associated with specific races/ethnicities (primarily Hispanics and African Americans). Unmdgs (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a split, this subject needs to be developed in a dedicated article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Welfare 

message: The sentence quoted below is currently in the article. I can't make sense of this sentence and I'm especially confused by the phrase "black T-ford" (is the something to do with cars?). I suspect this is country specific colloquialism and as such needs some explanation if it is going to be used in the article. Is this describing a system to preserve "a good life" at various levels between a minimum and average (the current grammar seems to suggest this), or is it describing a system to raise quality of life from a minimum to average?
:It is also a systematic infrastructure to protect a good life, from a minimum up to (today) just about average (like 'one size fits all' or 'black T-ford').
Anonymous watcher (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing phrases with no source 

message: This is an important topic and yet the history section is weak. Worth adding a History of Social Welfare page? Nathangeffen (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Social Welfare page needed 

message: "Voucher programs can make us worse off because of the cap on our ability to spend on ‘all other goods’ our indifference curves could limit us." This sentence seems slightly bias and there is no reference. Should this be removed? 64.222.254.25 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is a literature review and not a primary source. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The content you added just cites primary sources through the review.  In fact, the actual synthesis of the review is ignored in the content you added: However, our main conclusion from this survey is that most studies do not point to a quantitatively important role for ethnic diversity in shaping natives’ preferences for redistribution. In most studies, the association is much weaker than for other factors such as own income (current or expected) or beliefs about the role of effort versus luck in determining this income.  Moreover, it seems that the sizeable negative association between ethnic diversity and support for redistribution that is sometimes found in U.S. studies does not generalize to Canada or Europe. However, the evidence for countries other than the U.S. is scarce so far, and there is certainly need for further research..  Based on this, it appears that the section has significant POV issues. aprock (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All reviews cites primary sources so that is not a reason for exclusion. I have mentioned that the effect is weak. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Picking and choosing which of the reviewed primary sources to highlight is WP:SYNTHESIS.  Ignoring the actual conclusion (most studies do not point to a quantitatively important role for ethnic diversity) to instead promote your own interpretation (statistically significant but relatively weak negative relationship) is a perfect example of POV editing. aprock (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The introductory statement also states that the effect is sometimes quite strong in the US which I have not mentioned. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Do you have an alternative formulation? We could quote the actual text if you prefer.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Sure, as a basis, but it is not particularly clear in places like how individual attitudes and behavior are affected. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If those details are not mentioned in the lay summary, they don't need to be in wikipedia. aprock (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No such rule. If something is unclear it should be clarified. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When you pick and choose what parts of a source to include, and what parts to exclude, that is synthesis.  Using generally accepted summary sections of a source as a basis for content is the straightforward way to approach the issue.  Comparing the content that you inserted with the lay summary above, there is a clear disconnect indicating POV issues with what you added.  Instead of advocating for highlighting whatever portions of the review that you are most interested in promoting, I suggest you start from scratch with the lay summary. aprock (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Using your argumentation everything except a complete quote of the whole paper or the whole summary is a synthesis. There is no policy that states that only certain portions of a study are allowed. A summary should be a basis but if it is unclear this should be fixed. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging for primary sources (POV, Neutrality) in Ethnic heterogenity

message: :In the end, this term replaces "charity" as it was known for thousands of years, being the act of providing for those who temporarily or permanently could not provide for themselves.  
...does it, though?  Charity is still used in this sense, welfare refers more to the systems in place than the act itself, and I'm not sure what the sentence is getting at overall, exactly.Twin Bird (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, this sentence has no logical or etymological basis and should be removed. BlueSalix (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd sentence. 

message: I just reverted an edit which added into the article a large tract of information about the United States welfare system.  The problem with this is that this is NOT the main meaning of WELFARE in the English speaking world.  It is fully understandable that WP users in the United States who understand WELFARE to be social programs will be surprised NOT to see this article discussing this matter. A similar argument at one time affected American readers with the article on corn which redirects to maize, the more common name used outside of the United States. It is for this reason that the disambiguation has been added at the top and the additional section directed at surprised readers in the U.S.  
Under WP rules of local English spellings and names. it would be perfectly okay to have an article titled Welfare in the United States and for it to focus on social programs in that country, because welfare id the common term used in that country. However, for a general view of social programs in a global context, the proper place for this is in Social security which is about the general idea of welfare (i.e. wellbeing) in a social context and the systems built to ensure welfare is enjoyed by everyone. 
The simple fact is that WP already has too many overlapping articles on this subject and it has been made worse by the language confusions which means that articles may be found under the title welfare and social security. Welfare and social security mean different things to US Americans than they do to Europeans, Asians, Australians, and for all I know South Americans too. Canadians I am sure understand the American usage but it is not the accepted term in their own country. As you can see if you search for Welfare on government websites in those countries what comes back is welfare meaning well-being. Animal Welfare and Child Welfare are examples and hardly any reference to a social program called Welfare. Welfare is the AIM and not the MEANS of social programs in most countries outside the U.S.
I have only just scratched the surface of this problem within WP but it has clearly been raised before if you read the history on the Discussion page. This article really ought to deal with the issue of Welfare (the objective of the social programs) and how it is measured and defined. It is absolutely impossible to do so if the article continues to treat welfare as meaning something quite different. I would be curious to know how it came to be that WELFARE SUPPORT became just known as WELFARE in the U.S. because it seems that Americans have lost sight of the object of WELFARE as WELL BEING. --84.250.230.158 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Same issue as the thread above. Let's keep it to one thread. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: WELFARE as Financial Aid

message: IP 84's canvass is at WP:Reference_desk/Language#Is_.22welfare.22_aspirational_or_non-aspirational_in_your_country.3F. Perhaps someone else can point out the bias, lack of neutrallity, POV, etc. in her text, and her approach. Lentower (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I really would be interested to see whether other experienced editors see my raising the issue as approriate or as [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification]|inappropriate]. Personally I thought my approach was fully within the rules and certainly not deserving of the an ip block as Lentower has threatened. It was limited, presented neutrally, and to a non-partisan audience and was fully open (I gave the link to this page). I notified other editors in a neutral way at a few national (Non-UK and Non-US) based government related articles in the hope that we could get some input from editors not in the UK or the US to as for them to assist. This is hardly mass posting with a biased message to a partisan audience without being transparent (which is how canvassing is characterized.  Please desist from your attempts to bully me into submission.  I still want to to know what is wrong with renaming the article Welfare (financial aid) as suggested. You have not answered this as far as I can tell. If I am wrong, please repeat your reasons below because I genuinely cannot see where you have addressed the point.84.250.230.158 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Again repetitive of prior posts above.  Again mis-representing what has been posted above. Again, over-reaction to an informational post for other editors. Perhaps Shadowjams or someone else will comment further. Lentower (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting silly. The reference desk question is probably ok because it's not aimed at a particular group. This edit, however seems very close to canvassing. There's other examples of seeking opinions from tangentially related forums, including: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#English variation dispute over the article, Wikipedia talk:No original research#Dictionary as a source, Talk:Social programs in the United States, Talk:Demographics of New Zealand, Talk:Social Security (Australia), and Talk:Economy of South Africa. Shadowjams (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about sillyness. I don't see why you think the other places where I went to for editor assistance was close to canvassing. I have no way of knowing how the editors would respond and the question was posed neutrally and openly in accordance with the guidance at WP:CANVAS. I just went to the closest pages I could get to the subject in several English speaking countries that are not my own or yours. But I'll let that drop (meaning that I don't expect you to answer provided we leave this as just a difference of opinion not to be taken a step further).84.250.230.158 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is you're going to a select group of discussion places where people are inclined to agree with you. That's the problem. It's like if I was having a political dispute then went to the respective political party's talk page to tell them, "oh by the way... there's this argument tangentially related over here, check it out." Shadowjams (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How could I predict the answer?  I don't get it. All I was doing was to get editors from other countries with an interest and knowledge to help us to resolve the differences. They might all agree with you. As it happened, the only answers we have had back seem to show that everyone "sees" the "aid" connection but they also see the "well-being" connection regardless of being in the US or outside.  The answer I got at talk WP:OR seems to indicate (I think) that if the title is ambiguous in two directions there should be two articles. I guess something like Welfare (social assistance)  and [[Welfare [social well-being)]]. Judging by the variety of social aid programs I think that even the social assistance version ought probably be a list of national programs and a list of types of assistance (financial, in kind, charitable, governmental, universal, means-tested, etc) with links if needed to more in-depth articles. I fail to see how we can produce a meaningful article when there is so much variation around the world. The Australian system of welfare support had a name very unfamiliar to me and so unmemorable that I have forgotten what it is. Even Britain now, it seems is really motoring ahead with plans that have been afoot for many years to merge the tax and benefits systems.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.230.158 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: IP 84's Canvass at WP:Reference_desk/Language 

message: 'In a 2011 article, Forbes reported, "The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested Welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total Welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)".[27]'
The source cannot be found on the website, and I'd question Forbes' magazines trustworthiness on issues like this to be honest. Forbes is a magazine by bourgeois for bourgeois. I even bet the article was a column, because these are giant, ridiculously high numbers that right wingers always like to wave around without checking whether it's true or not. So I'm nominating this sentence for removal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.3.240 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Forbes quoting the Heritage Foundation, a highly POV right-wing source, is plenty suspect, but the figure seems generally about right. Be——Critical 16:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbes magazine source 

message: The section on welfare in the Jewish tradition lack citations, and it omits reference to Psalm 72. I find it uncontroversial that Jewish tradition encouraged voluntary charity. But Psalm 72 indicates too a tradition of public charity. Specifically, it prays for Solomon in his conduct as king to "defend the afflicted," "save the children of the needy," to "deliver the needy who cry out," to "take pity on the weak and the needy," and to "save the needy from death." 
This prayer illuminates understanding of charity's full role in the Jewish tradition, at least according to Jewish scripture. Omitting reference to Psalm 72 therefore creates a false impression that Jewish tradition supported only voluntary charity. Given the importance of Jewish tradition in contemporary American debate over the role of the state, the omission also calls into question the neutrality of this section. The lack of citation makes it doubly suspect. 
I will leave this up here for a day or two to invite further discussion. If none proceeds, I will amend the paragraph by deleting all uncited material, and replacing it with a brief section on Psalm 72. If discussion proceeds, I will take it into account before making any changes. Though I don't see how a discussion of charity in the Jewish tradition is complete without mention of Psalm 72. 
Note: when I've discussed the concept of "public charity" in the past, certain ideologues have harped on the meaning of "charity," and whether the concept of "public charity" can exist. Let me pre-emptively settle that discussion with reference to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. In pertinent parts, Merriam-Webster defines charity as "an institution engaged in relief of the poor," and "public provision for the relief of the needy." State provision for the poor is "charity" within the word's ordinary meaning.
64.251.145.68 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on charity in Jewish tradition lacks citations, omits reference to Psalm 72 

message: This article talks about welfar not as a subfield of Economics. The sidebar of Economics should be removed.218.253.55.162 (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: i would say that welfare is part of economics11:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is your personal point of view, while the burden of proof is on you to show that it is a neutral perspective, which is a Wikipedia requirement. While it cannot be questioned that the concept of welfare is used in welfare economics, its is equally used in social policy discourse (e.g. welfare benefits) as well as in political science and sociology discourses (e.g. welfare state). Hence reference to economics alone without equal reference to other disciplines where the concept is used distorts a neutral perspective on the concept.--VillaK (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Should not be Economics

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Welfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130520200345/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/02Warfare.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/02Warfare.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Welfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105105148/http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyer.poor.laws.england
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030901100155/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Augvipo2y3.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/Augvipo2y3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602181437/https://espe.conference-services.net/resources/321/2907/pdf/ESPE2012_0273_paper.pdf to https://espe.conference-services.net/resources/321/2907/pdf/ESPE2012_0273_paper.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525175126/http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/86 to http://www.ifs.org.uk/projects/86
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs%40.nsf/3d68c56307742d8fca257090002029cd/8e72c4526a94aaedca2569de00296978%21OpenDocument
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/welfarebrief
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081104101532/http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt05a.htm to http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/govt05a.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626113008/http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/april/foodbanks.pdf to http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/april/foodbanks.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In this article, welfare is defined as "Welfare is a government's support for the poor citizens," but then includes Social Security, which may in fact be government support for rich citizens.  I'm looking at other articles like Basic income, which define BI, as a "welfare" program.  The problem is, BI and SS are not exclusive to the poor, but welfare is defined as "support for the poor citizens."  Any help on solving this conundrum would be appreciated.  In the context of entitlement programs such as BI and SS, calling them welfare creates a POV, as many people are biased against welfare, while at the same time feeling positive toward entitlement programs. Be——Critical 04:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Entitlement versus welfare

message: Currently "welfare check" redirects here, but I think a welfare check usually means the police checking on a person's well-being, i.e. something quite different from Government welfare. A disambiguation page might be needed to resolve the double meaning w.r.t the other kind of "welfare check" (cheque)? Olaf Klischat (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Welfare Check

message: (The following text was posted at the Public Support Talk Page. It has relevancy here, too.)
Question, should "public support" be redirecting into "fundraising"? 
"Social support" makes a mention (in the text) some people associate the meaning with "public aid". "Public aid" redirects over to "welfare". 
Maybe "public support" needs a disambiguation page that offers directory over to: fundraising, social support, public aid and welfare. (maybe a few others, too)
My opinion is 'public support' is not answered by a redirect over to fundraising. In that same vein, we've got some other redirects that aren't fully addressing people's inquiries.''
Roxanne-snowden (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects (Public Support, Social Support, Public Aid, Welfare, Fundraising) 

message: Definition of a welfare 157.44.190.112 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welfare definition 

message: Should we rename/merge :Category:Social security and subcategories (ex. merge that category with :Category:Welfare, and rename articles like social security in India, to welfare in India? Right now some articles are named welfare in Fooland, and others, ss in Fooland, and we have to separate category trees as linked above. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Following up on the merge of social security to welfare from few years ago: @ReconditeRodent, @ItsPugle, @Thryduulf, @ImTheIP Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about categories since sometimes the two are synonymous and sometimes not but article titles should definitely use whatever the more common term in the country is per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TITLEVAR. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 08:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Most countries do not use English terms... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social security articles?