Talk:Poverty in India/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article quality 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country 

message: The speedy deletion reason given does not fall within the criteria for speedy deletion.  I am converting the tag to a  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: :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)
thread_title: I have removed the prod tag

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: However, the point has been mentioned. Could you provide the exact citation?Hkelkar 21:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poverty in India 

message: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=33508
<<Removed copyrighted text added by User:Vkvora2001.>> — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: vkvora 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One third or over 200 Million People of rural India lives on Rs 12.00 [[NSSO]] 

message: ::vkvora 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It is not copyrighted. Poor knowledge of [[NSSO]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Indian Poors secrifice their children for Prosperity. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  India’s losing battle against hunger. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  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 

message: 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. 
:: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NCEUS report 

message: 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)
thread_title:  error (deliberate or stupid) in NCEUS report 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:Otolemur crassicaudatus]]'s Misleading Images and Rash behavior 

message: 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)
replies: text: Here are some images , , , , , . 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Begger image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  All this fuss about a picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Page protected to stop edit warring over image 

message: *Wikipedia is not censored.Bless sins (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Users For Bodhgaya Image'''

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We could go on and onAjjay (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a consensus here?

message: 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)
thread_title:  voting!!! is wiki a republic or what? 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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.Bakaman 17:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:Otolemur crassicaudatus]]'s Misleading Images and Rash behavior