Jump to content

Talk:Poverty in India/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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 [1]. 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)
I think both images should be kept.Bless sins (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

Begger image

A beggar in India.
A beggar in Bodhgaya.

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)

Here are some images [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. 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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)

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)
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)

In Australia there is widespread poverty and disease prevalent in indigenous aboriginal people who are victim of 200 years of racial discrimination and genocide by mainly people of British descent. Even the migrant and refugee population leads a life no better than beggars in third world countries. The country 70% GDP comes from natural resources which actually belong to indigenous people but they are left to die on street or sent to prison. The life expectancy is almost 20 year lower for aboriginal people in comparison to white men. Child poverty rates is among the highest in the developed world. More than 100,000 people are homeless and more and more people are getting trapped in the cycle of poverty. The other challanges are non existent manufacturing industry in Australia and total dependence on Asian countries for imports. The country is suffering from climate change and drought and facing numerous socio-economic problems. Such sort of arrogance from the poverty ridden country doesn't looks good. Australia has to go long way to secure the future of its citizens as thousands are dying from skin cancer and preventable diseases.--Himhifi 06:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

My comment: I agree with former assessments that User:Otolemur crassicaudatus is choosing unrepresentative photographs simply for their shock value. As pointed out, the majority of Indian beggars do not appear as he depicts them, nor are so many images necessary. The fact that it is a real image and that there are others like this individual is not as important as the fact that this is not at all representative of the majority of Indian poverty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiao Gui (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

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

  • 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)
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)
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)


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)" [8]

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

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)
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)
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)

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)

Page protection

After User:Blnguyen unprotected the article, the edit warring resumed so I reprotected the page. Please work in good faith to achieve consensus. If the edit warring resumes again after the article is unprotected, the offending parties are likely to get blocked. Avoiding WP:3RR is not enough to keep you from getting blocked. Consult WP:BLOCK#Disruption for more detail. --Richard (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are also personality rights issues involved here.

Not all legally-obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable to Commons even if they otherwise fall within the project's scope. The following types of image are normally considered by the community to be unacceptable:

  • Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject
  • Those that are unfairly obtained
  • Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life

These are categories which are matters of common decency rather than law. They find a reflection in the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: (No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation).

[9]

Nikkul (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the pic would look good in a gallery with a combination of other pics such as groups of homeless people living on the street (including the one in question) and other pictures that depict other forms of poverty, as in rural, low income middle class and so on. If this picture cant be used here there is another article that it could be used for but I am not going to say what that would be right now. I think in the above users case its just a matter of getting his own way when it comes to inserting his pictures. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Im sorry to say, but wikipedia is not a gallery. If you want images in a gallery, try WikiCommons or http://images.google.com/ And what do you mean by this pic would look good? Are these people animals for you to look at? They are humans whose rights are being infringed upon by having an image of this man in such a state. And no, I am not insisting that my image stay. This isnt about whose image it is. I'm not getting paid for every image that I insert FYI. I am opposed to this image because it does not show poverty and it doesnt show poverty in India. Have you even been to India? Nikkul (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are correct Wikipedia is not a gallery, but your main contribution here is to add photos to wikipedia, so you should practice what you preach. There have been many occassions where you (Nikkul) have added the same picture twice to an article, once in the article then again in the gallery. But not just that, you have done this with multiple photos in the same article. Also many articles do have gallerys and there is enough text in this article to support a gallery of atleast 4 to 8 images. If a gallery is not acceptable then add a few pics to the article. If you think that photos should not be in the article at all, as you did say that this project is not a gallery then delete all photos from the article and just have text. If you are concerned about the privacy of the child in the image then then blur his face in the image.

Regardless of weather I have been to India or not, anyone can edit Wikipedia regardless or where they come from or where they have been. Those not in favor of having this pic included might be from around that area and feel degraded having the picture in the article. This should not be the case. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Also it show how slack some governments are. I have seen many cases of homelessness in the city of my abode. I have seen some bad cases of mentall illness and alcoholism, but I have never seen a case like this where a young boy of this age with this kind of disability being left in the street to beg. This goes to show the slackness of some governments when it comes to dealing with the poor. In my country even though homeless, these people receive money for nothing. I would say atleast $300.00 every two weeks, enough to rent a crappy apartment, but not just this, they also receive free clothing and in some cases free food. Never would a case like this (the boy in the picture) be left untreated in my country. I think by not wanting this picture in the article you are simply trying to hide the truth and are embarrassed about it. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The way your country handled the largely "black" Hurricane Katerina disaster and the delayed relief aid for south-east asian tsunami is largely a joke in rest of the world. So lets not compare countries here. Desione (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not from that country ("black" Hurricane Katerina disaster). I am Australian, and I think my country gave to much to the tsunami victims and did to much for these people who hate our guts and would do any thing to wipe us of the map. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that is even worse since your foreign policy is entirely controlled by USA. The only reason you guys attract any attention is by latching on to controversial US foreign policy directions and hence your brainwashed comment ("these people who hate our guts and would do any thing to wipe us of the map"). Otherwise, no one really cares about Australia. Have a nice sleep down under. Desione (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Adam, don't bring up your own speculation of nationalist sentiments into this debate. We're trying to resolve this matter quickly, not prolong it. The problem is that the image is quite sensationalist. An individual with an unfortunate medical condition is seen begging on the streets. I feel that the image is so attention-grabbing that people would not take the opportunity to read the text in the article. Perhaps if we add an image of a beggar that doesn't appear as sensationalist, this problem would be resolved. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not just add it to a gallery with other pics of a related nature like I mentioned above and have no images in the article text itself. I have blotted the guys face out of the image. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Adam, if we're going to start talking about countries, let me tell you that I live in Beverly Hills, USA, considered the richest area in the world's superpower. Home to glitz and glamor of Hollywood. Still, when I step out into the streets, I see homeless people all the time. In India, homeless people like these are allowed to build homes on public land; sidewalks or public parks. In the US and many other "first world" countries, the homeless are forced to sleep in the cold, through freezing nights without any protection over their heads. It's even worse in very very cold places such as New York where homeless people have to sleep on the streets during the winter. Atleast in India, they can build slums and have a home. Anyway, this is wikipedia not a forum. Nikkul (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of deleting image in this article, put beggar images in other poverty articles for other countries like in Poverty in United States etc. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No! Your logic is that since this beggar image is making the page worse, we should add other beggar images to other pages to make them worse, and thus uniform? I dont even know what to say to that!!!! Nikkul (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My logic is all the pages for all countries should be unifromed. I have never said that "this beggar image is making the page worse". I said that deleting the beggar image is anti-Individualism. So put beggar images in other pages. In putting beggar image in a poverty page, the page do not become "worse". Because the beggar is also a human, a good human, probably more good than the corrupted politicians of many countries whose articles are present in wikipedia. Corrupted politicians are damaging their countries, while the beggar is an innocent and good person. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have brought 2 pics of beggars that are more representative of beggars than the disabled one. So why not use those?? Nikkul (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just add these pictures, just leave the other. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as the bodhgaya image isnt there, I am fine. This is because the bodhgaya image had a clear opposition to its inclusion on this talk page and it should not be included again. Nikkul (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

As soon as the block was expered, an edit war began to happen as some editors deleted the image saying the consensus is to delete the image. But there is a question of WP:CANVASS because most of the people were previously informed. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Reason: There is nothing wrong in WP:CANVASS, the people who supported the inclusion of the image are wrong and those (most of them previously informed) who supported the deletion of the image on the logic that an image of a beggar is making the page "worse", a beggar is harmful to the nation, not the corrupted politicians. So as the opposing parties are desparately trying to delete the image, there is a "consensus", it is not right to include the image, those who supported inclusion of the beggar image have disrupted wikipedia by supporting a horrible reality. So the image should be deleted as the "consensus" is for deletion of the image. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you have stopped making sense. You yourself have informed others. There is no allegation of WP:Canvas because comments were made neutrally. Stop making silly excuses just because you didnt get your way. Nikkul (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you have informed so many people that you are saying it is not WP:CANVASS? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was informed about the discussion here by Otolemur crassicaudatus who has left a note on my talk page. By reading the discussion above, my understanding is that part of the reason for heated discussion above is a picture of a beggar. I have deleted it. According to any standard, this image is shocking and if kept on Wikipedia, should include a warning. Please let me know if you reach a consensus and want me to unprotect this page. Please leave a note on my talk page. Thank you. olivier (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Olivier, for bringing some common sense here. When an addition is not relevant to the article (per my link above), and is so controversial, then the burden of consensus should be on those wanting to keep the unencyclopedic addition. There clearly was no consensus for keeping that image, quite the contrary. The photo was placed here entirely because of its shock value. Otolemur's circus analogy is quite apt. ~ priyanath talk 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Olivier, there are far more shocking images on wikipedia. Here is a list of pornographic images. Also consider the depictions of Muhammad on the respective article. So shocking are those images, that media outlets (Fox news, New York Times, and others) are reporting the widespread opposition to those images. The image of the beggar is, by contrast, a trivial issue.Bless sins (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Is there a consensus for unprotecting the page now? olivier (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for protection was edit-warring. But now no one is reinserting the image. So please unprotect the page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article. Please let me know if it needs to be protected again. olivier (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As most of the users opposed inserting the image, I have asked administrator Olivier's help for deleting the image. He deleted the image and the page is now unprotected. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

re protection

Isn't it wrong for the protector of an article to choose what version he prefers before protecting it. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, 'wrong' is adding back a non-encyclopedic image (because it's a beggar who admits to earning far above poverty level), against consensus, after warnings of edit-warring, and doing so with no edit summary while claiming it to be a minor edit.[10] (note: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.") ~ priyanath talk 03:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If you have a look I have all my edits marked minor by defualt, so even if I start a new article it is a minor edit. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Now the page is unprotected, I have tried to help on this case as an admin. Please find someone else next time you want to bring an outsider into your mess. olivier (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If you have interest, my detailed answer is there [11]. olivier (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Poverty in India Exagerrated by biased Western Media.

Poverty in India has been exagerrated out of proportion, thanks to the systemic racism and racial prejudice in Western countries. The western media has depicted India in the negative light since the collapse of the British rule in India undermining the high rate of growth and economic development in the modern times. The root cause of poverty in India was the 250 plus years of British rule which was responsible for the destruction and devestation in the subcontinent. The British had made India bankrupt and drained of it's economic might and riches, they left India illiterate, divided, underdeveloped and without little infrastructure at the point of their exit in 1947.

Today India is one of the fastest growing economy in the world with a growing middle class population of more than 300 million people. India is already a third largest economy in the world in terms of purchasing power parity which is a better reflection of goods and services you can buy with your own currency in your own country than converting into United States Dollars. Anyway with rising China and other Asian economies USD will lost its relevance in the coming years.

Countries like UK and Australia has little importance at world stage apart from being a part of US foreign policy. They can be recognised as 51st and 52nd states of United States for better recognition in the years to come. More images of poverty should be added from these countries to create awareness about the crude nature of poverty in the western world, as poverty in these countries is more related to race and skin colour. Indigenous, black people, refugees and third world migrants are the poorest in these countries. --Himhifi 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I once saw a documentary related to factory workers in India, it was about one of the lady's who worked in one of these factory's sewing clothes and her free trip to America, provided by one of the news programs from that country. Whist in America she was taken out by the news program to Wal-Mart where she got to see some of the clothing that she made back in India. When she saw the price tag on one of the items of clothing that she made or either came from the same factory, she burst out in tears, the price on the article of clothing was $12.00, more than what she earned in a month. The article of clothing was a pair of tracksuit pants that probably took about half an hour to construct. So this so called strong economy is based on cheap labor. Also if India is so good then stop immigrating to my country. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.J.W.C. (talk • contribs)

So bad is the state of economy in Australia that young girls have to sell their bodies to attend University, isn't it pathetic for the country which claims to be First world, I don't know why people choose to immigrate there, only to face racism and poverty. Just read this article published in the Age newspaper on 2.03.2008[12] ----Himhifi 13:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


India and Australia both have poor people. Australia forces its people to live on the streets through hot and cold. They end up sleeping on sidewalks. In India, the homeless can atleast build a home for themselves and then get free apartments.[13]. If a person was to try to build a roof over his head on public property, it would be torn down at once. It is not so in India. Nikkul (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an element of truth to the allegation that westerners sometimes like to exaggerate the Third World's poverty. However, on wikipedia we use reliable and mainstream sources. Thus, if an academic source say something about India's poor, the only way to disprove or even challenge it by using another equally reliable source.
Oh - and let me make this crystal clear. An Indian professor is just as qualified as an American one (because previously it has been argued that Indian professors or Muslim professors are less reliable than Western ones).Bless sins (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh no, Australia's poor have more access to housing than India's do. There are plenty of hostels set up around the state capitals run by charities. And these hostels have better livings standards than slums in the Metros of India and outside the Metros for that matter. You may be right about the bias of Western sources in examining the poverty situation in India but it is just likely that Indian sources will be biased from the opposite angle, denying all the true instances of poverty just as much as the West makes up or exaggerate the poverty in India. GizzaDiscuss © 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear we have a few armchair nationalists around. Just like at the cricket. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A Question

Is there any wikipedia policy on posting a picture of a living person without his/her consent? the picture in Poverty in United States does not show the face of the homeless person.

Jeroje (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

IT'S JUST A PICTURE!!!

Seriously. If you say that the pic doesnt represent all of India's poverty, than add another that shows another side of it. And stop saying stuff like: "Oh, you hate this.", or "You said this about me!". You guys sound so immature. KyuubiSeal (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Discrepency in the NCEUS figures

The 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) is quoted twice, with differing number of people stated as consuming less than Rs.20 per day. This is very discrepant and needs to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.232.2.32 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

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
  • 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.[14]. 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.[15] 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. [16] 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.[17] 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)

  • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [18], [19], [20]. 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)
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)

Users For Bodhgaya Image

  • Wikipedia is not censored.Bless sins (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • . Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • --Avinesh Jose  T  05:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Xdenizen (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The image dosen't make one think any worse of India than of the other begging images on this article. It just goes to show the extreme hardships that some beggers face. In my view this image should remain, as it is informative and emotive. Zaindy87 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I hadn't seen this image before. I can't say I'm really for it, but, I suppose, more for than against. I don't doubt that this man (in green T-shirt and cutoffs) is not the most appropriate representative of poverty in India (whatever that means). I don't doubt too that he makes a pretty penny by the end of the day; certainly, in the "alternate" picture he appears as a man with a vibrant look and a pair of well-developed forearms. And it doesn't matter to me that the various other Wikipedia poverty pages have or don't have such pictures. The point of the picture, for me, is different. Beggars and the homeless, by the unembarrassed presence they bring to the public arena, highlight a society's hidden ills. So, just as the homeless in Western cities show, for all to see, the problems of mental illness among the poor and elderly, this picture highlights the attendant problems of Indian poverty—the malnutrition, the uncared-for handicaps, both mental and physical—that many Indian poor, both rural and urban, have to face in obscurity and soldier on with. It doesn't matter that in his case the withered limbs might be the result of a congenital malformation, and not of malnutrition, but he nonetheless becomes a symbol of the ills that we know exist. Until such time as some Wikipedian actually goes into the homes of the poor in both rural and urban India and documents the human face of that poverty—and that documentation is worthy of this page—I will continue to support the inclusion of this picture. Poverty is not just about numbers, and graphs, or generic pictures of huts and hovels. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Users Against Bodhgaya Image

  • 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)
  • Kensplanet (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC) --->> against the image
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • ~ 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.
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.[21]

And here's a beautiful photo of him that apparently is more representative of who he is.[22] 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • There are certianly much better images that represent the topic. Yahel Guhan 06:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Is this an article on Beggars of India ? just wondering. At the cost of perhaps repeating what contributors above me have already mentioned, images should pertain to the subject matter of the article, so we dont have an image of Japanese samurai in the article on Japanese toilets. The litmus test on whether an image is in context should be, preferably, by consensus. In this case I would like to air a view that a picture of a deformed beggar cannot suffciently highlight the problems of poverty in India, an image of slum would be more appropriate. I am great fan of NPOV, civility, assuming good faith standards so I am not calling anyone indophobic but I do have a feeling that some contributors in this discussion page should consider opening an article titled Deformed beggars from Bodh Gaya, India and then put the image there, it would be more appropriate. LegalEagle (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

voting scoresheet as on 14:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(5 - 18) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legaleagle86 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

No, it means that wiki policies specific to images and censorship may need reforms.Bless sins (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
We could go on and onAjjay (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poverty_in_India/Archive_2&oldid=1137094856"