Talk:Homelessness in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] POV/Poor Writing

Most experts do NOT agree that Regan caused homelessness. This is extremely agressive, and uncalled for. An edit is in order. --75.1.246.112 01:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I 2nd Zenosparadox's beliefe that there is something of an aggressive POV on this page. Do most experts really believe that Reagon is the root of modern homelessness? -FarfromaReaganlover 24 October 2006

I feel there is something of an aggressive POV on this page. From statements like "Visitors to the city often get a taste of big city reality when they see people begging for change on many corners," to "We shelter our criminals but not our unfortunates", or so the advocates are inclined to say," the article is either poorly written, has a POV, or both. Zenosparadox 15:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Quotes: (Rephrasings from awkward constructions like "above-mentioned dilemma" are not included here. I feel I have not deleted any information. If you believe I have, please extract it, and re-add it. I wouldn't mind if you let me know as well! Zenosparadox 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no simple answer to the dilemma of what is homelessness just as there is no simple cause for why people become homeless. As equally diverse as the causes are the lives of those who experience homelessness. Homelessness is a complex social phenomenon that means different things to different people. However, since the vast majority of people experiencing homelessness do not want to be, for the intents and purposes of this entry consider homelessness as a situation to be prevented, escaped, and ultimately, ended.
Furthermore, Reagan was responsible for huge cuts in both welfare and income taxes. Many accredit such actions as widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

In context, this was explaining Reagan's culpability in the homelessness problem. Historical Background: 1980's includes his cuts in federal housing & deinstitutionalizing mental health hospitals, but I failed to see why precisely a rich/poor income gap would matter in the context of homelessness. I believe this to be part of a more pervasive POV, specifically that the author views the two, tax cuts with nonproportionate impact, and cutting of federal aid/deinstitutionalization, as one bundle, though they have different impacts on homelessness. Thoughts? If the rich/poor income gap exacerbated the homelessness problem by means of making houses more expensive, aggregating property in the hands of those few rich so poor couldn't buy property, then I could see the cause/effect. Otherwise, I think it's NPOV. If there's more data here, add it back in with the explanatory data.

At any rate, policies set into motion in the 1980s were never adequately reversed during the Bush Senior or Clinton administrations and disparities between rich and poor continued to widen; conditions, therefore, remained ripe for becoming homeless.[citation needed]

Was not deleted, but seems awfully NPOV. "adequately reversed.

Twenty years ago there was not wide-spread homelessness in America. Tonight nearly a million people will be homeless, despite a two billion dollar a year infrastructure designed to deal with the problem.

Was not deleted, but seems awfully NPOV. Was changed. (Citation needed, phrasing).

"Critics contend mainstream homeless programs fail to meet the unique needs of homeless youth."

Was not deleted, but a better explanation would be nice.

The entire topic "Criminalizing Homelessness" is a bit off. "Life-sustaining" doesn't resonate too well, smacks of author's clear NPOV. Zenosparadox 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massive Page Overhaul

I took the liberty of expanding the entry. Hopefully the new information is informative and helpful...I'm sorry it's so long, but I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible. I think that homelessness, especially in the United States, is an important yet frequently neglected issue. As far as I'm concerned, any dialouge on the topic is a good thing. I did rearrange the original material, but I didn't delete anything. -Kroz 05.26.06

Does it upset you that one of the greatest nations on earth-as America is called-has such a high percentage of homelessness? Do you take a stand and do anything? Does it even affect you?--anyonita 20:57, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

According to wiki's own article on homelessness - the USA has less homelessness than Canada the EU and Australia per capita.

That is not right, the Australian rate is 0.5%, the American rate is 1%. Even more striking, the Australian rate includes trailer homes and emergency housing because there are almost no truly homeless in Australia, the American figure is limited to only those actually homeless. Sad mouse 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We can have a wiki homeless solution network to help homeless in the US

I personally helped many homeless in Greater New York area, and it would be very powerful if we can have a wiki homeless solution network that document the help and solutions for homeless in the US nationwide. For example, we can have list of soup kitchens, address, phone numbers, schedule. Where to take showers ...etc in all cities of the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.73.41 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 March 2005 (UTC), added by Knowsitallnot 01:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Uh...wikipedia is not the place for that

Hello:

That's a wonderful idea, to use Wikis to assist the homeless with learning about available services, but Wikipedia's not the place for that (see the Wikipedia policies). There are many other public wikis out there where such an idea would fit in perfectly with their overall mission.

The problem with the idea is that you can't universalize it---if an exception is made for this one thing, then everyone will want to put in all kinds of really detailed information that's inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a telephone book or a Web directory.

--Coolcaesar 21:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV cleanup

I removed a number of the more POV remarks and highly questionable claims (building codes cause homelessness?). The article still needs some fixing -- the studies cited range from the 1960s to the 1990s, a period of extensive change in the structure and delivery of social services (New York City alone changed extensively during this period.) jdb ❋ (talk)

[edit] 64.136.49.229

This editor may have some legit concerns, but needs to find a better way to address them. I'm saying this as the edits, though they are POV, may have some substance. But I'm not going to spend time trying to figure out what it is. --DanielCD 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Are the programs that treat veterans ineffective? This might be an important thing to add. I left the word "ineffective" in, but it's still weak without saying just what the programs are and why they don't work. --DanielCD 01:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Many veterans are cycled through ineffective programs that actually put them on the streets homeless.

This says just about nothing; it's really filler. Could someone elaborate (preferrably with sources to cite?) --DanielCD 01:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I work at the VA

Homeless veterans that I see suffer from absolute poverty and know what they need to get out of their situation. They are not listened to at all, instead they are ran through the VA "assembly line" one-size-fits-all system. Very few are really mentally ill/addicted( Throw Bush or Clinton out on the streets with nothing and they would be self-medicating/peeing and pooping in doorways too!). Anyways, poverty does strange thing to humans! This is very verifiable and must remain in the article "cause" section, besides just because something is cited by some "authority" does not make it correct either! If you don't see it with your own eyes you're seeing it with someone else's mind.

Dr. Wilson Mendez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.49.229 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 February 2006, added by Knowsitallnot 01:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "The Real Cause"

I deleted the last cause claiming to be the one real cause it is clearly POVDaniel J. Leivick 00:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==Documentary, understanding==

i just watched a documentary called Dark Days (imdb, rotten tomatoes & awards), which i thought was pretty objective film about living as a homeless person, in the tunnels in nyc. The director marc singer, lived with these people, and filmed them as they were, living/talking daily lives. it also features how some of the homeless utilizing HUD's Section 8. I think it promotes understanding and glimpse of the reality for this portion of the homeless. To me, it was neither entirely negative or positive, neither pity nor scorn, but because of the closer proximity to the subject at hand (homelessness), i def gained in greater understanding. Can we somehow reference this film here? In external links? or See also? or smthg? somewhere?

"The result is a fascinating slice of a part of life most of us have never considered. The characters are gritty, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic and always very real. Dark Days takes homelessness out of the realm of sociological phenomenon and into an almost-visceral engagement with these people and their lives. We look in as the characters decorate their scrap-metal shacks with discarded material, earn their livings, emotionally support each other and ultimately struggle with their homes' demise. Though clearly Singer roots for his subjects, he avoids the temptation to pity them; he simply calls it as he sees it - and has lived it. " --Review on imdb, by utzutzutz@aol.com

Knowsitallnot 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] worst intro sentence ever.

"Homelessness in the United States is a problem." just pathetic. Joeyramoney 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Inaccuracies

The section "Criminalizing Homelessness" misstates the changing policy of combating homelessness. The section states that there is a "growing trend...towards criminalizing the state of being homeless." This is not quite true. For example, for many years in California under the state's penal code there were a variety of penalties intended to minimize the nuisance caused by homeless people by criminalizing their behavior. However, many of these laws were (probably) rightfully overturned by being unconstitutional for a variety of reasons (cruel and unusual punishment, no requirement of an act by the suspect, etc.). However, for example, it remains a crime in California under Penal Code 647(c) to accost "other persons in any public place or in any place". (Good luck finding an officer to help though!) Many laws remain on the books in many states and municipalities, the only thing that has changed is the policy on how to deal with the problem of homelessness, that is a shift away from direct aid to reduce the problem towards penalizing the individuals in the hope that the problem will disappear. Note, that this is a policy enforcement decision and quite different from a policy of passing new laws. What has changed is not the law but the will to enforce the laws. --Ian Struan 10:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are lazy homeless people editing this article from public libraries instead of being productive and applying for a job?

This must explain why this article sounds like a poorly written soapbox. How else can these people continue to leech off society without attempting to blame others for their poor choices? WatchingYouLikeAHawk 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the people who are editing this possess compassion, unlike people like you. The homeless person is not always at fault. How could you possibly imply that they are? Obviously you have never been even close to homelessness when you were helpless to do anything about it. Life can be complicated, and sometimes you get stuck in a situation you can't fix. What about the abused who flee their homes with their children? Many times these people have no access to any of the household funds, whether they were working or not. And would you call those kids "leeches?"

This is an encyclopedia, not a message board. As an editor, compassion has no place in your vocabulary, and if you see your work on Wikipedia as being guided by "compassion" then I request that you leave at once, if only for the benefit of this encyclopedia's credibility. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a reference source for factual information, not a useless hodgepodge of socialist whining. Writing based on one's own illusion that one is being "compassionate" is precisely the sort of thing that has regrettably made Wikipedia utterly useless as a valid reference. E Pluribus Americanus (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added public attitudes section

The Additional issues section seemed to make lots of unsourced assertions about public opinion, so I deleted some things and added another section with the sourced material I could find. Roving Wordslinger 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More NPOV cleanup

I removed a section of the article entitled "Near-homeless: disabled non-abusers have little safety net". While it may raise some valid points it fails to:

  1. cite references,
  2. maintain a neutral point of view, and
  3. maintain an encyclopedic tone.

Also it was very poorly written. --24.18.139.74 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bowery Mission, Lower East Side, Manhattan, New York

I used to be a chaplain at the Bowery Mission under the Willock administration. While there I decided to do a little research to answer basic questions I had asked myself about the mission.

Over the years, I've done my best to answer or attempt to answer some of my original questions. One such question, Was the Bowery Mission the first to minister to the needy on the Bowery?

I would recommend the author, if not already done or underway, do research about the Bowery Branch of the YMCA. This organization, in fact, pre-dates the Bowery Mission, as does another one known then as The Five Points Mission which pre-dates both.

My other comment concerns the black and white illustration of The Bowery Mission and the range 1800s for purpose of dating.

This image is of the Bowery Mission then located at 36 Bowery which did not first open it's doors to the public until the year 1880. So you can narrow the period of the illustration to the 1880s.

The parent organization which incorporated the Bowery Mission, Christian Herald, accepts and publicizes the 1879 year as the founding date of the Bowery Mission. (Your footnote cites their website bowery.org)The information on their website in terms of the history of the Bowery Mission, I believe, is drawn from a biography about the life of the Dr. Louis Klopsch who assumed control of the mission in 1895 and died in 1910.

The 1879 date probably is based on a marble memorial tablet in the chapel of the Bowery Mission dedicated to Rev. Albert G. Ruliffson. This tablet erected posthumously attributes Ruliffson as the founder, and gives November 7, 1879 as the founding date. If it were not for this tablet, it's likely that an 1880 year of founding would be stated. For example, King's Handbook of New York, uses that year.

The book I cite about Dr. Klopsch claims that prior to 36 Bowery, Rev. Ruliffson had laid the foundation for what would be later called The Bowery Mission and Young Men's Home at "14 Bowery". To date, I've found no other sources to corroborate that location.

Klopsch's biographer, it seems, relied mostly on the earlier articles about the Bowery Mission published in The Christian Herald and Signs of the Times, however, I have not found this 14 Bowery address in anything published pre-1881 in that christian weekly.

One final comment, if I may. There were a host of non-religious organizations or charities that provided services to the homeless in New York City as well as non Protestant churches. You may want to expand on this in your overview.

Bowerymissionresearcher 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Tony (Brigagliano) Squire

Excellent information. Thanks very much. We shall have to incorporate some of this material into the article, as corroborated. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (talk)

[edit] Broken Link In References

Reference 10 has a broken link which now leaves the following quote without a citation: "As many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year (1% of the entire U.S. population or 10% of its poor), and about 842,000 people in any given week." --Xe7al 01:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous comment

This article sounds like it was written by the homeless poverty pimps who have reaped billions and billions of dollars keeping this tragedy going and going and going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.138.30 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Photo POV

It seems patently obvious to me that the photograph used at the top of the article fails to keep within the NPOV guidelines that (theoretically) guide Wikipedia entries. It is quite clearly designed to evoke a sympathetic response from the viewer. Arguing over whether or not one should have sympathy for the homeless is not relevent to Wikipedia, and so I won't delve into that issue, but the fact that the photograph clearly has that aim in mind disqualifies it as an NPOV photograph for this article. It is no more legitimate to use the current photo than to use this one, for the same reason: http://eldib.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/homeless.jpg

Please, people, I want to live to see the day when Wikipedia can be cited as a valid source of information (at present, no reputable university would ever accept a Wikipedia page as a reference) but getting there requires that editors set aside their personal beliefs, convictions, etc. and adhere to the policy of NPOV. The photograph is clearly sympathetic and therefore violates the NPOV rules, so I'm removing it. I'm afraid there will be objections, but please be sure to note your objections here rather than simply making a revert--reverts without explanations will simply be undone. E Pluribus Americanus (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)