Talk:Guaranteed minimum income

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cclocke97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

New York Times magazine, 2-13-2017 report on a 12-year (planned) experiment on giving a guaranteed basic income to a group of poor rural Kenyans. Interesting idea, not even terribly expensive, privately funded largely by American tech philanthropists. Should be added to our article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloward–Piven strategy was recently closed as no consensus, so S Marshall's suggestion that that article be merged here seems like the best way forward. For reasons I explained at the AfD, I don't think a『Cloward–Piven strategy』either exists or is notable, but a sentence or two in this article might be appropriate. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Support, though I'd like to see the C-PS article seriously summarized. Specifically, the last two sections, "Reception and criticism" and "Impact of the strategy" could be kept in their entirety, but the earlier part of the article seemed to repeat their strategy three times. We only need to state it once. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose, for the reasons that I mentioned the last go-round. I am at a loss as to how it is possible to argue that the strategy doesn't exist, since the original 1966 work by Cloward and Piven literally has the word 'strategy' in the title. Notability is more subjective to establish, but it has been referenced by multiple political commentators for decades and a quick Google search will pull numerous works on JSTOR. If Wikipedia can have articles for everything from the most esoteric and obscure indie video games to the urge to poop in a bookstore, I find it difficult to imagine how a documented political strategy, regardless of efficacy, is somehow not worthy of its own page. --Arkanor (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • How many proposals for political strategy do you think were developed by the '60s–'70s U.S. left? Prairie Fire, the Ten-Point Program and Steal This Book are just the notable tip of a very large iceberg. What makes this proposal stand out? Or to put it this way, why are we (along with a handful of weirdo survivalists on Twitter and very few others) still talking about this one? The answer: because Glenn Beck propagated a conspiracy theory about it. It would be interesting to know how many of those JSTOR results refer to anything the subject of this article rather than Piven and Cloward's well-known and still widely-read Poor People's Movements. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. trends.google.com today indicates that "Cloward Piven strategy" has been queried in the past year about 77% as much as "quantum electrodynamics" (10 vs. 13), a topic which I hope most of us would agree is very notable. Making Cloward Piven strategy a major section of the Guaranteed minimum income page carries the implication that CP is more typical of guaranteed minimum income proposals than I think many GMI advocates would agree with, and they might reasonably feel unfairly tarred by it. Also, the Guaranteed Minimum Income page currently is not structured to cover proposals in anywhere near the depth that the Cloward Piven strategy page does, and I think that that is in keeping with the level of coverage that most readers who search for "guaranteed minimum income" would want, although I do think that readers would want to be able to click on a particular proposal to be able to read more about it if there is a Wikipedia page about it available. Adam J Richter (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. I just heard a passing reference to "Cloud and Piven at Columbia" on a podcast ("1776 v. 1619: Two Visions for American History") - luckily, I heard well enough to come close to the proper spelling of the names. Don't think I would have been able to find this article as easily if the term had been embedded in another article. Besides that, the issue is important enough to have its own entry - and perhaps becoming more important. The podcast I'm listening to links it, rightly or wrongly, to the Reparations for Slavery issue. Randomalphanumericstring (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. The topic gives a name to a substantive outcome, real or imagined, of unchecked government borrow-and-spend, and to merge it with GMI expressly implies editorial opinion; "GMI is an aspect of the C-PS." The idea of merging what may or may not be an ongoing phenomenon or theory with a contemporary political discussion feels jaded, and implies appending it to any other article within the scope of social welfare. Thanks. SpaceNinja80 (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.