Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikianJim (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 9 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In response to the social worker posting two down, I would like to start by chipping in my two cents here on the talk page, perhaps to influence the main article in future. I have lived in my bus on the streets moving from parking space to parking space and seem to have gradually gotten the OK from cops, denizens, and government. I just filed my taxes today; and I decided not to use a resident state return and instead used a non-resident return as though I had moved out of state. (The reason for this is the technicality that states resident at such-and-such an address as of 12/31/05 which is not true.) It was a mild winter 2005-2006: I have lived in the bus for just over 11 months. Yet I don't pay rent, and I only get fuel for the bus once every three or four months. I am not involved with DSS; I have a BA; I don't have a job; and I don't hang out with people. I spend much of my time writing. So. I am one of those Home is where the heart is. I don't want to pay rent. I don't want to work either (who does). And I insulated myself well last winter. It feels a bit like a kid; after all there is no real cushion that the corporate health care program provides. I am totally against burning fossil fuels. I don't even use heat on the bus. I sneak in and use facilities when I can in the winter to clean up. I wish there were a way, without getting involved in emotionalism; assumptions; and buddy-buddy with someone, to have a place to shower or use the toilet. (Vis: Are we on good terms today? What suddenly happened? I was counting on this.) I wish there were a community space; and yet I am a snob who doesn't much want to deal with others, and bums in particular can be off-putting. Bottles and cans; smell; and perhaps they want more than a friendship. I wouldn't classify myself as a hippy.

Some have called it an adventure as they talk to me on the street. Perhaps. But I see the apartment, the house as such a stagnant thing. First of all you pay usually $6K/y in rent; and then there's all the utility bills. Great. So you have a home to come to. You slave at work to have the security of an empty box. Then there's the social conundrum: do I stay locked up in this apt by myself or do I invite friends in? Well, the latter certainly is not my style; and so I would rather go to 'social' places and see and be seen, and for me, not have to deal with the faux reality of conversationalism. It's a bit of the wild west, but I am not really a territorial person, and on /that/ subject the idea of owning land goes straight back to the Native American. So why would I want to continue to desecrate their soil.

Perhaps I am not average. Perhaps I have a nicer background; a higher education. I don't really need the comfort of people, and I see even the homeless around here socialize in peer groups. That's not my style. And yet I want to remain 'homeless', because I can simply drive to a different neighbor. I don't have to share walls.

So to amend 'Homeless' as a definition, we need to remove the stigma of marginalization from the outer level, and even government subsistence, and perhaps use that as a subheading. Homelessness may be a philosophical choice by a dissatisfied citizen; or to contrast: it may be that there aren't enough beds. Is homelessness an adventure or to contrast: is a lease or homeownership to be stuck in a rut? Can people perhaps live in their campers year round? I've seem some mighty fine homeless girls. How do they do it? Perhaps networking exists here too. There has /got/ to be a book out there or research on the subject.

What has conservatism or liberalism got to do with it, until the homeless person uses government funding? I don't.

Anyway, go to a soup kitchen and you'll see the demographic. Our soup kitchen is a private corporation which uses donations.

Hi, Someone wrote, I love chicken!!! and I edited it back.

Hi, I'm a Social Worker and admin the international homeless forums and have highlighted this article in that forum (http://forums.homeless.org.au/showthread.php?p=5998) and am asking the mainly homeless or formerly homeless membership to contribute to the article. It would be great to hear from the homeless themselves about this entry, so hopefully it works out.

Can someone provide a link to the unicef statistics for industrialised countries? I think the figure for Australia is grossly short, by about a factor of 5. http://www.homeless.org.au/statistics/houselessness.htm reports the 2001 census finding 99,000 . Could the issue be confused by the sleeping rough compared to temporary accomodation?

Surely the only certain thing that can be said about homelessness is that is about not having homes? Should women escaping violent relationships by becoming homeless be condemned? -Adrian

"Home is where the heart is." The only thing that can be surely said about the homeless is that they don't have houses. They do not live in a normative shelter. This is no way means they do not have a home. Many people feel perfectly at home even without a house. ---Darci

Nonsense. Every society and nation has specific ways of *reacting* to homelessness, regardless of causes of it. Those can be commented on here. Also there are UN agreements on rights of children, to shelter, etc., that can be used as a basis for an NPOV analysis. We are not looking only for what is "certain".

Are you being inadvertently ethnocentric? How about nomadic societies and nations? It might be fair to say that every state reacts to homelessness as a problem. My ignorance of non-western cultures in this respect is encyclopedic. Western states tend to have laws against "vagrancy" because non-sedentary people are considered a public safety problem, but non-sedentary ways of life were not considered a public safety issue not so long ago (on the scale of a few centuries). Also, to this day there are large problems accomodating gypsies in many European countries, and this can partly be traced to nomadic/sedentary lifestyle issues.

Am I totally off the wall, or could some of the resident anthropologists/sociologists link this article to the relevant content? -- Miguel

Another ultra-liberal threatened to censor this page by protecting it, a tactic that was used against my fact-seeking before. This is a perfect example of the relation between liberalism and totalitarianism. -- JoeM

So you're saying that people who believe in Free Speech, advocate freedom of choice and fight to stop people having other beliefs forced upon them are the totalitarians, as opposed to those who believe that it is a moral sin to deviate from the acceptable social template? Conservatism isn't about preventing people from having their own beliefs. You're not even advocating the conservatists, you're making them look arrogant and authoritarian. You, in your super-conservatist ranting, are setting yourself up as a fascist, insisting that you are correct and that there is no other possible way of looking at the subject. You say 'ultra-liberal' as if it were an insult. Your 'fact-seeking' sounds to me like a synonym for propaganda tactics. People like you, people who confuse conservatism with Nazi-like forced obedience and absolutism, do not deserve a place in society. -- CHEESEFACE

Your 'fact-seeking' is POV rhetoric - Vaughan 18:25, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a conservative Republican. There is a proper way to put your facts into this article while maintaining a neutral point of view. The way you've done it ain't it.Ark30inf 18:29, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tell me one thing in this article that isn't common sense and FACT. You liberals just want to censor me because you know that you can't argue against my additions with fact and common sense arguments. That's why you want to censor it rather than rebut it. My comments to the conservative Republican on this page: let me see you do a better job. You know I'm right. -- JoeM

So liberals are the ones doing the censoring, are they? You ultra right-wing fanatics spreading propaganda are the ones allowing freedom of speech/opinion, are you? I suppose that 'fact and common sense' are your synonyms for angry ranting. -- CHEESEFACE

Thats your problem. Whether you and I know you are right is meaningless in an encyclopedia article. It is up to the reader to form his or her own opinions on, for instance, homeless advocacy being a fraud, based on the facts in the article. Neutral facts on which you base your opinion are valid for an encyclopedia article. Your opinion itself is not.

JoeM I think you do not understand NPOV. You can not go into an article and shout about 1 POV being right and all others wrong. - Fonzy

Hmmm, a condition in which a person does not have a permanent place of residence. Is nomadism homelessness? Can homelessness be a conscious choice of way of life? Has the answer to this question changed historically, or across cultures? -- Miguel

JoeM, do you want to know what's wrong with this introduction?

Caused by moral failure encouraged by social liberalism and laziness encouraged by liberal socialistic welfare statism, paradoxically liberal propagandists have used this issue to targets those with the solutions: conservative republicans.

Well, it's clearly written for internal condumption by a faction in the USA political debate. It is irrelevant and close to unintelligible to anyone outside North America. -- Miguel

All of JoeM's edits have a political content. It's time for him to be banned. RickK 23:47, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If that's a fair sample, they are severely lacking in gramatical content. Subject - object, anyone? Tannin

Hey, why are you people censoring me? You are joing to have to go through line by line and tell me what is specifically wrong with the facts and interpretations. If you don't do that, I want you to do what the people did with me on the Islamofascism article. They rewrote all the points I made, just in a more subtle way. JoeM

Read NPOV. Evercat 00:02, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--- I DID. And it tells me that you shouldn't be censoring all views that are not left-wing liberal. THe conservative position belongs in every article. You people seem to afraid to rebut the conservative position (perhaps because it's impossible to argue against common sense and facts?), so you just censor it. To all you people NPOV means SPOV-- Socialistic POV. You people are just like the liberal media and academia-- convinced that your are all adhering to "standards" that are honestly "neutral and objective" even though you might as well be writing for the Bolsheviks. If you people really believed in NPOV, you'd take my additions and at least rewrite them and incorporate them into the article. JoeM

You are not taking a position, you are writing a diatribe. Let me give you another example...

The truth is that America is the land of the free. It is the land of the free enterprise system. America's prosperity is built on individual responsibility. Individual responsibility and hard work, with the incentives of the market, made America great and powerful. In the market everyone who has the skills and the energy can succeed. But poor people, like poor countries, failed due to their own laziness, stupidity, bad choices, and immoral conduct.

• My goodness, what a bunch of American neoconservative and individualist rhetoric! Homelessness is also prevelant amongst the disabled, mentally ill, and victims of discrimination. Are you telling me that these people made "bad choices". That's ridiculous and nonsensible! And as most American neo-cons, you must be a Christian. Remember that one part of the Bible about Jesus' love and compassion, or do you just remember the Bible's condemnation of sodemy? "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" - "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me". - Jesus. Are you saying, too, that the people of the "Third World" who have been exploited and pillaged by the rich are stupid and lazy? Your comments wreak of ignorance, incompassion, and utter stupidity. And to JoeM and all you other paranoid American neo-cons: stop whining about how America and the world have been taken over by socialism! Everyone outside the US, including me, are laughing at you right now.

I don't know if you realize that this paragraph is meaningless to pretty much everyone in the world except Americans. It is also a non-sequitur -- Miguel

Well if you're so smart, rewrite it so that it is. Don't censor the views that are actually held by most hard-working Americans. JoeM

More propaganda, right there. You're building up the liberals as immoral scum. You used the phrase "hard-working" to imply that liberals were lazy. -- CHEESEFACE

I'm not so smart, thank you. And, IMHO, there is very little in what you're writing that can be salvaged. -- Miguel

If you want to put your views into articles, you should not use loaded language, and should make some appempt to explain them. We should not be expected to rewrite your rants. Vancouverguy 00:13, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why should I be expected to rewrite your rants. THIS ARTICLE IS A COMMUNIST RANT RIGHT NOW! Most Americans believe that moral failure is the number one cause of homelessness, but this isn't mentioned in your propaganda piece. Second, homelessness is a result of big governmenent messing with the housing market with rent control and big government making people lazy and dependent with welfare. Misplaced Pages is out of step with the views of the majority of Americans. There is a worse leftwing bias around here than on CNN, PBS, NPR, ABC, the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, and NBC. JoeM

Interesting that the only mainstream media you don't mention is FOX... -- Miguel

Also, the majority of Americans are at most 2.5% of the world population. Welcome to the internet. -- Miguel

You said: "Most Americans believe that moral failure is the number one cause of homelessness, but this isn't mentioned in your propaganda piece." The majority of Americans also believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, yet it says in the opening paragraph in the wikipedia "Earth" article that the Earth is several billion years old. Should that article be re-written to reflect what the majority of Americans believe, as well? -- meno71

• I'm blown away by this American chauvinism and stupidity. It does not matter, AT ALL, what the majority of Americans think. English Misplaced Pages is not American Misplaced Pages, nor is it a venue for neoconservatives to rant about the alleged rampancy of communism in the world. This article is not just about homelessness in the US, and therefore it should include more than American popular opinion. And stop ranting and raving about the "Communist" media. Frankly, JoeM, you sound like a paranoid, far-right nut-case. You're simply spewing out free market rhetoric and doing nothing to solve the supposed impartiality of the article.

We do not expect you to "rewrite" our articles.Vancouverguy 00:23, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(THe conservative position belongs in every article.) Yes, it does, presented in a neutral manner with the opposing views included so that the reader can decide for THEMSELVES. Its supposed to be an encyclopedia article, NOT a position paper. I know you are smart enough to know the difference. Do you want to? If you think its a communist rant now then you should have attempted to edit it to be neutral with opposing facts included. Not replace it with a rant from the other side.Ark30inf 00:27, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

First, this article focuses on homelessness in America, so the views of most Americans, the people who defeated Kaiserism, Nazism, fascism, Communism, socialism, and now Saddam Hussein and Islamic terror, count.

Then change the title to homelessness in America. According to the current version there are 4 times as many homeless in the EU as in the USA, so there should be 4 times as much content on the European political debate as on the American. Or not? -- Miguel

And please don't call me hurtful names. You are censoring the conservative point of view and you know it. You are censoring the views held by most Americans on homelessness. Liberals control adademia, the media, Hollywood, and the federal bureaucracy. Add Misplaced Pages to that list. JoeM

No one not censoring the conservative point of view, in fact it's the other way around. You keep insisting that anything not conservative is incorrect. What's that if it isn't an attempt to control people's opinions? "Most Americans' opinions" doesn't equal correct. "Most Americans" could be completely ignorant about the whole subject. -- CHEESEFACE3

And that's right. I don't mention FOX. And don't go through that liberal candard about FOX being biased to the right. It's the most neutral media around. You're just so used to liberal bias that when you hear something is fair and balanced you assume that it's biased to the right. Remember, every time they have a conservative commentator on, there's a liberal one on too. JoeM

It can't be the most neutral when there is nothing to the right of it (in the mainstream, that is). I'm amazed that you call the NYT, NBC, CNN and CBS left-wing. -- Miguel

I don't think we need to veer off the subject (since I basically agree with him on this one :-) ). The subject that needs addressing is a position paper masquerading as an encyclopedia article.Ark30inf 00:36, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but I couldn' resist. Let me put it this way: you cannot list 8 different media outlets and claim that the one that is unarguably to the right of all others is the "moderate" one. It may get things right more or less often (I won't get into that), but in terms of tendency, and within the spectrum of American media, it is not neutral. -- Miguel

I just don't think FOX is any more right than CNN or CBS are left. To me its a good counterbalance. We can disagree on that because its unimportant to the question here.Ark30inf 00:54, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. SOrry for getting off-track. -- Miguel

I bet there are some conservative Americans on Misplaced Pages that do not object to the way the articles are written, and some probably write them.Vancouverguy 00:32, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are betting correctly.Ark30inf 00:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, we should have seperate articles on homelessness in Europe and America. And BTW, do you want to know why homelessness is more of a problem in Europe? One thing: "social democracy." The truth is that homelessness is caused by the left, not the right, even though the left gets away with blaming the right for homelessness because they control the media (and Misplaced Pages). JoeM

This is getting out of hand. Where do you get your information? 'Caused by the left'? I don't think there is any justification behind that statement, or, in fact, behind any of your arguments (rants, more acurrately.) 'Social democracy'? The left don't control the media, frankly, the lack of liberal news networks is disturbing. You're going as far as labeling liberals as 'doubleplus ungood crimethinkers.' - CHEESEFACE3

Yeah, there are conservatives on Misplaced Pages. And Bob Novaks's on CNN. Novak or no Novak, CNN is still the "Clinton News Network" or the "Communist News Network." I have a feeling that those two Arab women, Rula Amin and Jane Arraf on CNN actually wanted Saddam Hussein to win the war. We're outnumbered on CNN and Misplaced Pages. JoeM

in The United States of America, 13% of all people is living below the poverty line, in The Peoples Republic of China, 10% is, in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 0% is. --62.251.90.73 00:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I find this quite interesting, it is fascinating that the dividing of power into 3 branches of government has completely failed in the US (all branches are now controlled by one party, with enough power to hold it that way for quite some time with the high congress and judicial incumbency rate) while a partial monarchy has worked so well in the Nethernands. I would love to see a table of "form of government" versus "average poverty rate" --Dj245 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Homlessness around the world has been caused by both right and left-wing goverments. For example the Soviet government did not build enough housing, leaving people homeless. Even so, the US government does not encourage the construction enough low-cost housing, perticularily in places like New York. As well, in the US, even minimal housing can be out of the spending range of a lot of Americans, because of wages that are simply too low. Vancouverguy 00:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not institutionalizing the mentally ill is also a contributing factor in the US. There are a variety of reasons for that on all sides of the political spectrum.

Hey, wasn't Ronald Reagan responsible for this as governor of California? Hmmm... -- Miguel

The left is seeking to destroy the concept of individual resposbility, the very ethic that made America free, great, and prosperous. They think that every crime and every failure is caused due to "environmental factors" and "psychological illness." It's time to can the pseudo-science and preach individual responsibility. JoeM

While the values you just preached are important, the idea that the left has tried to destroy those morals is ignorant garbage. 'The left' doesn't try to destroy morals, and just because you don't agree with their moral ideas, it doesn't make them wrong. You're saying that people who have different beliefs from you are irresponsible lazy idiots, the same kind of tactic used by Stalin. -- CHEESEFACE

Another contributing factor is the large number of war veterans who are hung out to dry by the very same people who send them to war. -- Miguel

We'd be better off not turning this into flame war and sticking to JoeM's article instead. It could easily become one if we start blaming for wars that led to homeless veterans.Ark30inf 01:09, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I mention veterans not to start a flame war, but because a large fraction of the homeless I see are veterans. I would assume that JoeM is not going to call them names like he does all other homeless in his version of the article. -- Miguel

That's because your kind of people (Communist-supporting traitors) were spitting on our heroes when they were returning from fighting for freedom in Vietnam. We support our troops. I have an MIA flag in my room even and give to veterans charities. JoeM

You plainly don't when you bring them back home to homelessness. -- Miguel

I was confident you would jump on this. My differences with Miguel on FOX or homeless veterans has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not you wrote an appropriate encyclopedia article. And thats the real subject here.Ark30inf 01:14, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would bet that we are not so much in disagreement about veterans but about the governments that created said veterans. And I'll leave it at that. -- Miguel

JoeM said: "And BTW, do you want to know why homelessness is more of a problem in Europe? One thing: "social democracy." Maybe. Maybe not. High population density probably also leads to homelessness: Europe has 114 people per square km, while the US has 30. Thing is, you're just stating your opinion as if it were fact - if you have proof, give it, otherwise writing as "some people believe homlessness is encouraged by the welfare state because..." might be more suitable for Misplaced Pages. WikianJim

BS. The freer the market the lower the rates of homelessness and unemployment. The left is supposed to be the defender of "full employment" and poor people but Europe's unemployment rates are 4 times higher and so are their rates of homelessness. When the market is not contrained by big government, there is no shortage of housing and every able body person can get a job and earn enough money to have shelter. Minimum wages, liberal welfare laws, trade unions, employment regulations, and all the other regulations on the market place drive up the prices of everything and cause homelessness and unemployment. JoeM

Read Nickeled and Dimed: On Not Getting by in America, Joe. -- Miguel

Read Slander by Ann Coulter, Treason by Ann Coulter, and Bias by Bernard Goldberg. JoeM

Ann Coulter, voice of reason

Over and out. -- Miguel

I'm new to the Misplaced Pages community, and I really must tell you this discussion is about the funniest thing I've read in a long, long time. My sides ache.

Here's my 2 cents: The article does, indeed, need to tip its hat to Joe M's view because, like it or not, it is held by a significant portion of the working class, be it in America or abroad. I'd suggest something like this: "Complicating attempts to address the issue is the not uncommon belief that the homeless are responsible for their own plight, as a result of laziness or other moral failings... ."

But the hat need only be tipped. If Misplaced Pages were to dwell on Joe M's views, we might as well start including articles that suggest the terminally ill or diseased are being punished by God. So let's just tip that hat and keep moving.... --quark219.

There is nothing wrong with including the conservative view, in fact it should be included. Just not in the ham-handed, one sided, non-encyclopedic, insulting manner that JoeM keeps trying to do it. Come on people, the other view NEEDS to be included.Ark30inf 22:58, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Could anyone give the link to the specific source of those strange numbers about homelessness in Europe? I've always heard that there are more poor people (which, I know is not the same as homeless people) in US than in Europe, and I've read numbers confirming that in some sources (I can't recall them now) and these numbers seem to contradict those numbers. Maybe there may be more poor people, but at least they have a house? User:Marco Neves

There is a lot of sub-standard housing in the US of a kind (trailer parks and mobile homes) that is almost unheard-of in Europe. Maybe that has something to do with it, and it correlates with the argument that rent control reduces the availability of housing. Statutorily raising the lowest standard of housing, while intended to improve living conditions, may have the unintended effect of leaving more people unable to find housing. — Miguel 22:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if it has what you need, but its a startUNHABITAT doc Thanks, I'll read it and see what I may do with it! By the way, I remembered that probably poverty indicators are relative to the general wealth of the country, so saying there are more poors in US than in EU may be inappropriate. I'll check these things! Cheers! User:Marco Neves

healthafairs link http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.212/DC1 this link says it requires a subscription :/---Skuld 11:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Touching, really, but ...

Does the following paragraph:

There are things being done to help put an end to homelessness, but it is not nearly enough. Homeless people aren't just starving on Thanksgiving and Christmas. They aren't just without homes in the cold winter. Homelessness can happen to anyone, anywhere, any time. Just imagine the frightning event of having no where to go home to. If we all stand together as a nation, a world and as a human race, we can save an uncountable amount of lives. Because, in the words of two great Presidents "No one can change what happened, but we can all change what happens next.".Lets change the future, Together.

really have any sort of place in an encyclopoedia? Not only have many of the points been addressed before but it sounds so wishy-washy-let's-all-be-friends. I'm deleting this, anyone who thinks it should be reverted can just add it back in.

It sounds like an oral presentation on poverty.

Benji 16:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I agree with the POV personally, but it is still POV. This is not a book, it is an article. BlueGoose 05:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The pictures need to be removed. They're romantic pictures, designed to sell an idea. Instead, actual, normal, everday pictures of homeless people should be posted.

MSTCrow 21:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 15:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)With the pictures, could you put quotation marks around homeless, thus 'homeless'? You can't confirm that the people in the pictures are genuinely homeless (i.e. no home to go to) or NFA (e.g. choosing not to accept homes or other accommodation offered to them). == 82.143.162.72 13:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)What are the links for? For providing information about the article's topic or providing a platform for a particular political opinion on it?

Well done

I am pleased to see that this article has improved greatly since I last visited it. I was the author of that "oral presentation on poverty", and feel this article was going in a bad, bad direction. I'm happy to see that it is doing much better. Editor19841 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't come upon this article until today, and while I personally agree with the opinions expressed in the sections deemed to be POV I think it's important for the credibility of the article to keep it as neutral and to the point as possible. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a political manifesto.

I've sometimes attempted to refer to Misplaced Pages articles when discussing political issues with right wingers, and have been rebuffed with the argument that anyone can change the material herein at will, an consequently it can't be considered an objective and unbiased source. The splendid review work done on this article proves them wrong. Jonas Liljeström 12:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following language: '(if you have ever had one drop of alcohol on you tongue before the homeless industrial complex considers you an alcoholic in need of expensive 12-step religious cultism indoctrination)'

While I don't feel that the sentiment expressed is wrong, this sort of claim requires at least a couple sentences of clearer, less hyperbolic language.

Grade of homelessness

I removed this section. It is unreferenced and likely represents only the POV of a Wikipedian trying to illustrate what he/she considers "downward mobility". Please see WP:NOR. The self reference doesn't help. Please do not readd any section to this effect without a reputable source. It is reproduced below.

Grades of homelessness

Please note that this list could have many gradients; it is meant to highlight the downward mobility of homelessness.

• Most secure: Those who always have shelter due to kindness of friends, and receive a government check or limited wages.

• Less secure: Those who exist only on the kindness of friends with both food and shelter, no government help.

• Less secure, still: Those who live in unpleasant long term "group shelters".

• At risk of exposure: The "Motor Homeless", sleep in an unheated junk car that is drivable, many will die from exposure. There are also those who choose to live a nomadic lifestyle, and will not necessarily die from exposure.

• Ongoing risk of illness from exposure: Those who spend at least 30 nights a year in open winter air, or rainy conditions.

• Probable life risk: Those who have no family, no affluent friends, have no car, no food except donated charity goods.

San Fransico/Tokyo

When I think homeless, I think San Francisco, and Tokyo. Can we put information regarding Japan's homeless population here.

Sure we can. Have you got any data to hand? Pcb21 Pete 09:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)