Talk:Bottom of the pyramid

[Untitled][edit]

This article has massive amounts of spelling errors!!!! - Please fix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatguy73 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new concept is to keep lower margin and serve the lare no. of masses

Can anyone share resources or references to the variety of interpretations (xxx billion people living on xxx USD/day/year)?

Objective rewrite needed[edit]

This page needs a major rewrite to be more objective and less promotional. Beyond the opening paragraph, most of the this page seems to be about promoting certain academic authors, texts, or methodologies.

There's a lot of mix up between the BoP as a demographic with characteristics, and the approaches to serving that demographic. Consider revising the page around those two related, yet different concepts.
The second paragraph in the intro referencing specific authors (or working papers) should be removed or moved to its own section further down of academic works, or better yet, a section that focuses on models or methodologies (make it less author-centric).
The last five paragraphs of the history section should also be removed or moved to an academic works or models/methodologies section.
Consider expanding the history section to include information about the growth or evolution of the bottom of the pyramid demographic
Consider replacing the featured image. It seems to focus more on a critique of capitalist systems than providing an illustration of the bottom of the pyramid.
Overhaul the examples section. First examples of what? Second, update the examples provided, as there is range of activities not represented here, and the section right now is mostly used to advance certain theories: "There is a traditional view that BOP consumers...", "it is believed by many that...".
The propaganda poster about the capitalist system does not belong. The BOP has nothing to do with capitalism. The BOP was much larger in the thousands of years before the industrial revolution and has decreased rapidly under capitalism ever since. The current shrinking of the BOP in BRIC nations that previously opposed capitalism proves this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:99DE:900:8D1C:DFAA:8B70:6E00 (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

empedgate (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think many of the above objections have been fixed. New sections have been added to the page. I hope the issue tag may be removed now from the page. RezviMasood (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and images[edit]

I believe this article still suffers from Neutrality issues, and is also written like an essay consisting of original research. For example, the section What is the actual shape of the wealth pyramid? references some external sources, but ultimately the concept it proposes is not actually discussed in any of the sources.

Wikipedia needs to be a culmination of published sources and their topics discussed in those. We cannot introduce our own new ideas.

Because of this, I have removed two graph images which cite no sources. I share my opinion that they should not be re-added to the page unless the origins of where they were created, the source material used to inform them, is actually cited. It is misleading and not good of Wikipedia to include material like the graphs.

58.109.94.165 (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second image is potentially misleading because the scale of axes may be distorting whatever "the actual shape of the wealth pyramid" is. There needs to be some explanation for why the population axis is set to be nearly three to four times as large as the wealth axis.

The simplest thing to do would be to set "total wealth" and "total population" to be 1:1, but this will likely make the graph look like an imperceptible needle above 40% wealth because the population axis will be compressed to such an extent that even a pixel width introduces inaccuracy. Perhaps this is why Mr. Rezvi chose 4:1 scales for the axes? Or maybe the scales are set at "total world wealth (USD?)" as proportioned to "total population"? The problem of course is the linear scale. Graphically depicting how much wealth the top percentage has in relation to the bottom percentage is a problem because of the order of magnitudes (ie. Politzane's wealth inequality in America graphs).

As far as the where the data came from, I am fairly sure the numbers are aggregate values from the 2015 Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report (popular news summary) or the Oxfam report.

I'll have to dig around through the Wikipedia rules, but I am pretty sure anything that is a simple graphical depiction of what the article describes doesn't warrant being labeled original research. At least no more so than an animation of a circle with a diameter of 1 being unwound to graphically illustrate how laying a circumference flat works out to a length of 3.14159265358979323846... The first graph showing that population expands as wealth decreases is self obvious. This should be restored as we are talking about a geometric concept. The first graph is merely a visual aide not a data-point.

My two cents anyways, Xtraeme (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Bottom of the pyramid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bottom of the pyramid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225183033/http://www.wdi.umich.edu:80/ResearchInitiatives/BasePyramid/ to http://www.wdi.umich.edu/ResearchInitiatives/BasePyramid

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]