Comments on: Campaign 2000 Reports 1 in 10 Canadian Children Living in Poverty – But Beware of Holes in the Data http://informedvote.ca/2009/11/25/campaign-2000-reports-1-in-10-canadian-children-living-in-poverty-but-beware-of-holes-in-the-data/ Informed Vote (informedvote.ca) will keep Canadian voters informed on Canadian Politics such as Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton, Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Green, as well as foreign issues like the Israel palestine conflict and local issues like the CUPE strike Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:04:53 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Tamir Birk http://informedvote.ca/2009/11/25/campaign-2000-reports-1-in-10-canadian-children-living-in-poverty-but-beware-of-holes-in-the-data/comment-page-1/#comment-4049 Tamir Birk Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:25:13 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=1669#comment-4049 Lubabah, I have to respectfully disagree with your criticism regarding statistics. I don't think the author of this article intends to say that the statistics are blatantly lying, or that he does not "believe in statistics" as you mention. Statistics often contain many flaws, and it is up to us and people like the author of this article to point them out so we gain a full understanding of the situation at hand. It is a federal reporter's duty, in my opinion, to dig deep and uncover flaws in statistics to better inform us. It's naive to think that any statistic published by government is 100% flawless. We should always keep in mind the limitations of published statistics and their implications. In that regard, this author does an excellence job of illustrating the limitations of Campaign 2000's report. Lubabah,

I have to respectfully disagree with your criticism regarding statistics. I don’t think the author of this article intends to say that the statistics are blatantly lying, or that he does not “believe in statistics” as you mention. Statistics often contain many flaws, and it is up to us and people like the author of this article to point them out so we gain a full understanding of the situation at hand. It is a federal reporter’s duty, in my opinion, to dig deep and uncover flaws in statistics to better inform us. It’s naive to think that any statistic published by government is 100% flawless. We should always keep in mind the limitations of published statistics and their implications. In that regard, this author does an excellence job of illustrating the limitations of Campaign 2000’s report.

]]> By: Lubabah http://informedvote.ca/2009/11/25/campaign-2000-reports-1-in-10-canadian-children-living-in-poverty-but-beware-of-holes-in-the-data/comment-page-1/#comment-4048 Lubabah Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:06:38 +0000 http://informedvote.ca/?p=1669#comment-4048 This a flawed article. The author of this article cannot found his argument on any evidence so he waits until the last line to throw an unwarranted opinion. If you believe stats can lie, take a trip to Hamilton, the second largest city in Ontario and the eighth largest in Canada. Hamilton has a poverty rate of 20%! If you do not believe in statistics, how can you call yourself a credible reporter of our federal government? Or even credible to defend current federal programs that address child poverty? As for a definition of poverty, I believe there is a simple one that does not include your doubts about statistics: how about all of your income goes food, clothing and shelter? This does not include childcare costs, hair cuts, dentistry, eye glasses, birthday gifts, home computer, internet service, random purchases, etc. If you don't believe in numbers, then get out of Ottawa and see how the rest of Canadians are living in this country. This a flawed article. The author of this article cannot found his argument on any evidence so he waits until the last line to throw an unwarranted opinion. If you believe stats can lie, take a trip to Hamilton, the second largest city in Ontario and the eighth largest in Canada. Hamilton has a poverty rate of 20%! If you do not believe in statistics, how can you call yourself a credible reporter of our federal government? Or even credible to defend current federal programs that address child poverty? As for a definition of poverty, I believe there is a simple one that does not include your doubts about statistics: how about all of your income goes food, clothing and shelter? This does not include childcare costs, hair cuts, dentistry, eye glasses, birthday gifts, home computer, internet service, random purchases, etc. If you don’t believe in numbers, then get out of Ottawa and see how the rest of Canadians are living in this country.

]]>