Talk:WIC program/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article needs rewriten

If I knew how to add a non PoV banner, I would. Most of this article reads like an opinion piece. A specific example is the last paragragh in the Food Package section. It is completly unsourced, and reads like a blog post. If I had the time, knowledge or writing skills to fix this article, I would, but I don't, so someone else needs to fix this article. It's almost an embarasment. 173.189.188.147 (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Last sentence

The last sentence is a subjective statement

(Please sign your contributions by inserting four "~"s at the end of your response.)

Complying with retail personnel may seem like a subjective statement, but unlike US state-administered food stamp programs, WIC's stipulations are not up for debate at all.

They are completely prescribed, totally defined, extensively reviewed by recipients with government officials well beforehand, and set in stone. Vordabois (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. Seems reasonable that this is the primary meaning. Disambig hatnote should be added. -- Aervanath (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children → WIC — Google and other sources seem to indicate WIC primarily refers to this article (the United States food assistance program). Of the first ten results on Google for "WIC", 8 appear to be about this US program. At the very least, the title should be some from of "WIC (specifier)" where "specifier" is something we can agree upon below (assuming a move to WIC is rejected). —Locke Cole • t • c 09:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support, in case it's not clear from my statement above. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 18:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Move to WIC (nutrition program)? The initials WIC have many meanings. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm willing to consider this, but not sure why we'd do this when the most common meaning for "WIC" is this article (the others are either defunct or far less likely to be the actual target being searched for (the next most likely being World in Conflict, a game). To put this in perspective, just about every major grocery store in the United States supports this program and refers to it by this shorter name, "WIC". States refer to it by this name as well, and I suspect just about everyone participating in the program calls it this. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Income Requirements

Could someone please double-check the "...eligibility requirement is a family income below 185% of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines" assertion? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the way it's worded makes it appear as though in order to qualify, you must be so far below the poverty level that you not only aren't earning any income, you actually owe money on a monthly basis. I'm not too familiar with WIC or its guidelines, but I can't imagine that's correct. Two of my friends were or are currently in the WIC program, and they definitely had income, and they were 185% below the poverty line. Thanks.

JerseyGirlMedia (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I happened to have WIC's website up at the moment, and found this blurb:

The State agency's income standard must be between 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines (issued each year by the Department of Health and Human Services), but cannot be more than 185 percent of the Federal poverty income guidelines.

The way it's worded in the article doesn't sound quite the same as the way it's presented here. It sounds to me like the income requirements are that you either must be AT the poverty line, or be no more than 85% OVER the poverty line, not that your family's total income must be more than 185% below the poverty line. Perhaps someone could rewrite that sentence?

Link: http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/eligibilityrequirements.htm

JerseyGirlMedia (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The verbiage is consistent with the Federal regulations text and the nomenclature of WIC administrators. That is, a persons income must be below 185% of the poverty level. Admittedly, this is an unusually way to look at it, but if you focus on the fact that 185% of a number is greater than the number itself, then it may help to gleam that you can have an income almost twice the poverty level and still qualify.

Link: http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/howtoapply/incomeguidelines.htm

Dkar369.76.211.117 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy/failures

I came here (as a European) to get an understanding of http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=A947980&entry=20725&mode=date (item 2). From this diary entry it appears that the program is not without its flaws and controversies. The article would benefit from a discussion of these. 88.77.138.95 (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably there's no need to address this, since well over a year has passed... but I don't like seeing open-ended suggestions that might be detrimental to articles. :)

Basically, what she's talking about there isn't unusual. Phrased more objectively: If you're going to ask for government assistance, particularly associated with a very specific expense, you have to show that you're making a reasonable attempt to collect on other money that might be owed for that expense. In this case... "hello government! Can I have money for my kid?" "Sure! Assuming you prove that you've arranged for the kid's father to pay for the kid you're asking us to help support." Frankly, it's no different from saying you need to prove you're actually looking for a job if you want to keep collecting on unemployment.

Perhaps more on point, simply put, it isn't uncommon by any stretch. So it isn't really worth including in the article unless there are a few RS's raising a stink about it. 72.88.68.252 (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Canned Tuna Fish

Seeing as cheap canned tuna fish is high in mercury and the WIC provides low cost canned fish, why is there no information on the mercury levels of those provided with this food. Mercury in developing children and fetuses is shown to increase the probability of a multitude of mental problems. My mother has worked for the health department for many years and she knows what the US government's position has been with regards to canned tuna fish. -- Azemocram (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Responsibilities?

Is this really a section? Has anyone actually read this? Most of those same "responsibilities" apply to cash, credit cards, coupons, and practically any other form of "currency." The section reads more like a joke than an encyclopedic entry.

"Complying with retail personnel during a WIC transaction." Seriously?

I can only see one reason someone would add this section to this article. He was trying to make the WIC program look like it placed a burden on its users. Unless some spirited discussion occurs here and someone justifies this section, I'm going to move the relevant points (such as the mention of eligible items) to the main article and I'm going to delete this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.24.152 (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Average cost to taxpayers?

After an argument as to the cost (per taxpayer) of this welfare program, I was unable to find this information in the article. Would this not be considered relevant information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.84.57 (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Peanut Butter

In one sentence the article says that peanut butter is covered by the WIC Program, then two sentences later it says that it is not. Same paragraph. 69.127.82.225 (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

Only one in nine non-participating children nationwide are ineligible for WIC aid.

This is beyond silly. There has to be some additional qualification for this to begin making sense. It simply cannot be true that over 90% of children in the USA are eligible for WIC. ~ MD Otley (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis and Lack of Sources in Research Problems and Limitations

I've added templates for both synthesis and lack of sources for the section Research Problems and Limitations as this section is made primarily of original synthesis and only cites one source. --ElectricAutumn (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)