Jump to content

Talk:White flight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hostile tone of the article. Victim blaming. And victim blaming of a racist kind.[edit]

The article has a hostile tone, essentially blaming the people who left areas they were born in. Supposedly the people who left had only their own "racism" to blame, and the only violence was from the people who left, not the people who took their place. Normally in world history, if a group of people leave cities and towns their ancestors created, and new people take over these cities and towns, it is not the people who left who were the most violent - this can be the case, but it is not normally the case. Some objective evidence would be useful - for example what was the comparative murder rate? Who was more likely to kill who? Also putting the article in a series on discrimination prejudges the issue - it assumes that the people who left the areas were the guilty group. That the incoming group of people might have been anything other than perfect does not occur to the writer or writers of the article - or if it does occur them, they fear to mention the possibility. The writer or writers may think they are being "anti racist" - but, in reality, the article is intensely racist - filled with hatred (possibly self-hatred) for "white" (pinkish grey) people.2A02:C7E:1CA8:CE00:34B4:7ED:A60:6C18 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also the term "Yankees" or Yank was a derogatory term. Could someone please help edit this? also "pinkish grey" is perposperous. Just as "Black people" aren't literally black. White people aren't literly "white" or "pinkish grey" IrishLas (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your definition of “racist” is oversimplified—being that if it happens to offend you and discusses something heavily involving race it becomes “racist.” Unfortunately for you, that means most of American history is racist. Instead of insisting that the way this article is written makes it racist, re-evaluate why you are so sensitive to the text in the first place. (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We get it, you wanna be opposed WOMP.WOMP 2601:8C:B80:6660:394E:D15C:68B6:3688 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023[edit]

Citation of specific historians that are rethinking White flight needed. "Historians" is too vague a term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"insinuates racial motivation" in the lead.[edit]

This edit isn't appropriate; "insinuates" is POV language and the previous language better summarizes the article as a whole. We discuss the motivations in more detail further down the lead using much better sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from quoted language in the article: "once the proportion of non-whites exceeds the limits of the neighborhood's tolerance for interracial living, whites move out." People would generally employ different terms to describe migrations if not for the aspect of inserting the idea of racial motivation.The wording is conventionally a fair descriptor to that end. Where definition is agreeable, the properly descriptive word allows concise rendition in place of spelling out the definition.
Simply stating something is nonnegotiable or similarly undermining its validity with formal language is not a valid reason for removal. StuckMuck (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about that describes the term as insinuat[ing] racial motivation. That's (I assume) your personal reading and interpretation of what you feel the source is doing, but that's not how we use sources and describing it that way based on your personal feelings are WP:OR. In order to say that in the article voice, you would need sources that actually say "the term is used to insinuate racial motivation", not sources that you personally feel are insinuating racial motivation. Even beyond that, the bit you quoted is clearly better-summarized with the more neutral version that was there before. --Aquillion (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the policy on research recommends using your own words without changing the meaning as clearly intended in the context of the source. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this policy. We don't just cite sources. We read them, and reading them requires critical thinking. Review is appreciated.
The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.
It is self-evident that there are sensations when reading anything. It doesn't make sense to use that as a benchmark for any qualification. There's a difference between rationalizing, and immersing yourself into open minded understanding of another person. Rationalizations can be perfectly sound, and still not as objective as some perceive them to be, so I understand where the sentiment is coming from.

StuckMuck (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there was actually a slant it would have been explained, and not merely asserted.
The claim to violation of neutrality is appropriately dismissed. I don't enjoy this subject, but still took time to consider it and made a valid contribution in a way that is appropriate. It might be reconsidered entirely with valid reason in the future.
The summary argument appears to corroborate the appropriateness of the contribution. We agree language that is typical of the article is summarized, and you happened to feel it is not "better".

Please clarify whether or not you understand that people would generally employ different terms to describe migrations if not for the aspect of inserting the idea of racial motivation. The article isn't talking about snowbirds.

The wording you initially take issue with is simply noting that the idea conveyed isn't solely thrust into conversation. It is introduced by assuming the racial construct has consequence. There is obviously a consequential implication in other ways people might refer, which unequivocally differentiates it from reference to consideration of inherently important factors independent from race. If you review the sentence you'll see it isn't actually written such that one would assume the term acutely means "insinuating racial motivation" the way it happens to be placed out of context in your sentence structure.

Reference: "White flight is a term that insinuates racial motivation for sudden or gradual large-scale migration of white people from areas simultaneously gaining population of other racial groups."

Also note that the plainly neutral wording tends to the term itself, thus one should expect the sentence would have some difference from one which is an expressed perception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuckMuck (talkcontribs) 00:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024[edit]

Several sources in the sub-section "crime" (under Catalysts in United States section) do not corroborate stated claims or are woefully out of date:

1. Source 97 (https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/81/2/159/57121/Crime-Urban-Flight-and-the-Consequences-for-Cities) is used to corroborate the claim: "Studies suggest that rising crime rates were one of the reasons that white households left cities for suburbs in the 1960s and 1970s."

However, Ellen & O'Regan (2010) -- which is also used for citation 100 -- highlights that Cullen & Levitt (1999) assume a faulty temporal relationship between crime and population. As a result, they assess trends contemporaneously, rather than lagged, which critically ignores potential endogeneity.

2. Source 98 (https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/125/1/417/1880366?login=true) is alleged to corroborate the claim: "Studies suggest that rising crime rates were one of the reasons that white households left cities for suburbs in the 1960s and 1970s."

Yet, upon inspection, the cited author notes their analysis shows that "whites responded to this black influx by leaving cities and rule out an indirect effect on housing prices as a sole cause." Moreover, the cited manuscript does not empirically assess potential mechanisms, such as crime. As such, it is tenuous to use this manuscript as a source re: crime & white flight.

3. Source 99 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X17305422?via%3Dihub) is used to corroborate the claim, "Samuel Kye (2018) cites several studies that identified 'factors such as crime and neighborhood deterioration, rather than racial prejudice, as more robust determinants of white flight.'" This is misappropriation of the author's manuscript. The author cites this previous work as part of their literature review. It not the purpose of the study. In fact, the author finds resounding support for the racial white hypothesis (i.e., racial animosity is a chief motivating factor) in contrast to the alternative that race is a proxy for things like crime or poverty. As Kye (2018) states, "results show virtually no evidence supporting the racial proxy hypothesis. Instead, findings demonstrate that the odds of white flight are significantly greater for all groups in middle-class neighborhoods, rather than their poorer counterparts." As such, it is tenuous to use this manuscript as a source re: crime & white flight.

4. The time frame for Source 100 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009411901000032X#aep-section-id11) is 1980 to 2000. This does not match the 1950-1980 time frame under question in the sub-section. As such, it is tenuous to use this manuscript as a source to claim association between crime & white flight during the immediate post-War years.

The above-mentioned sources should not be permitted for this section. More broadly, this section should be struck as a potential catalyst, or, at least, heavy tempered with caution given its tenuous evidence. Ladybountiful11 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]