|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the White flight article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
I believe that this entry is slanted to the left. Too much talk of white discrimination. Just wrong on the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- if you have evidence from reliable sources that the article is 'wrong on the facts', then show us these facts, and we will have something to go on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's interesting that you say he must provide a reliable source to verify that it's incorrect. I believe it should be the other way around. If someone is going to write an article, the onus should be on them to provide reliable sources to prove what they are writing is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Many parts of this article are slanted slightly to the left. Nowhere is it made clear in this article that "white flight" was almost completely driven by many government policies, and the private sector responses to these policies. It has become almost universally accepted to think that white flight is just something that occurred due to white's fear of minorities. More likely is it simply people acting in their own economic self interest after government policies have dramatically altered the cost/benefit calculation for millions of individuals and businesses (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck, 130). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephfryar (talk • contribs) 00:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- The general tone is slanted. It implies that white flight is due to white folks who irrationally fear blacks and immediately move out of a neighborhood. There is not an even-handed description of other causes, such as increased rates of violence in public schools with rising minority and low-income populations, or government policies such as Section 8 housing subsidies that allow lower-income, usually minority families to move into neighborhoods and increased crime rates that often go along with that. Saying those sorts of things smacks of racism and white people are afraid to say them publicly, but it is reality in the US. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- This entry is a perfect example of why so many people have zero trust in what they read on wikipedia. Completely one sided. Yeah, you cite "facts", but only partial facts that point in the direction you like. It's ashame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit request on 19 April 2013
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Individuals in Sweden are identified by codes which include details of ethnicity and location.
is wrong. It actually is:
"Individuals in Sweden are identified by codes and some of these codes include information about your gender and in what county the person was born."
- Partly done: I've reworded that sentence to better indicate what the source says about the codes, and removed the word "ethnicity". --ElHef (Meep?) 03:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
97% immigrant children in Norwegian schools.
There's a question/concern "flag" attached to the mention of certain school classes consisting of 97% immigrant children, doubting the reliability of the source. This ought to be a pretty reliable source: http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/article3321919.ece. (That's in Norwegian, obviously, but Google translate is your friend.) The source (Nettavisen.no) has its own page on Wikipedia and I see nothing about it that would inspire lack of confidence. I'm going to take the liberty of removing the "[unreliable source?]" flag. As they say, truth is the best defense against libel and I infer from this that the truth is inviolable by such contingencies as political correctness. [Sorry about the double post -- not sure how that happened.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Please remove the word "Pakeha" from the sentence below because it is a racially offensive word:
"Data from the Ministry of Education found that 60,000 Pākehā (New Zealand European) students attended low-decile schools (situated in the poorest areas) in 2000, and had fallen to half that number in 2010."
"Pakeha" is a neo-apartheid pejorative equivalent in offensiveness to the word "nigger" or "cracker". Imagine if you were writing about the USA, would you say "... found that 60,000 Crackers attended low decile schools"?
Controversy regarding the word can be found under Wikipedia's "Attitudes to the Term" paragraph regarding the word "Pakeha" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakeha#Attitudes_to_the_term
To make the sentence inoffensive without in any way altering the meaning you just need to remove the word "Pākehā" from the sentence - it doesn't need to be replaced with anything else.
- I'm not sure about this - the source cited uses the term 'Pākehā',  and our article on it cites a survey that seems to suggest that most don't see it as an insult.  I'll remove it for now, though if anyone wishes to dispute this we may have to reconsider. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)