Talk:White flight

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. 50.200.164.15 (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

text: We get it, you wanna be opposed WOMP.WOMP 2601:8C:B80:6660:394E:D15C:68B6:3688 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hostile tone of the article. Victim blaming. And victim blaming of a racist kind. 

message: Citation of specific historians that are rethinking White flight needed. "Historians" is too vague a term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.52.140 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024