Talk:Gentrification

“Professor Smith” and following multiple sections
I am not even sure WHAT to flag this as. I don’t know who Professor Smith is, it’s not defined in the section, and this portion appears to be a regurgitation of a term paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:f90:6950:10dd:594c:d96c:59db (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Justice
— Assignment last updated by Mmagana0212 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Something very wrong with this article
This article feels like someone got ahold of it and tried to make it into a Pro-Gentrification Propaganda piece. The last part about taking legal action against the Gentrification groups is a case in point. The first three Paragraphs (?????) are statements of how wonderful (My paraphrase ) Gentrification is. Then the very last line which reads like a throw-away line, something about the Fair Housing Act.

My suggestion is completely delete this so-called Article then try again except this time make it neutral!!! MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Back when I was studying geography at school and university (1996-2006) gentrification was seen as an almost exclusively positive thing. Seems it has become more and more disliked as time goes on, possibly the meaning of it has changed as gentrification used to mean taking an area out of poverty and crime and making it more liveable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6388:4F01:55FC:79E:57A5:22A9 (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There are at least two definitions of gentrification.
What will happen if you do post the three or four definitions that work for gentrification?

They can't go into the definitions, and maybe this is because they cause general social problems with only vague posts online with worse versions of those definitions for the inquisitive kids at every social gathering with brains. At least twice now in ten or twenty year intervals the spread of gentrification definitions has swept suburbs, and it results in no talk about what it is in public in the spaces between.

One is legal and includes investment. One is having so much money everything changes for you. Nowhere will you find complete impunity. You will find a mysterious epidemic spread of disease during and after complaining about impunity; it doesn't work out socially. You will be challenged to identify more than one or two elements in the social arguments/movements around, leading up to and after gentrification. History, loyalty, genetics, service, state planning and everything else factor in so that's what you are actually complaining about, if you ever do decide to complain. Peterlalka (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Does this make sense?
"Also, other research has shown that low-income families in gentrifying neighborhoods are less likely to be displaced than in non-gentrifying neighborhoods. A common theory has been that as affluent people move into a poorer neighborhood, housing prices increase as a result, causing poorer people to move out of the neighborhood." I've not edited this section, but these two sentences seem to contradict each other. Saccerzd (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)