Talk:White flight/Archive 2

Relevance
I'm sorry, but there is simply no way you can fairly attribute a sociological phenomenon to a single race and remain objective. There is no relevance to identifying whites as people who move out as opposed to any others. There is no greater connection between being white and desiring to move when more of "white kind" is not around than there is for any other race, people or nation. The simple fact that someone has said something that _rhymes_ in relation to a narrow observation of society in general in no way validates the preposterous amount of scrutiny this page gives to a single race. It honestly risks being inflammatory as the size of this discussion page attests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.115.54 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - this article is describing a subset of a larger phenomenon based on an entirely arbitrary (and subjective) intersection. It is a breach of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Zimbabwe
The source describes this an example of "white flight". This article is not limited to only how the term is used in the US.Miradre (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is limited to the way it is used in sociology, it plainly says so in the definition. Decolonization is not white flight.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we should change the introduction. Wikipedia is not limited to only how the US use the term. Crime and mismanagement in Zimbabwe is hardly decolonization.Miradre (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

White flight in Africa
The World Affairs Journal article does mention "white flight", but obviously not in the sense in which it is defined in the beginning of this article - as a movement away from areas with increasing minority populations. In Africa Whites have been minority populations and they are mostly leaving because the political climate has shifted in their disfavor, as the article makes abundantly clear. The source is plainly being misrepresented as if it is relevant to this topic. And again Miradre shows himself willing to cherry pick sources and take historical facts out of context in order to be able to paint a picture that is shows white peoples as victims of Black barbarism. I think we are moving close to an ArbCom case now.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we should change the introduction. Wikipedia is not limited to only how the US use the term. Crime and mismanagement in Zimbabwe is hardly decolonization.Miradre (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. To include an entirely different phenomenon in the article merely because it also includes 'white' people would be WP:SYN. Miradre, take your POV-pushing agenda elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Economist also calls it "White flight":Miradre (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As does the Times: Miradre (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant - they aren't describing the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not limited to only how some in the US use a term.Miradre (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still irrelevant. If the same phrase is used to describe two different phenomena, to deal with them both in the same article is synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has many articles where the same article explains different meanings of the same term.Miradre (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is clear enough, and defined in the lede. Any attempt to include phenomena not meeting the lede definition would be synthesis. Unless you can find WP:RS that analyses the two forms as subsets of one (unlikely), you cannot include the 'African' examples, merely because lazy journalists choose to pick familiar (and alliterative) phrases. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such policy. Again, Wikipedia has lots of articles that explains terms with different meanings. Look at the multiverse or the intelligence articles, for example.Miradre (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at them yourself. "For other uses, see Multiverse (disambiguation).". Clear enough for you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are also a discussion in the multiverse article about aspects in philosophy, physics, religion, and so on, where the concept means quite different things. The same with the intelligence article.Miradre (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CONCEPTDABMiradre (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Miradre is misrepresenting the sources. They state that emigration from South Africa, due to increased crime rates, is occurring across all ethnic groups. It is not at all the same phenomenon as occurs for example in the suburbs of Malmo in Sweden. Mathsci (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is you who misrepresent. The text already states this.Miradre (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

{od}"Talk about “white flight” does not go down well. Officials are quick to claim that there is nothing white about it. A recent survey by FutureFact, a polling organisation, found that the desire to emigrate is pretty even across races: last year, 42% of Coloured (mixed-race) South Africans, 38% of blacks and 30% of those of Indian descent were thinking of leaving, compared with 41% of whites. This is a big leap from 2000, when the numbers were 12%, 18%, 26% and 22% respectively. But it is the whites, by and large, who have the money, skills, contacts and sometimes passports they need to start a life outside—and who leave the bigger skills and tax gap behind."·Maunus· ƛ · 15:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is one opinion. The article itself have "white flight" in the title.Miradre (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nick Holland, chief executive of Gold Fields, a mining company, says that in his firm it is far commoner for skilled whites to leave than their black and Indian counterparts. “We mustn’t stick our heads in the sand,” he says. “White flight is a reality.”"Miradre (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is one opinion. The statistics are from a survey, and self-evidently based on more than one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Text books have been written on emigration, in particular emigration from South Africa. The accounts are finely nuanced. Here is one: Immigration and migration, by Rayna Bailey  There is no mention of white flight. There is a detailed discussion of South Africa, where the author refers to the problem of the brain drain. The author discusses why certain ethnic groups can emigrate and why others cannot. Mathsci (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your points is. RS have described the white emigration as "white flight". No one disagrees that whites are overrepresented. There are also specific factors affecting them such affirmative action.Miradre (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Academic textbooks are the best kind of WP:RS for writing wikipedia articles. Articles in the Sunday Times or the Economist are certainly not comparable. Mathsci (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are using Google Books. Strange that you missed the many sources describing white flight from South Africa. Like "South Africa in Contemporary Times", "Africa and the West", "The atlas of changing South Africa", "The uncertain promise of Southern Africa", "The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication", "Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation?", "Transforming South Africa". Just to pick a few.Miradre (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not seem to be a current term amongst academics and the phenomenon is evidently completely different from that in Malmo. Try looking for books on the brain drain in South Africa on google books. Mathsci (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already looked in Google Books for "white flight" and "South Africa" and as can be seen the concept is presented in numerous sources. Not sure why you picked different search terms and missed all these results.Miradre (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I found another major textbook, "Surviving on the Move: Migration, Poverty and Development in Southern Africa," by Jonathan Crush and Bruce Frayne. It contains lots about the brain drain, but no mention whatsoever of "White flight". The content added by you did not cite any WP:RS. I have produced two major texts on emigration from South Africa which do not use this phrase. "Brain drain" seems to be the term used far more commonly: it describes the problem far more precisely. There is plenty of content on that elsewhere on wikipedia, e.g. Brain drain.  Mathsci (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already mentioned many sources using the concept. There are numerous others, far too many to list. Just use Google Books again and search for "white flight" and "South Africa" this time.Miradre (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. If there are sources, cite them properly. And there is a difference between using a term in passing and discussing it in detail. Only sources that do the latter are relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The atlas of changing South Africa, A. J. Christopher, 2001. To take one example. Or The uncertain promise of Southern Africa, York W. Bradshaw, Stephen N. Ndegwa, 2000.Miradre (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if we accept you have established that the term 'white flight' is being widely used to describe (but not necessarily analyse) a phenomena in South Africa, can you now explain what this has to do with the article subject, which is on another phenomenon entirely? It is still synthesis (especially since in both cases, the phenomena being described are much more complex than the term 'white flight' suggests, and in neither case does the usage stand up to objective scrutiny as anything more than a simplistic label). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The concepts are clearly not entirely different. In both cases cases whites are emigrating from an area with increasing influence by other groups predominantly to areas where there are more whites. As such they are best described together. Again, see the article intelligence where many different concepts are described in one article.Miradre (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only way that the two concepts come to have any resemblance is by putting it in a racialist context instead of the socio-economic context that all of the sources clearly apply. The two phenomena are distinct because they have different causes and different historical contexts. In one case it is a simple socioeconomic phenomena associated with immigration and relative social status between different succesive groups of immigrant. The other is a phenomena to be understood in the context of post-colonialism. Nothing similar unless about you are looking at it with black/white glasses.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be contradicting yourself. Is socioeconomic causes are the explanations then there are similarities. The same if you argue racism.Miradre (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to not have read my statement sufficiently carefully. One is caused by socioeconomic causes. The other by a particular post-colonial historical process.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your own POV. One can equally well argue that both are due racism or both are due to socioeconomic factors.Miradre (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It just happens that my opinion apparently corresponds closely with the general academic consensus, which treats white flight and decolonization in two separate bodies of literature.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For example white flight from South Africa is not decolonization.Miradre (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the first many pages of google scholars hits of white flight there isn't a single hit that isn't about the process of urban neighborhood succession. The term "white flight" is simply not in scholarly use about national level migrations in Afric or anywhere else. We definitely have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. ·Maunus· ƛ · 11:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is simply false. The sources I gave above describe emigration out of South Africa by whites as "white flight".Miradre (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot disprove a claim of majority by providing exceptions. There are no such usages within the first 200 hits of a google scholar search of "white flight".·Maunus· ƛ · 11:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Search for "white flight" and "south africa" instead. You will find numerous sources referring to white flight as emigration from south africa.Miradre (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

White flight
Many of the changes you have done are not in the sources. For example, your text "A 2005 report stated that migration within the UK is mainly from areas of high ethnic minority population to those with predominantly Anglo-European populations. In population succession, people often choose to live with those who share their food, values and culture. At previous times of immigration to London, which absorbed European refugees for centuries, the same effects were seen. For instance, the East End in the 16th century was filled with refugee French Huguenot immigrants, and much later succeeded by a majority of Jewish immigrants - both "white" groups. Because of visible physical differences among newer populations, in recent decades some commentators have been too quick to label such successions as racially based. The report suggested that different ethnic groups were living "parallel lives". The London School of Economics in a study found similar succession." This contains much material not in the source: Miradre (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, why are you changing "white flight" to "Population succession"? That is not the term the sources use.Miradre (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To all editors - please give me a chance to work on this. I will be adding sources as cites for my statements. I am very concerned about the way this article reads now, because there are much larger issues than race that affect why people move. Also, it rambles, is repetitive, goes in circles. New York City is a prime place where researchers write about and track population succession, which is a more accurate way to reflect the continuous movement of populations through areas. Reports show maps going back to the 17th c. showing how different groups have occupied different areas, long before "white flight" was thought of or named. Queens, for instance, has areas that were Irish Catholic, European Jewish, Greek American and, more recently, Chinese and Korean. I think it is time we stop with the knee-jerk response of repeating old platitudes about race as the cause of things, when it is ethnicity. There is much new sociological and anthropological thinking about what goes on as new populations move in, and older ones move out. There are many issues with this article, and they can't all be tackled at once. For one thing, I don't think "examples of white flight" from other countries should be listed before defining what it means in the US. Also, just because newspaper sources use "white flight" doesn't mean it's an accurate representation of larger research, and an account from one year doesn't mean that the condition is still accurately described that way. I'm familiar with this field, and urban development issues in general, and am concerned that issues continue to be lumped under "race", when they are much more complex than that.Parkwells (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree fully. There appears to be editors who are not interested in complexity as simplicity is much more suitable for their purposes.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still does not explain why you inserted material that was not in the source and yet sourced it as coming from the source as per my comment above. Furhtermore, you have still not explained why you changed "white flight" to "Population succession"Miradre (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Separated the new material from your 2005 report and found a source for ethnic succession, which is the term I was trying to remember. Will add more to it. I think it is important that people understand white flight as a kind of ethnic succession, as it is. See material about the East End of London in the UK section to understand this.Parkwells (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources do not use the term ethnic succession which is not necessarily related to white flight. To claim that all instances of white flight is ethnic succession is OR.Miradre (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you continue to insert material that is not supported by the given source. "For centuries, London was the destination for refugees and immigrants from Europe, a role that New York and the United States later also played. Although all the immigrants were European, neighborhoods showed ethnic succession over time, as older residents moved out (in some cases, ethnic British) and new immigrants moved in - often both movements at once. This was similar to what is now described as "white flight", in contrast to non-white ethnicities. For instance, the East End in the 17th and 18th centuries was filled with refugee French Huguenot immigrants; other groups took their turn, and in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the area had a majority of Jewish immigrants - all "white" European groups. Because of visible physical differences among newer populations of immigrants, in recent decades some commentators have been too quick to label such successions as racially based. Today the East End has many Muslim immigrants, and a building previously used as a French Huguenot church, Methodist chapel, and Jewish synagogue since 1976 has served as the Great London Mosque" The given source does not mention most of this or white flight.Miradre (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Miradre - this article is heavily POV. Let Parkwells work to include a broader specter of perspectives and viewpoints. There is no deadline. These things will be sourced. Right now the priority has to be to get the article up to a standard where it is not simple alarmist agitation.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If sources are found, then the material can be added back later. Currently the article contains massive amounts of OR and material not in the given sources.Miradre (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, its not much different from when you were editing it alone then.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the material I added was incorrect.Miradre (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor was it the full story. Every sentence does not have to be sourced. It is not OR or controversial to say French Huguenots and eastern European Jews were "white" Europeans, and an example of succession of ethnic populations. Those are facts. Get a grip. Just because your sources persist in using the catchy term "white flight" does not mean it is not an example of ethnic succession. Queens was largely Irish Catholic and then more Jewish, and is now predominantly Asian since other groups moved out to Long Island. That is ethnic succession, too.Parkwells (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * White flight is specifically whites moving out as other minorities move in. It not necessarily the same thing as different ethnic groups moving through an area.Miradre (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And in the US, whites are defined as an ethnic group, as are African Americans, and Hispanics, and Asians. Thus, if an area goes from Irish Catholic to Jewish to Asian, it is an example of ethnic succession, even if people want to say the Irish and Jews moved out because they preferred to live with other whites, and it was white flight.Parkwells (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Irish to Jewish is not white flight.Miradre (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is how the Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society defines white flight: "The term White flight refers to the process of White migration from racially mixed urban areas to more racially homogeneous suburban or exurban areas... ...The term also describes the current phenomenon of Whites migrating from the older, inner-ring suburbs of metropolitan regions to nonmetropolitan regions in rural areas, and from the U.S. Snowbelt (Northeast and Midwest) to the Sunbelt (Southeast and Southwest)."Miradre (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or you can look at the Merriam-Webster definition: Miradre (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a definition that clearly does not include migration of Whites out of formerly colonized nation states. Also it is quite clear that "white flight" is a particular kind of neighborhood ethnic succession, it makes complete sense to treat the phenomena together given the definitions you are providing. By the way the encyclopedia of race and ethnicity is a great resource - you should use it more often when you want to know what the mainstream views are.·Maunus· ƛ · 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are other sources giving other definitions. Both can be right in somewhat different contexts.Miradre (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Article needs reorganization
The lede talks about the term being first applied in the US, but then gives so-called examples from a variety of later times and places, without first giving the experience, history and events in the US that led to the development of the term. This does not make any sense in terms of structure and context. I really think the US has to be discussed first, in detail - as the phenomenon was related to postwar highway and transportation building, as well as a variety of other factors. As I noted, the wealthier people started moving out to streetcar and railroad suburbs even in the 19th c., as immigrant groups (white ones, but poor) filled the cities. The later movement of working class whites to suburbs was only one step in the many ethnic successions.Parkwells (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to stubbify
In order to mitigate the sense of urgency in editing this page I propose to stubbify it - leaving only that which is uncontroversial and well sourced. That will give editors a chance to rebuild this aricle collaboratively while establishing the amount of due weight to be given to different perspectives relative to the body of literature. I propose we leave simply the lead, which we can then construct as a miniature of the article body weighing subtopics according to prominence.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no justification in policy for mass deletion of sourced material relevant to the topic.Miradre (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no policy against removing unwanted POV material however sourced it may be. Your opposition to the proposal is noted. Lets wait for more input.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPOV. Material with a POV is not disallowed. The policy only states that all views should be represented.Miradre (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not saying it is disallowed I am proposing to remove it - which is completely possible if there were to form a consensus to do so. It doesn't seem to be likely with the amount of attention the proposal has generated, but there is no policy based ground to reject the proposal. Editors decide what goes in or out of an article through consensus. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it can't be removed if there is a consensus to do so. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO
The first sentence of the lede was a copyvio from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Copy-pastes of this kind are not allowed on wikipedia, nor is it wikipedia policy to use dictionaries to write the ledes of articles. The lede summarises the article, which should, in normal circumstances, be written using WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. I will add a scholarly source in time.Miradre (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot use a dictionary for a citation in the lede, or for that matter anywhere in the article. Were you not aware of that? Please slow down with these edits, almost all of which are against wikipedia policy. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I was not aware of this particular policy if the text is paraphrased. Where is this policy? What other problems are you referring to? Miradre (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, copyright violations can result in blocks. Secondly, please read WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems to state the Wikipedia obviously should not be a dictionary. Not that dictionaries are disallowed for some statements if paraphrased. What policy statement are you thinking about? Miradre (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A dictionary is below a tertiary source. Copy-pasting an entry from an online dictionary, under copyright, as the first sentence of a lede breaks almost every wikipedia rule. Can you explain why you thought that particular edit was helpful for this encyclopedia? Mathsci (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That particular edit was a mistake so I am glad you reverted it. Thanks. There is no statement in WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary preventing paraphrased dictionaries as sources for some statements? Miradre (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In certain limited circumstances (etymology, for example). WP:RS is fairly clearly written. Mathsci (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no mention of dictionaries there. Is there any prohibition regarding using paraphrased dictionaries for making an introductory definition in the lead?Miradre (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary: it is an encyclopedia. When a topic has been discussed at length in multiple secondary sources, uaing a paraphrased dictionary definition as the introductory sentence in the lede could come under the general heading of disrupting wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. That's certainly not advisable. I can't see any point in discussing this further. Mathsci (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have already referred WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I have replied. But I will add something from another source instead.Miradre (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please slow down your editing. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand
The New Zealand ref was deleted on 18 May 2008 with no explanation. I have restored the section to the content of that date. aprock (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work.Miradre (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There was an explanation. None of the New Zealand section other than the last couple of sentences is sourced. The reference does not give information about all the content previously in the paragraph; rather, it refers to almost none of it. Editors need to add sources for each paragraph, at least.  They can't just list their own assertions about conditions.Parkwells (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I was discussing the original removal of the source three years ago. Please see the above diff.  Syncing the content to the source is very much a good thing. aprock (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy Vio? Urban Decay section
Is BookRag a mirror site of Wikipedia? If not, it appears at least the first paragraph of Urban Decay section and the Urban Decay article on Wikipedia and probably more, complete to sources with only ISBN and no page numbers, was copied from there. It is word for word.Parkwells (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

East End material
In the UK section there is a long paragraph about the East End. The source does not mention white flight and several of the ethnic movements are not white flight. It seems to be there in order to defend Parkwells theory that white flight is identical to ethnic succession. However, that it is only one theory among several. The part of the paragraphs that are not unrelated to the topic of the article are OR and SYNTH.Miradre (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The East End section was in this article when I started working on it. I simply added historical material to give it context, as London is a city layered in history. To simply pick out more recent events and label it white flight without presenting more on the area is a mistake. It is difficult to understand why you think the history of an area has no relation to our understanding "white flight", but I disagree. I think history and context is very much needed in this article. The fact that these sources don't label it white flight may show they have different opinions that are equally valid.Parkwells (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. If you do not have sources stating that it is white flight, then claiming so is WP:OR.Miradre (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

White flight from asians
Why was this section removed? Miradre (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in the editing note, one sentence is not sufficient for a sub-section. If you don't have more to say, it does not deserve to be in there as a separate, highlighted section. It looks as if you are choosing alarmist news to broadcast here. Will you include that it appears whites left because they found the academic competition too high? That's what the article said. I thought it did not relate well to the basic issues about white flight, as historically understood.Parkwells (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The source describes it as white flight. There was no reason for removing it completely. You should just have removed the section header and moved it to another section if you thought the material too short for one section. I can certainly add more from the source.Miradre (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do try to represent sources adequately, it is of course relevant that the source gave failure to compete academically as the reason. You should try to look at context when you read sources and not focus narrowly on the particular phenomenon that interests you.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was something missing from the text, then it should be added, not everything removed. I will add back a more complete description.Miradre (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not need to use and cite every newspaper article that happens to use the term "white flight". Please try to use more complete academic reports and books; they are better sources. Newspaper are trying to sell papers based on catchy headlines.Parkwells (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Newspapers are WP:RS. This is a new form of white flight and therefore obviously interesting. It does not fit your ethnic succession theory but that is not a reason for excluding it.Miradre (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OR research interpretations
Editor Parkwells have several times changed what the sources say to his own OR reserach interpretation. This being an example:
 * "A 2008 study found that also non-whites leave neighborhoods as the proportion of other groups increase. There is some evidence for a "minority flight" from whiter neighborhoods. Cubans, especially foreign-born Cubans, have a tendency to flee neighborhoods with large black populations. This tendency still exists but is lower for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Neighborhood composition has little effect on blacks’ decision to leave their neighborhood. Whites have have higher likelihood of moving when there are many neighbors from other groups and there is little difference regarding whether the neighbors are black or Latino. "

to


 * "With the increasing diversity of United States society, researchers are looking at multi-ethnic responses to changes in composition of residential neighborhoods and have identified differences among Latino nationalities. A 2008 study found that non-whites may leave neighborhoods as the proportion of other groups increases. In some cases, people of color left neighborhoods with increasing white populations, sometimes because of rise in housing costs. Cubans, especially foreign-born Cubans, have a tendency to leave neighborhoods with increasing black populations. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans have a lesser tendency to take such action. Neighborhood ethnic composition has little effect on blacks’ decision to leave their neighborhood. European Americans show a higher likelihood of moving when there are many neighbors from other minority groups, whether they are African American or Latino."

The additions and changes is not what the study say at all.Miradre (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * They absolutely are. I did not quote but paraphrased the article.Parkwells (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Miradre, it would be useful if you spent more time on substance than criticizing all my changes. You are not the only editor on Wikipedia, so you need to adjust to other writers. The first sentence was related to a paraphrase of the title of the report and its background. I read it, too. I rewrote the following sentences to improve the grammar and style. Many researchers are looking at these issues, and more than one report has relevance. I can use African American rather than black for a current reference, and European American rather than white. I'm not misrepresenting the report.Parkwells (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed trying to focus on substance and on giving complete and complex pictures of the topics instead of arguing very narrowly points over and over. Try to improve the article with rather than against your collaborators.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole first sentence is strange. You imply that Latino differences are the main findings of the reserach. That the research was done due "increasing diversity" is OR. The statement regarding house costs is OR. "People of color" is unclear. Generally your text is more unclear and less specific than the original one.Miradre (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I just reread several paragraphs of the article. As I used in my introductory sentence, the opening paragraphs of the article talked about increases in diversity in cities, cites numerous studies beginning to look at multi-ethnic neighborhoods and the actions of different groups, references the decline in white population as well as their attitudes of discrimination since the peak of white flight, and the study team's decision to look at the responses of other minority groups. It says it will look at Hispanic/Latino groups in terms of nativity, another way of describing nationality. They did find differences among Latino groups - foreign-born Cubans differed from Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in their out-migration in response to black neighbors. Please don't keep criticizing me if you don't read the entire article yourself. "People of color" is widely used as a term on Wikipedia. The article also referred to discrimination and gentrification, causing rising rents (i.e. housing costs) as a reason why other groups would move out in response to larger proportion of white neighbors. I am not going to repeat any more of it.Parkwells (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, your first sentence imply that differences among Latino nationalities was the main results of the research which is incorrect. "People of color" is not mentioned once in the article and is very unclear. Are Latinos "people of color"? Miradre (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are generally included in "people of color". I can provide references for that usage.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The term is unclear to most people. Better use a less unclear term like in the study. Rents is only mentioned once in the study and only in regards to urban renewal by another study. It was not in studied in the study itself. Neither are Latino differences the main finding as the text now implies.Miradre (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Miradre, stop with these wild accusations. I really resent it. Cubans, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are classified as Latinos or Hispanics; all speak (or have spoken Spanish and originally came from Latin America. The article clearly says there were differences in the way these different groups responded to other ethnic groups in residential neighborhoods, and it's in your own paraphrase. Cubans, especially foreign-born, had a greater tendency to leave neighborhoods because of large black presence than did Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. So quit arguing about this.Parkwells (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But these were not the only findings which your first sentence and heading imply. People of color is unclear. Rents where not studied in this study but only mentioned in regards to another study on urban renewal. I will by doing lots of various corrections of problems like this eventually.Miradre (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If consensus is behind your suggestions, then that would be fine. The textbook sources that I previously pointed out on South Africa referred to the "brain drain". That appears in the article now, so it is a welcome improvement. Mathsci (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tipping model
The central explanation of for why the tipping occurs have been removed. Why? Miradre (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't. It says tipping occurs when a critical point is reached.Parkwells (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You removed the explanation for why tipping occurs. I will be adding it back later.Miradre (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated United States material
Similarly to the East End material, the US section now starts with a long description of ethnic migrations by various ethnic groups through neighborhoods. In several cases these are not white flights since different groups of whites replace one another. As such it is off-topic. Again, it seems to be there to defend Parkwells theory that white flight is identical to ethnic succession. Again, that it is only one theory among several. This theory should be mentioned in a section of its own but not be declared to be the truth. Scholars have several other theories for white flight.Miradre (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The History project on Wikipedia has asked editors to provide more history for articles. This is definitely one where it is needed for context, and it is not unrelated to the topic at hand. White flight is a term that originated in the US, so the situation in the US has to be explained and given some context. Population changes didn't start with suburbanization and doesn't apply only to the movement of European Americans. Ethnic succession is not "my" theory, and I have not suggested it is the only reason for white flight. I have cited research that suggests white flight is a manifestation of ethnic succession, part of a cycle in areas that continue to receive large quantities of immigrants and migrants. Other ethnicities continue to succeed each other through areas that were formerly white, for instance with West Indians in Brooklyn and Asians in Queens. Also, these areas previously showed ethnic succession among their European-American residents, for instance, from Irish to Jewish. This is not just recent thinking; it has been a matter of study for decades, where scholarship has shown that in living cities, populations continue to change. Demographic maps of Manhattan and the boroughs show changing populations since colonial times, including African-American neighborhoods that became predominantly European American, and then something else. There is little reason to think white flight of the 1950s and later was a totally unique phenomenon. It may have been more rapid in some areas, or prompted by the catalyst of riots, but people moved out before this because they could and thought the suburbs desirable, and they moved out of cities after 1919 because of race riots as well, before the highway network was constructed.Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A researcher wrote in 1987 about St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland and Chicago as cities showing classic economic and ecological ethnic succession. Two of them were named in this article when I started working on it and I went back to the source. I added the remaining two to more accurately show the researcher's scale of reference - also these are cities often written about as examples of white flight. There is no one truth about white flight; we are representing what scholars have written about this and its various causes.Parkwells (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot just add material that you yourself think is correct. You must have sources backing up that what you write is white flight. See WP:V and WP:NOR. Yes, ethnic succession is one theory for white flight. But is it not the only one and should not be presented as the truth. It should be in a section of its own, like the other theories regarding white flight.Miradre (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * White flight is whites moving out as other ethnicities move in. It is not for example white protestants being replaced by white catholics.Miradre (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was: I said that white flight is an example of ethnic succession, not the only one. Areas going from Catholic to Jewish is an example of ethnic succession, as is an area going from African American to Latino. Or you can call the latter black flight, if it makes you happy. But there are many reasons why neighborhoods change.Parkwells (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can state that one theory for white flight is ethnic succession theory. But there are other theories and you cannot declare the ethnic succession theory to be correct one. Ethnic succession theory is mainly about socioeconomic changes. There are other theories where other factors, such as racism or ethnic preferences, are the main focus.Miradre (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Other theories for white flight includes preferences for one's own ethnicity, unofficial or official racism, socioeconomic differences, crime, highways, blockbusting, discrimination, and so on. The ethnic succession theory is not the only explanation for white flight.Miradre (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said it was the only explanation. Racism, crime and its perception, socioeconomic differences and discrimination all play into ethnic succession as well.Parkwells (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ethnic succession theory is mainly about socioeconomic change. There are other theories for white flight where for example racism or ethnic preferences are the main factor regardless of socioeconomic status.Miradre (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes in the lede and elsewhere
Miradre has rewritten the first two sentences of the lede. The first sentence is something that should no be found in the lede of any wikipedia article: X is, according to encylopedia Y, ... The second sentence is presumably talking about the USA, but that is completely unclear now. Lower down, the changes for Sweden are not helpful.

The previous material, with a source in Swedish, was removed apparently because of "google translate": how can an automatic translator be relied on, when the original English phrase might have a different equivalent in Swedish? The current entry misrepresents one source, is uninformative and unencyclopedic, as "white flight" in Sweden is discussed in many sources. Miradre has chosen a primary source: there are plenty of discussions in secondary sources. What he has written there is unintelligible: the title of the article he cites contains the words "white flight"; he has reproduced a paraphrase of one sentence from the abstract out of context. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Made some changes to the lead. The article about Sweden did not seem to describe immigration or emigration by Swedish or whites at all. Clarified the study.Miradre (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences of the lede are still very poorly written and unhelpful. An encyclopedia is not about "one sense" of a word; the article is supposed to be comprehensive. Instead of editing the article directly, Miradre should justify her/his changes here. The lede is a summary of the article, so does not need citations of this kind. That degree of detail should be in the main body of the text.


 * Could Miradre explain whether she/he reads Swedish herself/himself? Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEADCITE. The lead also needs citations.Miradre (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede is poorly written. Ledes do not generally need citations. The lede does not make clear that the term originated in the USA. As for the statements about Sweden, there is a secondary source which surveys the literature here; there are many other sources. This is very poor writing and again what looks like a WP:COPYVIO from the abstract. Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have source, then we could add that it originated in the US. The study is paraphrased. I will take a look at your study.Miradre (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute that the terminology originated in the USA. That is described, with copious citation, in the main body of the article and does not need separate sourcing. Again you appear to misunderstand how ledes are written: they are summaries of the main text, that should be readable as stand-alone texts.
 * You copy-pasted the word "in-migration", a neologism, and preserved the sentence structure. As far as Sweden is concerned, the article cannot rely on one study and a cherrypicked sentence. The secondary source cited above gives a far more nuanced account (many pages), where white flight, as it applies, in Sweden is discussed in detail. That article also summarises the study you mention (a primary source). Mathsci (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:V. Everything must be verifiable. The term may well have originated in another country and gained widespread usage in the US. Changed in-migration to migration. Note that segregation which is the man topic of your study is not necessarily identical to white flight. Is there something specific you feel is missing? Miradre (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "white flight" was coined in the USA in the 1960s as a result of school segregation. Dictionaries confirm that the phrase originated in the USA. The first lede sentences are still very poor.

The secondary source for Sweden cited above (Andersson, P 74) states: "Due in part to the existence of high quality data, Swedish segregation researchers have lately favoured dynamic approaches, focusing on gross migration flows in relation to patterns of segregation (see for instance Bråmå 2006a). It has thereby been possible to more fully understand both the emergence and the reproduction of immigrant-dense neighbourhoods. In one of her studies, Bråmå (2006b) tests the flight and avoidance hypotheses by investigating migration flows during the 1990s to and from a series of neighbourhoods that became immigrant-dense during this period. Although “white flight” could be confirmed, “white avoidance” is a much more appropriate label for what took place." This source appears to be very good in general. Mathsci (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add that term it originated in the US if you have a source. Maybe to an etymology section? Yes, Bråmå is the author of the study I cited. Does not seem to be much regarding white flight in your source except that part. Maybe you could contribute to an article on segregation in Sweden if you feel this is a good source?Miradre (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In the article I cited, Sweden is discussed at length with several references to White flight. At present I don't see your recent edits to the article as in any way helpful to the reader, who will be confused by the first paragraph of the lead. You do not for example establish any context for the term (where it is used, for example, and by whom). There is also the problem that secondary sources have not been used, where they are known to exist. In the text short sentences have been lifted outside their context. Best practice is first to locate he best secondary sources, assess them and then summarise their content comprehensively in the article. In this case - where a phrase from one country might not have been adopted verbatim in another country for a variety of reasons (language, different demographic circumstances, etc) - there can be a body of scholarship which still uses that phrase or the phenomenon represented by it. There is no point in dismissing those sources because of irrelevant technicalities. Besides there is a problem when different arguments are applied to Sweden and South Africa, arguments that seem barely consistent. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In your study on segregation in Sweden, the Bråmå study is the only one that mentions white flight. The Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society is certainly a secondary source regarding the explanation of the term. To claim that a related phenomena is white flight without sources stating so is of course OR. Here are some sources regarding white flight being using for emigration out of Africa. Thoughts?

The Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society
The entry for "White flight" here, the first sentence of which was used in paraphrase in the first sentence of the lede, makes it clear that the terminology and phenomenon originated in the US. Here is the second paragraph:

I have no idea why any issue was made over such an uncontroversial (and fairly obvious) fact. As regards Sweden, studies of ethnic segregation include frequent references to "white flight", even if the homogeneity of the Scandinavian population might suggest more appropriate terminology for a similar phenomenon. Mathsci (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still does not state that term originated in the US. Again, it may have originated in, say South Africa, but gained widespread usage in the US. Maybe you should look at an etymological source instead? Those are better for such things. If you have some more studies on white flight, please add them.Miradre (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The context clearly establishes that the term is applied primarily in an American context. There is no need to resort to lawyering about that part of the definition.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Article changes
There is too much wholesale deleting of sections without explanation or discussion on the Talk page. Multiple editors have been working on this article recently, making real efforts to improve it. The lede now is mostly devoted to specific data about public school changes, rather than an overview of the issues of schools, as well as the multiple other urban issues previously discussed there and in the body of the article on causes of white flight, which need to be included. One editor seems to think he owns this article, and continues to ignore or denigrate other contributions if he disagrees with them. This issue has been written about for decades by many researchers - Wikipedia needs to reflect this.Parkwells (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What section has been deleted? Miradre (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sections of the lede that dealt with overview of causes: redlining, blockbusting, etc. as well as the History section of the US, the Causes section, all the sub-sections on redlining, blockbusting, urban decay, etc. There is no explanation for why "Specific examples" have been chosen, out of all the well-documented occurrences of white flight. Also, the specific data that appears in the lede on a couple of schools in CA and MD is the type of cited data that should be in the body of the article, and addressed by overview in the lede. Not sure what the CA population data in the main body is supposed to show, except changes. I'm going to revert the article to a later version from yesterday so that editors can discuss appropriate changes on the Talk page.Parkwells (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I only edited the definition today of the lead. Nothing else.Miradre (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you revert to an earlier version, then you will be restoring various factual errors that I corrected.Miradre (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is really strange - in the "read article" version, the lede has only two paragraphs, one about white flight, with your expanded reference to recent moves of whites to South; and a detailed paragraph about school data in two districts. It also has a vastly different article, with big sections of the US deleted, South Africa and others.  In the "edit" version, the old article shows.  Very confusing - maybe related to the Wikimedia server problems today.Parkwells (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

South Africa
Despite one magazine's calling the migration of educated whites from SA "white flight", the events clearly do not relate to the definition and pattern established in the lead and history of the US. Even that magazine began the article calling this migration a brain drain. It is inappropriate to label every movement of whites as white flight. The circumstances in SA are totally different.Parkwells (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term universally used, particularly in scholarly articles, is "brain drain". Mathsci (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have numerous sources from scholarly books as well as newspapers showing that therm is used for emigration from Africa by whites:    Miradre (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Above two scholarly references have been cited by me which discuss specifically worldwide trends in migration. They are written by academic experts in the subject, not journalists. They consistently use the phrase "brain drain" (and not "white flight") for post apartheid South Africa. It is best to follow these sources. Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I listed three scholarly books using the term as well as three newspapers. But I can add more.Miradre (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not sufficient for you to list books using the term, you need to argue that it is the same term and that it is a sufficiently notable usge to merit a section here - AND you need to convince others that it is the case. You cannot simply editwar resinerting the same material and reverting Parkwells' changes without discussion. ·Maunus· ƛ · 14:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again wikilawyering is not helpful. If major up-to-date treatises on migration, surveying post-apartheid demographic trends in South Africa, consistently use different terminology, it is not up to wikipedia to suggest otherwise. "Brain drain" + South Africa gets 20,000 hits on google scholar, "white flight" + south africa, about 3,000. On google books it's 13,000 vs 1,600. Your arguments, especially the suggestion that "white flight" is a term originating in South Africa, are unconvincing. Mathsci (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are more sources:

Brain drain is not the same thing as white flight. Not all whites are smart.Miradre (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace, Michalle E. Mor Barak (Editor), SAGE Publications, 2010, page 81
 * Political forgiveness: lessons from South Africa, Russell Daye, Orbis Books, 2004, page 35
 * International migration review, Volume 38, Issues 147-148, page 1478, Center for Migration Studies
 * Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation?, James L. Gibson, 2006, Russell Sage Foundation


 * No one claimed that - the articles cited talk about "brain drain" because the people leaving were among the more educated and skilled. Just because you don't like the term doesn't mean that it is not more appropriate for SA than white flight. Matchsci has shown it has far more references.
 * Obviously the terms do not refer to the same thing so a Google search is irrelevant since it is two different topics. Not to mention searching for "brain drain" and "South Africa" may bring up results such as black or Indians moving from South Africa, not whites, or "brain drain" from some other nations while South Africa is only incidentally mentioned regarding something else. The many source I have shown clearly demonstrates that the term is used in scholarly literature.Miradre (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is some confusion in your reference links, 1-4, (I did not check further): 1 links to "Gang Mayhem in LA", 2 is dead, the next two go to St. Louis crime statistics. Maybe they got messed up while Wikipedia was offline so long today. But as Mathsci said, that is not really the point, just to find a list of sources with the tag words "white flight". Parkwells (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The first four sources refer to something from an earlier talk page discussion. Only the sources after the first four are relevant.Miradre (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are the correct sources:


 * Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace, Michalle E. Mor Barak (Editor), SAGE Publications, 2010, page 81
 * Political forgiveness: lessons from South Africa, Russell Daye, Orbis Books, 2004, page 35
 * International migration review, Volume 38, Issues 147-148,, Center for Migration Studies, page 1478
 * Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation?, James L. Gibson, 2006, Russell Sage Foundation, page 52
 * (Almost) Out of Africa: The White Tribes, World Affairs Journal, Joshua Hammer, May/June 2010, http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/articles/2010-MayJune/full- Hammer-MJ-2010.html
 * "White flight from South Africa: Between staying and going", The Economist, September 25, 2008, http://www.economist.com/node/12295535
 * Mosiuoa 'Terror' Lekota threatens to topple the ANC, RW Johnson, October 19, 2008, The Times  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4969026.ece
 * The atlas of changing South Africa, 2nd Edition, A. J. Christopher, 2000 Routledge, page 213
 * The uncertain promise of Southern Africa, York W. Bradshaw, Stephen N. Ndegwa, 2001, Indiana University Press, page 6
 * Transatlantic history, Steven G. Reinhardt, Dennis Reinhartz, William Hardy  McNeill, Texas A&M University Press, 2006, pages 149-150


 * Why are you making this so difficult? Slow down and do it right, rather than adding a bunch of links that don't work and aren't relevant. Please add urls for books available on Google books, so that other editors can find them easily - people like to read the sources.Parkwells (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Added some. Please look them up. Will also add the other.Miradre (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for restructuring article
If the article is intended to cover contemporary references to white flight being used to describe any movement of whites anywhere in the world (which is rather absurd, and means we are following journalists' practice), it should be restructured, from the lead and throughout. The lead should make clear the term has been picked up and applied indiscriminately to white migrations, of various causes. The lengthier article on the US history of mid-twentieth century should probably be set up as separate article to be linked to this one, with a shorter summary here. (Or move all the international references to another article - to be called "White flight (21st century)", for instance, as opposed to "White flight (US)". As it stands, the article is all over the place, and is an arbitrary listing of some occurrences, rather than an overview of a defined phenomenon in different areas. I think some of these Wikipedia attempts to cover everything in one article don't create useful connections, but reduce the meaning of discrete events and periods.Parkwells (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly the case here, as the departure of ethnic Europeans from Africa since the rise of majority-black African governments after independence is related to entirely different sets of issues, which vary from nation to nation, than white flight in 20th-c. or later US. Migrations out of Africa are related to the wars of independence, political disruption and changes since then, civil war in some cases, actions by governments, economic downturns, many causes not covered here.Parkwells (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We could create two sections. One for white flight within a country, another for white flight between nations. However, the subjects are related and may have generally similar causes such as socioeconomic differences or ethnic preferences for the same group so they should be discussed in the same article.Miradre (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Separating into two section may be difficult. There is likely white flight both within and from South Africa. The same is likely for the Netherlands, to take a country in Europe.Miradre (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The migrations out of Africa are related to war, violence and economic collapse, not ethnic preferences for the same group. I think it's inappropriate to mash everything into one article, despite how the term is being used to cover any white migration for any reason. An article on the US and one on other places would still allow common issues to be referenced. But overlooking the distinctions in time and place and cause do not serve knowledge.Parkwells (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * comment Actually I have been thinking that it might be a good idea to redirect White Flight to either Neighborhood segregation or Ethnic succession and treat the African "White Flight" at a page about Decolonization in Africa or some such. I think "White Flight" is a colloquial term that is used to describe what is in fact different phenomena, it doesn't require to be treated in its own article.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree - it is one step in ethnic succession, one that was often preceded by older Americans moving to suburbs, the Irish taking hold in many areas from their early-mid-19th c. immigration, followed by other European Catholics and Jews, and by African Americans, and now by Hispanics in some areas, Asians in others. You can see it in city after city, but suddenly people decided to focus on a catchy name. The movement of European Africans out of Africa is different than what happened in the US.Parkwells (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * objection Please don't do a redirect until all material has been merged into the target article. Anyway, the topic of "white flight" mainly refers to Whites leaving urban areas to avoid obnoxious lower-class neighbors. I'm not saying their perception of their neighbors is correct, but pointing out that they feel there is a class difference based on character and behavior. Much of this perception could simply be prejudice, originating from fear and anxiety (as the lede says). I'd like to see article expanded, rather than reduced to a redirect. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Lamsfield's edits
This recently created account has attempted to remove material to create a new article by copy-pasting material from this article into another one. The new article White flight in the United States does not have a detailed record of the editing history; and some of the transferred material was just deleted from this article without any justification. Please discuss radical changes of this kind here with other editors. I do not think this change, through copy-pasting and deleting material, is justified. Mathsci (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was asked for an opinion. I don't think it is necessarily wrong to break out the US section, but it seems strange to me because I know the term mainly as used for the US, but that may be just my US orientation. Two things are needed: first, the paragraph that remains in the main article must be a summary of the entire contents, not just a randomly selected unrepresentative paragraph. The normal practice is to use the lede section of the break-out article, adjusting it so it works in both places. The second thing that is necessary is proper attribution. It is adequately done by a proper explanation at the head of the talk p. of the broken out article, giving a link to the specific edit from which it was split, with an appropriate comment in the edit summary.But whether or not it should be done must be dealt with by discussion-it's wrong to just move it back and forth.    DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any doubt from his editing history about the nature of Lamsfield's account? His huge scale deletions of half the article have not been justified by one word on any talk page, yet he appears to have a perfect understanding of complicated wikipedia procedures. That is a very serious problem.


 * The term White flight has a specific meaning in the US, dating back to its initial usage in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The main core of the article dealt solely with that usage. The term, or possibly catchphrase, has been applied elsewhere, in other languages and cultures, with strong caveats. From what I understand from this talk page, prior to the current disruption, there was a discussion for this core article to be moved essentially to "White flight in the United States"; and for other later usages to be dealt with in a companion article on urban migration, with "White flight" possibly not even appearing in the title. But that discussion, where I was just a silent observer, had been on ice for two months or so following the abrupt disappearance of in April. Mathsci (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material
See. Please explain. The material is sourced and the source states "white flight".Miradre (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But the term is being mis-used; the departure of the surviving colonials from Zimbabwe doesn't remotely resemble "white flight", and instead belongs in some article on "Demographic Changes in Africa After Independence" or the like. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not up to us to determine the correct usage of the term "white flight" but simply to describe how it is used. It is widely used to describe white emigration from Africa. (Also, whether the whites in Zimbabwe can still be described as "colonials" seems doubtful).Miradre (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Irish language
what aload of conjectured rubbish re the irish language. the return of the irish lanuage has been happening for the last 50 years to taint it in this tobic is at best bad journalisim at worst rascist in itself!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.189.224.246 (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

even when they were able to afford it
The second clause seems uneccessary "Black Americans were effectively barred from pursuing homeownership, even when they were able to afford it." Shouldn't a house be bought only if one is able to afford it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.108.63 (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on your definition of "afford"; and your priorities. The point is that due to restrictive covenants, redlining, and racist practices of realtors and their competitors (steering, blockbusting, etc.), blacks were effectively excluded from some neighborhoods and pushed into others. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2013
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."

85.224.164.61 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've reworded that sentence to better indicate what the source says about the codes, and removed the word "ethnicity". -- El Hef  ( Meep ? ) 03:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014
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.

222.153.66.224 (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)

Since I can't edit...
As it's semi-protected and I only recently have an account, can someone else add an explanation in Checkerboard and tipping models?

"For example, Alice and Bob are both white and live in a neighborhood with an empty house. Alice will leave if the neighborhood is 1/3 African American, and Bob will leave if the neighborhood is 2/3 African American.  Charlie, who is African American, moves into the empty house.  In response, Alice moves.  Dennis, also African American, moves into Alice's old house, which causes Bob to leave." CorruptUser (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on White flight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080414023817/http://www.mi.vt.edu/data/files/hpd%20vol.16%20issues%203%20and%204/articles/hpd6(3,4)%20crossney.pdf to http://www.mi.vt.edu/data/files/hpd+vol.16+issues+3+and+4/articles/hpd6%283,4%29+crossney.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061002100113/http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv6n3/BirrSeol1.htm to http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv6n3/BirrSeol1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Netherlands
That second just sounds like it's describing emigration in general, not specifically white flight. Moving to a warm-weather place to retire is not white flight. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Too leftwing
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 74.96.240.238 (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 175.37.200.187 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article cites sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 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. 68.216.143.62 (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 205.156.36.103 (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

sim artigo podre só falta dizer que os brancos chamaram alogenos pra destruir suas ruas e depois se auto segregaram por que não queriam ser enriquecidos com estupros contra suas filhas esposa etc etc muitos desses países expulsaram brancos e depois fugiram por que tinha negros demais ali sem os brancos haja nojice desses alogenos decadencistas anti viaveis podres — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:1966:7948:6C0:E65E (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2016
(68) should read early 1990's as I was a teacher there 1990 to 1993 and went through all the declining teacher number trauma due to white flight. ZONING LAWS WERE CHANGED IN 1990, then white flight began!! signed Grant Elmsly

58.107.29.159 (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as your personal memories are not verifiable, you must cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

American spelling of Sydney Harbour
The spelling of 'harbour' in the portion of the article about Sydney should not be spelt the American way (harbor). Kyrillic (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.90.19.48 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
The article is just wrong.

Many northern American cities were not "racially mixed" before World War II - they were almost entirely white. Also the article basically ignores the massive violence (rape, murder and so on) that was inflicted on the existing populations of these cities to force them out, indeed the article implies that the existing population left these cities just because they disliked black skin tone or some-such. "White flight" in many cities was really Ethnic Cleansing (a form of internal invasion - a largely new population group arriving and driving out a population group that was already in a particular area) - but the media was not interested in the massive crime (including violent crime - rape, murder and so on) directed at these people to force them out. Both the media and academia make the assumption that the existing population of the northern cities were the "bad guys" (made this assumption because the existing populations were largely white - i.e. both the media and academia made a RACIST assumption, they assumed people were bad because they were white), and that the influx of new people driving the existing populations out were automatically saintly because the new people were black (another RACIST assumption - assuming people are good because they are black). If hispanic illegal immigrants manage to drive out blacks (as well as "Anglos") out of various areas it will be interesting to see how the media and academia "spin" the situation. The media and academia have managed to spin the whole Ethnic Cleansing, that was and is "white flight" from northern American cities, as if the victims were the "bad guys" 2A02:C7D:B5E6:6400:C8E0:BD64:ECFA:597D (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"US" should be "U.S."
In the 1st paragraph of the lead, "US" is before "Northeast" to denote "United States", not "U.S.", as is the case in the rest of the lead. "US" should be changed to "U.S." before "Northeast" in the 1st paragraph of the lead. 64.223.96.35 (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it says "U.S." (not "US") throughout the entire article, not just the lead (other than the one case where it says "US"), so this is an urgent matter for consistency. "US" must be changed to "U.S." as soon as possible in the 1st paragraph of the lead. I should have read the entire article before starting this new section requesting a change (I apologize for starting this new section requesting a change while having done incomplete research). 64.223.96.35 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Impossible, as this violates Wikipedia policy. See MOS:NOTUSA. All references to the United States in this article must be marked as "US" as opposed to "U.S." -- Katan gais (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

How is this not pejorative?
Is there any equivalent term to "white flight" that is widely used and accepted in reference to other groups? In general the language on this page is aggressive and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivrguide (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

edit request
Under section #Canada, socialogist → sociologist. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:B846:EBB8:C510:9BBE (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC) correction registrations citizens Eduacation of

The photograph is offensive - it implies that the people who left American cities, in "white flight", supported South African Apartheid.
I know that the photograph, of an Apartheid sign from South Africa, is justified by saying this article is "part of a series on racial segregation" - but it is offensive as it clearly implies that the "white" (really pinkish gray - in my opinion not a very attractive colour, but morally it is irrelevant what colour skin is) people supported South African apartheid. There is no evidence that, for example, most "white" people in Philadelphia (or other northern American cities) supported South African Apartheid or left in "white flight" because they wanted such a system. The photograph is smearing people - libeling them. I would also point out that the ancestors of the "white" people in the northern American cities in the late 20th century were (mostly) either late 19th and early 20th century immigrants - or the ancestors were people who had fought AGAINST the Confederacy in the Civil War. So to blame them for slavery or Jim Crow is wrong.2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:E551:A1ED:DA83:2A28 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this. There are also non-white middle-class people who "flee" from some inner city neighbourhoods. And there's the process of gentrification which is the reverse of this phenomenon. Images say more than a thousand words as the saying goes. Someone Not Awful (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020
ADD SECTION: White Flight on Social Networking Sites

White flight has also been observed in social media interactions. In recent years and the coming of the technology driven age throughout the 2000s, studies on teenagers' behaviors when interacting with social media have been done with regards to the migration of users from the popular social networking site, MySpace, to the more recently created site Facebook. The study found that teen preference for MySpace and Facebook went beyond simple consumer choice of aesthetics and creativity, but it reflected a reproduction of social categorization of race, ethnicity and socio-economic status that existed within peer groups. Teens reported that their choice of social networking site preference was affected by their real life friend group preference as well whether their friends were migrating to Facebook. The students with the preference for MySpace became more dominantly Black and Latino teens while white and Asian teens seemed to privilege Facebook. These divisions were due in part by the students from less privileged backgrounds being drawn to MySpace while those headed to elite universities appeared to be headed towards Facebook. The shift from MySpace to Facebook in the early 2000s was also ushered by parental and student education and socio-economic status. Students with parents who had higher education levels encouraged their children to leave MySpace because of their dislike toward “the other” ethnic groups represented on the site, which left MySpace as a “digital ghetto” of profiles left untended and fallen into disrepair, covered in spam, a form of digital graffiti, similar to physical spaces of abandonment due to white flight.

Citation Comm432student (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020
Change after Oceania before See Also to add proposed insertion.

White Flight as a social media phenomenon

The term White Flight has also been adapted to apply to the proposed phenomenon whereby persons of non-white ethnicity will fill a social media space which white or more affluent demographics have vacated. It has been proposed this may occur simply by the extension of digital inequalities extending into social media spaces or it may be targeted. Ester Hargiatti has suggested this inequality is an unfortunate extension of social media’s existing tendency to box and segment users by race, region, gender, and income for targeting and profiling purposes. A commonly cited example of white flight in a social media context is the choice by MySpace.Com, as white users migrated to Facebook, while African American and Latino users remained on Myspace to intentionally shift focus toward those communities. Myspace came under heavy criticism for removing much of the social content and focusing on promoting music only after announcing they felt this was what their user base was focused on. Many themes promoted during the early 2010’s for personal pages during this time which Myspace promoted focused on drinking and drug use and social partying and celebrated ‘thug life’. Facebook during this period had not completely separated from its original incarnation as a college networking website and tried to lure remaining users away from Myspace by promoting themselves as a site for successful and responsible adults, while aiming this campaign primarily at higher economic status white males. BleakExistence4 (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This seems to border on original research from my viewpoint. Goldsztajn (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Criminality section?
Those white people didn't flee because they didn't like multiculturalism or people of different race/ethnicity etc. The MAIN reason white people leave when African-Americans move in is the rise in criminality and lack of culture (including hygiene). Interestingly, none of the “scientific studies” mentions this most important factor. Mazarin07 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * One example of this are the 1968 Louisville Riots. After suffering from target vandalism, Whites felt that they had no choice but leave the area. One of the problems faced when discussing Black/White relations in the US is, any mention of African Americans being responsible for the violence they commit will be deemed anti-Black racism, thus curtailing any possible talks on the matter. Leveni (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Pied-noires and Italian Colonists of Libya?
can anyone talk about the Expulsion of French and Italian Colonists from North Africa? --Geopoliticsjunkie (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Expelling Colonialist and White flight are not in any way related to each other. If these two subjects are related to each other please explain why. White flight has been occurring in US cities for at least 50 years, and in my opinion isn't limited to only White people leaving predominantly Black areas. There are also many African Americans who commit White flight for the same reasons that Whites commit White flight. Leveni (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2020 (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 178.74.4.91 (talk • contribs)

this new link doesn't corroborate. the source in OP [50] is invalid. Please delete the section, I cant because of its status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.175.220.255 (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Precision of the word "diverse" in the intro
In some cases the incoming group is/was diverse, as in Sweden or Ireland. However, in places like US cities or Zimbabwe one homogeneous group was replaced by another more or less homogeneous group. It reads like one of those well meaning but ignorant Americanisms whereby they call all people of African descent "African-American" regardless of whether or not they are American.96.240.128.124 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

United States section
I was planning to add a sentence/paragraph on white flight prompted by events such as the 1970 Augusta riot, which I'm told dramatically reshaped the demographics of the community and contributed to most of the area's wealth being centered in the neighboring Columbia County, GA instead of Richmond County, GA and substantially hurting education quality in Richmond County - something I'm familiar with as a resident of the area. However, the source for this from the riot article is apparently blocked on my work network, and I didn't want to add a claim I couldn't cite immediately. Census data on the Columbia County page shows a significant uptick in population between 1970 and 1980, which seems to bear this out, although that could also be part of the longer-term trend. KiraLiz1 &#124; she/her 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)