User talk:JonieXie/sandbox

Review
I see some problems here. There is a lot of unsourced speculation, and a good deal of synthesis and original research. To tackle just some of your additions: I could go on, but that should suffice to show that there are serious problems with the way that you are approaching this article. Wikipedia is not the venue in which to right great wrongs; your duty here is to concisely report what the various sources, on both sides of the argument, have said. You need to restrict yourself to explaining what your sources say, not offering analysis, and you certainly need to review Wikipedia's neutrality policy and policy on original research. I accept that English is not your first language and so I can see how this is a difficult task for you, but the changes that you've made in your sandbox would, I'm afraid, be very quickly reverted if they appeared in the live version of the article. Yunshui 雲 水 07:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * / Where is the statement in the cited source that says there was no government concern, or that there was no action taken prior to the '60s? The source tells us that there was legislation created in the 1960s, but does not say anything about the government's actions or attitude before that.
 * Where's the source that suggests this?
 * Again, where is the source?
 * This is non-neutral; it should be made very clear that you are repeating Burris's opinion rather than stating this as fact.
 * This is pure speculation.
 * Where does it say this in the source?
 * Try to avoid metaphor, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Instead, consider, "people in this area do not have an equal share of the nation's economic wealth," or something similar.
 * This is unsourced, inflammatory speculation.