Talk:Gentrification/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Gentrification of a whole region: Central Europe

http://www.economist.com/node/3871275 --89.128.236.143 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Displacement" section NPOV issue

The quote "forced disenfranchisement of poor and working class people from the spaces and places in which they have legitimate social and historical claims" seems to be biased heavily anti-gentrification. If the price of a hamburger rises, are you forced not to buy it? If your rent goes up, does it drive you out of your neighborhood, or do you choose to move out instead of getting a roommate as a poor immigrant would do? --Traal (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph really kind of a mess

Seems like the opening section should really be on what gentrification is. This: "Despite these potential benefits, urban gentrification is often believed by pre-gentrification residents to result in population migration, with poorer residents displaced by wealthier newcomers. However, this may not be the case: separate studies by Lance Freeman (Columbia University) and Jacob Vigdor (Duke University) indicate that there is no more displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods compared to non-gentrifying neighborhoods."

Really seems like something more suited for a pro or con section later on. And the part quoted in the opening really takes away from the neutrality of the article right from the start. It isn't an issue of it being a part of he article, but placement. The opening really should be neutral, and then later sections can diverge one way or the other. Sadly this is pretty typical of wiki articles these days. :( 96.31.177.52 (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

problematic introduction

The introduction is problematic. It cites an extremely problematic article which has been criticized a lot. I can suggest a better way to work towards something more accurate, but that introduction is just appalling. Freeman and such guys are very much criticized. Their outputs are shallow and controversial. What is more, using the same data others have shown the opposite of what they suggest is going on. (Lilicneiu (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)).

Please provide some examples of criticisms to Freeman's work. --Traal (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this seriously a statement? Anyone who is at the very least aware of gentrification literature can spew out a lot of stuff. Here's just one of many, [1], there are so many more.
It is not our position here to debate that. However, under no means can one put that extremely controversial fringe opinion out there at the introduction. No way. (Lilicneiu (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)).
I removed that source. To top things off, don't quote the USA today article. It is double controversial because it takes their original article out of context and hence does not cite it properly. If you want to cite the original thing, get the original thing, the original material, not the secondary interpretation of what they wrote. (Lilicneiu (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)).

Examples > US > Boston > South End

In Paragraph 1 of the section on Boston's South End it's written:

In the early 1960s, Boston’s South End had a great many characteristics of a neighborhood that is prime for gentrification. The available housing was architecturally sound and unique row houses in a location with high accessibility to urban transport services, while surrounded by small squares and parks. A majority of the area had also been designated a National Historic District.

I don't believe this is accurate, unless I'm misreading what the author is saying. The South End is listed in the National Register of Historic Places but I don't believe it is a "National Historic District", although perhaps the two are synonymous?

For sure, though, if we are talking about the same thing, it didn't take place until 1973.

I would edit the entry myself but am looking for clarification, plus the rest of the paragraph seems legit.

JohnAKeith (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Gay men?

(section was restored, so I've removed discussion of its prior removal. Paytonc 21:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Regarding the same section, why is it specifically devoted by title to only homosexual males when most of the description relevant to the article can be applied to either sex, and around half of it is. Perhaps it would be better renamed to simply 'gay wave' or something? If males indeed make up the vast majority of the gentrification force pertaining to homosexuals, maybe it could be mentioned directly and briefly explained. Perhaps even the segments exclusivley related to males could be condensed into one paragraph?--72.73.242.52 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

actually, the literature referred to in the section does indicate that gentrification is more closely linked to gay men than lesbians. I'm not aware of any particular research proving why, but many have speculated that gay men have higher incomes and "stronger 'herding' tendencies," to put it slightly crudely. Paytonc 21:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
IIRC there's been a fair amout of research about this. I'd have to go looking to find articles, which I can't do at this second, but what I remember reading in some journal article a year or two ago is that while gay men tend to cling together in neighbourhoods, lesbians tend more to live much more discreetly. (I should also note that, obviously, not ALL gay men live in 'gay villages'; what's more is that there has historically been lots of dispute within the community about whether such spaces are actually positive developments or not. But that's a whole different can of worms!) --Edisk 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've come across this too, the first wave of gentrifyers can often be gay men and women according to what I read. But we need sources people! Bjrobinson 11:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's news to me! In Milwaukee's Brewers' Hill, the first wave was young working-class couples (mostly but not all hetero), who put a lot of sweat equity into their houses. Some, but by no means all, of the second wave (buying from the first wave) were gay males, but not noticably so. I think it extremely unwise to broadly generalize like this. --Orange Mike 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As an overview, is it really crucial that such an elaborate discourse on sexuality be involved? As an urban planning student I think that the article would be much improved if it included explanations of issues concerning gentrification and affordable housing or homelessness or a million other things really. I also don't really understand why it was so important to note that gentrification brings greater tolerance for sexual minorities to neighborhoods. That seems like a stretch to me. Can you really say a neighborhood has become more tolerant just because most of the original residents have moved out and been replaced with gay men and women?

In addition, isn't this page apart of the "Racial Segregation" series, and not the "Sexual Minorities" Series?

Yes. The story is more about image and less about "affordability". Serten (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


Gentrification in urban development

I am writing a paper and I am looking for some intelligent conversation on this subject

Why come here for that? It's better to look at article databases and some books. I suggest starting off with the book Gentrification, by Lees, Slater and Wyly. (Lilicneiu (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)).

Too many examples

I feel that there are too many examples on this page. It's overkill in a way. Perhaps it is better to just delete that considering how widespread this process is? Some have even stated that the process is to some extent generalized. Hence, we could have examples of Gentrification in an endless amount of contexts... there's no need to post so many on the page. (Lilicneiu (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)).

Remove citation 61 from "Arguments against gentrification" section

A change of residence that is forced upon people who lack resources to cope is detrimental to individuals and families and has social costs.

How does citation 61—"Protesters block Silicon Valley shuttles, smash Google bus window"—have anything to do with supporting this statement? People getting angry and vandalizing buses is support that there are protests, but it's a leap to say the motivation for the protests have anything to do with supporting this statement. Maybe the protesters are simply lashing out out of frustration.

This source seems to imply that such protests are correct to specifically target companies that provide shuttle services, but the article doesn't support that at all; it merely reports that the protests occurred. Severoon (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there is a lot of "example" stuff from local initiatives that doesn't belong in an article, which ought to describe the generic phenomenom. Polentarion Talk 14:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Culling ?

I agree - for reasons stated above - with @Wikidemon: statement ... some new uncited personal opinion. Much of the rest of the article also ought to be culled for this. The article may show examples, but should use more quality academic sourcing, less local activists state of feelings. Polentarion Talk 14:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gentrification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Gentrification of San Francisco

The gentrification of San Francisco section is very lacking. I think a lot more can be said about the area and I think the topic deserves its own Wikipedia page as well. I've been looking at the following sources for my research: East bay express, san Francisco chronicle, The center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, and University of California Press. Does anyone have suggestions/feedback on other sources to look at? Cesar.ruiz (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesar.ruiz (talk • contribs) 18:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gentrification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The claim that people are forced to move because of property taxes

This article talks claims people are forced to move because of taxes and the citation says that some people had their taxes double or more. This means their home values doubled or more. That means their equity at a minimum doubled or more if their house was paid off, or if they still owed 90% that means their equity increased by 1,000% or more thanks to gentrification.

Their taxes may have gone up, but they would have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in new equity they could tap to pay those taxes for decades if not a century. They could get an equity loan, and equity line, a reverse mortgage, etc. Especially at today's rates, where you can borrow at just about the rate of inflation (3.25% from by credit union).

I'm sure that people cash in their equity by selling and move, but has anyone actually been "forced" to move because of property taxes? This claim seems to defy math...

Edit: just looked up the numbers in my town. After you pass the exemption, property taxes are $8.38 per $1000. Ignoring interest and inflation, that means every for every $1000 in added equity you could pay 119.33 years of the added property taxes. So unless the retirees on fixed incomes are living to 185 years of age or older, this claim is dubious.--192.80.95.243 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to know a lot of people with REALLY bad credit. Not everybody can get a home equity loan (you have to qualify for insurance coverage, among other hoops to jump through). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This claim is made again later in the article and cited to a US government study (note 13). As noted above, not everyone has access to loans and so yes, people are forced to move due to rising property taxes. Jillylovesdurham (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Accurate property taxes based on the current value are on of the reasons why gentrification is much stronger in the angloamercian realm than in Germany, which adapts taxes much slower and has a much higher amount of rented property. Polentarion Talk 14:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Adam T Man (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)I think to a greater extent the issues with movement are more so applied to those who rent rather than those who own. I can speak for cases in Chicago, such as with the Logan Square neighborhood. It used to a dangerous area with next to nothing here, and was relatively cheap. However, it is now filled with cafes, bars, galleries, and 20 something year olds. This has caused much of the community that was here before to have to move put because of the increase in property value, and then subsequently the increase in rent. I have lived in Logan Square for a few years now and have seen these changes both in my rent, as my lease gets renewed, and in the demographic changes in the community

Announcing plans for new article: Gentrification in Chicago

Hello everyone, I am taking a class entitled Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities at Rice University. As part of this class I plan to create an article for gentrification in Chicago, and add a section for Chicago in the Gentrification article as well as a link. I hope to provide a good description of the changes happening the neighborhood in Chicago. Please see my user page for more information on the sources I am planning on using. Cbadillo29 (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Update: I have done more work in my sandbox on this topic Cbadillo29 (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gentrification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Poland section

It look to me like Rafał Szymczak made a good faith edit. Someone's effort at artificial intelligence ClueBot NG erased it. I'm all for AI, except when it runs mad and deletes good work. We have no idea what criteria ClueBot NG used to select this text. Rhadow (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gentrification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Rhadow. I'm not a boot, indeed ;-). Poland is making significant gentrification efforts. There are many gentrification programs in Polish cities. The government supports financially municipalities. The Łódź case is of specific importance. Not only because it's the biggest ongoing European gentrification nowadays (20% of the city), but also because of engagement in the good practice proliferation (for instance Łódź is pitching for the EXPO 2022 and the motto of the exhibition is "City Re:Invented"). I believe it should be mentioned, not only because I'm Polish ;-). --Rafał Szymczak (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Rafał Szymczak

Denver coffee house

Whodda thunk Gentrification would stimulate an edit war. Whoever decides to step into this mess should keep in mind that gentrification as it is generally defined -- private money buying and improving -- is unlikely to be affected by protests. Big public works may be, but that generally doesn't fall under the definition. Rhadow (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

interest in new article: Gentrification of Austin

Hi, I am a student at Rice University and considering writing a new article Gentrification of Austin in the same vein as the gentrification of Atlanta and San Francisco ect... articles. Feel free to comment below if you have any feedback! Cbadillo29 (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

racial factors

In the United States, there's a fairly widespread perception that overall, blacks are disproportionately displaced by gentrification, but rarely are among those making significant money off of it... AnonMoos (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The positive/negative effects table

Really seems like it says "loss affordable housing" 4-5 times using different phrasing. Seems like an unnecessary effort to keep the list of negatives and positives equal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.214.231.93 (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


Should I write about Gentrification in the media/In Popular Culture

I found a south park episode focused on Gentrification ("The City Park Of Town")[1] should I add a section for in popular culture or not. Memedoggo (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/SoDoSoPa

Intro Citations

"One example is that gentrification can lead to community displacement for lower-income families in gentrifying neighborhoods, as property values and rental costs rise; however, every neighborhood faces unique challenges, and reasons for displacement vary.[4]"

At least two of the citations for this line actually suggest there is no displacement during gentrification:

Freeman, Lance (2005). "Displacement or Succession? Residential Mobility in Gentrifying Neighborhoods". Urban Affairs Review. 40 (4): 463–491.

and

Buntin, John (14 January 2015). "The gentrification myth: It's rare and not as bad for the poor as people think". Slate.com. Retrieved 2017-04-02. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hail 01 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hail 01 (talk)Hail —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Gentrification in Mexico City

Mexico City has undergone a massive expansion of urbanization and population density, especially in the last 50 years, becoming one of the biggest cities in the world. Its rapid development has presented numerous challenges that Mexico struggles to solve including gentrification. Therefore, I would like to start a new article specifically about Mexico City's situation, providing a historic background and current facts, as well as urban proposals that are being debated to resolve this issue. More information can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ennis_Architect/sandbox Ennis Architect (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Ennis Architect

the reverse of gentrification

Would it be Urban Decay perhaps? Or what if you a build a much less luxurious home then your neighbors, thus lowering their land value, if the building/zoning codes allow it. 71.184.110.64 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Gentrification by LGBTQ+ People

This subsection currently consists of three paragraphs. The first one states that many gentrifiers are affluent white people, and some of them happen to be LGBTQ+. The two subsequent paragraphs completely refute that, stating that LGBTQ+ people are more often than not victims of gentrification. As it stands, this subsection is completely at odds with itself, and the heading makes no sense.

I don't want to blank an entire subsection, especially if there is some truth to it. As it stands now though, this subsection doesn't seem up to the usual standards of Wikipedia, and I feel it should be reworked entirely, or removed. I would appreciate if a more experienced editor chimed in with their opinions on this. 3nk1namshub (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

After Looking closely at the citations, I think this subsection should be deleted.
Citation 73: Castells 1983, pp. 138–70. I managed to track down a scan of this, and am unfortunately unable to read the entire thing because it's incredibly poor quality with no OCR. However, right out of the gate, Castells seems incredibly homophobic (at least by modern standards. I wasn't alive in 1983 and have no idea what was considered homophobic back then). However, I don't believe this source is neutral, as Castells calls the gay rights movement radical and militant multiple times. The first few pages (perhaps more, unable to read far) seem predicated on the idea that rich white gays (which this book seems to think is all gay people) have an amount of power disproportionate to their population. In my opinion, it almost reads like a Jewish conspiracy theory, but about gay people. In addition, the book itself says it focuses solely on gay men.
Citation 74: "Flag Wars | POV". Pbs.org. 17 June 2003. Retrieved 2 April 2017. The link used for this citation is dead. It was a redirect when it was last accessed, and now is dead entirely. In addition, the citation links to a synopsis of the film, and not the actual film itself. Regardless, Rich white gays are not the entirety of LGBTQ+ people.
Citation 75: Vargas, Jose Antonio (20 April 2006). "In Shaw, Pews vs. Bar Stools". The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 February 2014. I'm not sure this is relevant to the sentenced being cited. Additionally, the issue seems incredibly complex, more so than just rich white gay people vs. poor Black people; again, there are more LGBTQ+ people than just rich white gays. I don't think the citation should have been used at all.
Citation 76: McChesney, Chris (Spring 2005). "Cultural Displacement: Is the GLBT Community Gentrifying African American Neighborhoods in Washington, D.C.?". The Modern American. 1 (1): 24–27. This one was a rabbit hole. The entirety of the source seems to be based on the idea that gay people (I assume white gays) all have a lot of money. This runs counter to my personal experience, so I checked the source, pages 11-12 of this paper which repeats the same claims almost verbatim, with a reference that is not included in any version of the paper I could find. In addition, this paper is filled with a lot of claims that just don't seem to be relevant or make any sense.
Whether or not these citations are relevant, useful, etc. I think the big issue with them is that they're four isolated incidents being used to claim that LGBTQ+ people as a whole are a group of gentrifiers. I think what's happening here is that rich white people are gentrifiers, and that some LGBTQ+ people are rich and white; naturally there will be some overlap.
With the above in mind, I would like to delete this subsection. It seems entirely focused on rich white cis gay men (which are not the whole, nor the majority of LGBTQ+ people), has very little to back it up, and most of the subsection is spent refuting itself. However, as I am a new editor, I would like to leave this for a few days to see if anybody takes issue with this deletion. If nobody speaks up, I'll delete it. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused on what the issue is. Gentrification is happening in LGBT communities (gayborhoods) and its draining the vibrancy once there. Mostly white cis gay men (white men are the highest earning group in America) can afford to live in gayborhoods but it's still less of them compared to past years. Gayborhoods are dying mostly due to gentrification, not because there is more acceptance of the LGBT community. Many LGBT people prefer to live around other LGBT people. Broadmoor (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

I would like to add more details about Houston in the list of cities included, as many neighborhoods affected have been historically Black communities as well. I also wish to provide more detail in the voter turnout section, because it would benefit from adding more details in terms of viewing community power and relationships in relation to political leverage. Additionally, more discussion of race is needed on this page. The health section, public schools section, economic shifts, community networks can be improved with more information. It may also be helpful to add information on development without displacement. My references are also included in my User page. Thank you! Heatherkong (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon

Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello! It would be beneficial to move some of the information on this page (since it is largely U.S related) to a seperate, new gentrification in the United States page. There, I would like to add on information on race as it relates to discussions surrounding gentrification, such as impacts and racial disparities. With transferring information to the new page, I also aim to fill in any gaps that the transfer may create on this main page. More details are on my page. Thank you!Heatherkong (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, following up on my planned edits - I will be deleting the health section under effects, because, currently, there are only two studies showing differing results. I will be replacing it with information I found from the CDC and a meta analysis of gentrification and health. Additionally, I will be doing a large shift of sections from this page to a new page which will be focused on gentrification in the United States. Please visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Heatherkong/usgentrification to see my planned edits and drafting. Thank you. Heatherkong (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! If you would like to see how I plan to transfer content from this page to a Gentrification in the US main page, please visit my sandboxes. For "Gentrification" page planned transfers go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Heatherkong/gentrification For planned "Gentrification in the United States" planned draft go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Heatherkong/usgentrification Thank you! Heatherkong (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I will be transferring effects section along with other U.S centered sections to the Gentrification in the United States sections. Thanks! Heatherkong (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

about Morisson and Bevilacqua (2018)

The sentence, at the last sentence of introduction whose source is Morisson and Bevilacqua (2018), is not shown the page and {{page needed}} has been pasted. By checking Morisson and Bevilacqua (2018), I think this sentence is written at the first sentence of Discussion Chapter of Morisson and Bevilacqua (2018) so p.486. However, sentence in English Wikipedia is very close to Morisson and Bevilacqua (2018) so I am worried about copyrights. Is this sentence in English Wikipedia suitable from the point of copyright? If so, it is possible to add the page and remove {{page needed}}, but not so, removing or changing this sentence must be necessary to deal with copyright problem. I am not familiar with copyright policies and use of English Wikipedia and copyright law of United States and other English-speaking countries so I leave a message to the talk page instead of editing the article. --郊外生活Kogaiseikatsu (talk,contribs) 06:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ItsNailahhh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eliotmelamed.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Heatherkong.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aic2023.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cesar.ruiz, Jkaur95. Peer reviewers: Krista.EH, Ikandula, Jkaur95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samuel12992.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tespino (article contribs).

In this article there is too much going on about the origin of gentrification history. I was distracted by the positive comments about the reason for gentrification. I wanted to read more about the displacement and what it does to the people. Tespino (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)TEspino

Consequences of gentrification should be added as a topic, it is underrepresented in this article. So much damage to our older Americans has happened due to gentrification in the United States. Elders are being displaced on the streets and becoming homeless. [1]Tespino (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)TEspinoUCSD

References

  1. ^ https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx004.4639
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gentrification/Archive_3&oldid=1223187725"