Talk:Ethnic succession theory

Connection to research on ethnic succession?

I am wondering where the connection to all of the research on ethnic succession is. --Htw3 04:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Some Notes

Hey guys, you're off to a good start here, but there is still room for improvement.

• You need to cite your source for your opening sentence.

• You have a good core begenning for the sections on environment and segregation. Now it's time to flesh these out. In the environment section you might want to make reference to the Chicago school of sociology which became well known for constructing geographical and ecological theories of deviance. These relate well to the idea of immigrants being confined to certain ares. If you need help finding sources on this let me know.

• In the section on environment it would be a good idea to talk about the economic factors at work. You can note that immigrants are often seen as a threat by those who belong to dominant groups but who are economically marginalized- such as working class whited during the waves of Italian and Irish immigration. These individuals often feel threatened by the immigrants who will soon be competing with them for jobs. You can relate this to the current controversy regarding immigration from Mexico.

• You have the right idea in the section on segregation and now need to expand on it. How does segregation impact mobility? Are all different marginalized groups able to move out of ethnic enclaves and move into areas inhabitated primarily by dominant groups? Is class more important than race in determining how one is viewed in society? Author Patricia Hill Collins wrote a book called "Black Picket Fences" that examines the issues you're talking about. It would be a good idea to go to google scholar or the library's database and look for a book review of this book. I think you would find the information highly useful.

Otherwise keep up the good work.

Velvet Llama 14:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusing tag

After reading through the article several times, I still don't understand the concept. Is it as general as "Ethnic groups tend to segregate and displace each other until there is economic parity" ? If so, then the second sentence of the opening paragraph should be removed. It should probably be removed (or clarified) anyways, since it refers to 'the group' when the previous sentence referred to 'groups'. What group(s) is the author referring to here?

There are a lot of these types of references throughout the article making it hard to keep straight which ethnic group is doing what. It's like writing an article about two men and constantly saying something like "...and then he..." Which "he" are we talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.67.181 (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Blanked sections in this article

Whole sections in this article have been blanked simply because links to references on jstor have become outdated. There is no reason to believe that the original reference was faulty, nor that the material added is suspect. In particular the content on Chicago can be found in numerous sources, for example [1]. This article [2] treats ethnic succession in 4 US cities: St Louis, Cleveland, Detroit And Chicago. When a link is dead the best advice is not to blank material but to add a citation required tag, preferably dated. Mathsci (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:V. If you have missing sources, then please add them.Miradre (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not how WP:V works. It says explicitly: "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; see here for how the BLP policy applies to groups." So in circumstances like this you should make an attempt yourself to find a source. Your approach, which is not recommended in the guideline, blanks potentially useful content and is unconstructive. Mathsci (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it."Miradre (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Only if the material is controversial should it be removed, not because a link has gone dead. Blanking sections in the way you have done is WP:TE and verges on vandalism. The sentences cited from WP:V indicate that you should have made an effort to verify the content. You appear to be misinterpreting wikipedia policy. Mathsci (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."Miradre (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read on, you will find the statement I found, now put in bold text above. It was unreasonable to blank sources for uncontentious material without carrying out a check. Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The only part bolded in this paragraph in WP:BURDEN is this sentence "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."Miradre (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. – Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006"[3]

You are confusing verifiability with link rot. Those are two very different issues. In the case of WP:ROT there are several remedies which should be tried before deleting the content. aprock (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, the burden of evidence is on you who added back the material. I will allow some time for you to fix this before removing it again.Miradre (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You are still confusing WP:V with WP:ROT. WP:BURDEN applies to unsourced content. From WP:ROT: WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link aprock (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not a working link, but the one must be able to identify the source. Which is not possible currently. Again, I am giving you some time to fix this. Please do so.Miradre (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You are still confusing WP:BURDEN with WP:ROT. While it would be preferable for the dead link to be fixed, keeping the dead link and associated content is generally preferable to just deleting the content, unless there are other policy issues with the content. aprock (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is one of the primary policies. Everything must be possible to verify. These dead links do not improve verifiability. The original sources are not possible to identify. I am giving you some time to fix this, if possible. Please do.Miradre (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Allow time for improvement

I don't think any of the original editors are working on this article, and it is difficult to make progress on one that was so ill-developed in the first place. If we are going to strengthen it, time is needed to find new sources, or ones that can be verified. Editors should comply with giving complete sources, including author, title, month and date of journal publications, etc. Use Googlebook urls for books available for preview, with links to pages cited. These will enable other editors to better understand what is being referenced and enable readers to check larger sources.Parkwells (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnic succession theory. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070721024926/http://www.asamst.ucsb.edu/courses/readingsAAS2/13_bergesen.pdf to http://www.asamst.ucsb.edu/courses/readingsAAS2/13_bergesen.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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, 20 July 2016 (UTC)