User talk:Kgf3585/Residential segregation

Residential Segregation in the United States over all comments

This article does a great job of giving a general definition of residential segregation as well as being clear that segregation can occur by race, income, and the two combined. You do a great job of and then bringing in data to support the description of residential segregation that is currently missing from the wikipedia page. Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is mostly straightforward and provides a good introduction to the topic. The formatting looks fine and the links all appear to be working properly. Jktanaka (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I'm wondering if the first paragraph under background is necessary because there is similar information at the top of the Residential Segregation entry. It may be that the information you put here really should be integrated into that firstRachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Segregation

I really like the way you define the measures of residential segregation and then present data about it. The index of dissimilarity and other measures of segregation (you might also talk about these) can be used to measure segregation among any two groups. Therefore, it likely should not be in a racial segregation subsection. Also, 2010 indices for states and metro areas have been calculated: http://www.censusscope.org/segregation.html. Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend for the bulleted list to begin with the paragraph "Despite a modest...."? You appear to introduce the list in the sentence before, but the bullets so not tart until "For Hispnics..."Jktanaka (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low-income segregation and combined

There must be other information about income segregation? There is a wikipedia page on Income segregation, so you likely should include that reference. Take a look at http://web.williams.edu/Economics/seminars/watson_brook_1105.pdf. There is quite a bit written on income segregation (rather than low-income segregation--we don't call it black segregation, do we? rather the general term is racial segregation. Likely the redirect would be a better idea. This does suggest that perhaps there should be multiple pages: Residential segregation, Income segregation, and racial residential segregation. Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence, "suburbs or central cities" or "suburbs of central cities"? If the former, perhaps reverse the order, putting cities first. You may also want to add a link to what a central city is (there is a Wikipedia page Central City , but that page is not fully developed). In the next section, "Race and income segregation," second sentence, "Black and Hispanic low-income families" rather than "Blacks and Hispanics low-income families"--these two terms need to be adjectives rather than nouns. Jktanaka (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Types of segregation

I found this section a little confusing. I guess "types" to me could be about race or income, but that is discussed above. This seems to be more about housing tenure?Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rachel about the section being somewhat confusing. Also, black in the first bulleted point needs to be blacks. As a matter os format, do you want to use Blacks, Whites instead of blacks, whites to distinguish the groups (which I thought was convention). black, Hispanic, white and blacks, Hispanics, whites looks odd when black and white are not capitalized. This would apply throughout the article.Jktanaka (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Causes

This paragraph talks about current causes,but some of the causes you list are actually historic actions that continue to influence settlement patterns in the U.S. until today. There is a Racial steering page on wikipedia, FYI.

One thing to be very careful of is whether the causes you introduce is about racial segregation or income segregation or are really about both. It seems that you want to address both--which makes a ton of sense. For example, some of the causes of income segregation have to do with the locations of affordable housing, so you might want to thing about including that as well. see my comment on Racial Zoning below. Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reference for the second point? Jktanaka (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public Housing

Another citation for the relationship of public housing to income and racial segregation is Lawrence Vale's from the Puritans to the Projects or Coulibaly, Green, and James (1998) Segregation in Federally Subsidized Low-Income Housing.Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attitudes

I don't see a citation for the first paragraph? For information about neighborhood composition preferences for blacks and whites, see Farley, Fielding, and Krysan (1997) The Residential Preferences of Blacks and Whites: A Four-Metropolis Analysis, Housing Policy Debate 8(4):763-800. and Krysan, Maria, Mick P. Couper, Reynolds Farley, and Tyrone A. Forman. 2009. "Does Race Matter in Neighborhood Preferences? Results from a Video Experiment." American Journal of Sociology, 115(2): 527-559. Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed - what are the sources use anecdotes to argue this? Where are the statistics from? Last paragraph--who are the critics. Does the citation at the end apply to the first sentence of this paragraph? Jktanaka (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Zoning

This is an interesting bit of history. I think, though, exclusionary zoning practices go beyond race--contemporary exclusionary zoning (large lot, single family...) promotes income segregation.Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social policies and initiatives to promote desegregation

Regarding income segregation, consider including a discussion of Inclusionary zoning. Also see Goetz, E. G. (2003). Housing dispersal programs. Journal of Planning Literature, 18(1), 3-16. Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classmate Review: By Will Chu

Background: I noticed that in the second paragraph of this section you guys made reference that “researchers attribute trends…” In addition, there was mention that “scholars also note that residential segregation produce…” I remember that in class we discussed that when you are making statements in Wikipedia that it is best to just say the statement and not attribute it to the researchers or the scholars. I believe that you are supposed to cite to them in your references list.

Racial Segregation: I think that you guys do a good job of describing the “Index of Dissimilarity” in this section. I think it has clarity, is easy to follow, and is concise. I also like the fact that you guys do a comparison and contrast between the segregation trends between Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities.

Low-Income Segregation: I like the link that you have to the “Home Mortgage Disclosure Act” article. I find it pretty useful that when reading a Wikipedia article it has links to other relevant articles that are pertinent to the discussion at hand. Types of segregation: I think this section is well done. I like how the two types of geographic segregation (homeownership and rental) are broken up and then there are easy to read bullet points that explain the different types.

Causes: I think that this section is very well done. I like how you guys break up the different forms of “causation” and then go into detail on each individual one. It also flows very nicely into the “Consequences” section where you guys discuss what happens as a result of the housing segregation.

Consequences: In this section, you guys mention the researcher George Glaser. As I mentioned above, I am under the impression that you should refer to the people in the references list and not in the article itself. Other than that, this section is clear, concise, and easy to follow.

Social Policies and Initiatives to Promote Desegregation: This is an important concluding section to your article. You guys discuss the possible remedies available to address the problem at hand. I would normally try to include a discussion about which policy initiative you feel might work best, but I don’t think this is supposed to be done in a Wikipedia article. Maybe, a possible way to strengthen this section is to go into a bit more detail about which initiative has worked the best and list the reasons. On the other hand, it might be good to talk about the initiatives that haven’t turned out so well and describe the reasons why. Thus, you are providing the reader with some insight as to which policy positions are best without being subjective…

Overall, it was a good article. It was concise, well organized and easy to read and understand! Will Chu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Classmate review #2: Lovisa Hogberg

I agree that it was a well written and interesting article. I wrote the comment before reading the comments already made so several of my thoughts have already been addressed above, so sorry for repeating but hopefully some of it might helpful.

Existing Wiki-pages that can be linked to: Jim Crow laws Federal Housing Administration Chicago Housing Authority Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Community Reinvestment Act Fair Housing Act (redirects to Civil Rights Act of 1968) Section 8 (housing)

Are there other types of residential segregation than Geographic? If there are, I'm curious to know what they are, even if you can't describe it more (leave for next editor!). If there aren't, I suggest that you move "Geographic segregation" to the Background section ("Residential segregation is a form of Geographic segregation") and rename "Types of segregation" to "Segregation by tenure" or something similar.

I'm also wondering if there is a point in distinguishing between "voluntary" and "involuntary/forced/no choice" segregation. In that respect I found this that may or may not be of interest to you http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/19668/1/sp02ba04.pdf.

Perhaps zoning practices that state minimum lot sizes can be included in the Suburbanization section, and broaden the discussion by commenting that this affects "low-income" in general.

This may be splitting hairs, but under Consequences (or earlier in the article) I suggest you clarify that you talk about the low-income/minority type of segregation, as segregation strictly speaking work both ways. E.g. when you state that "People in segregated neighborhoods face higher risks..." I'm assuming you're not talking about people living in (highly segregated) gated communities... I don't know if also the affluent White would benefit more from living in mixed areas (one would like to believe so) but as it is stated now it states that the mere segregation implies higher risks.

Speaking of Gated Communities, I don't know if it's appropriate but it could be a sub-section of "Recent trends...": "High-income segregation" (as an extreme form of Flight from Blight?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gated_communities#United_States

Lhogberg (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classmate review #3: Adonis Ducksworth

I was wondering why this article was so easy for me to read, it's written like an essay. Not that this is bad, but I feel like I'm reading one of our texts from class. The flow of the article is in line with the flow of our text, I don't know how this fits into the wiki norms. But if I was to grade this, I'd give it an A+.

To make less like an essay I recommend the following edits. Condense the the trends section. Okay, you could say something like, blacks got it bad and hispanics aren't doing that much better. Then do a for example, "...the index of dissimilarity puts blacks at x % and hispanics at x %". I also like how you bring income into the picture.

I really like the causes section. I think it hits on all the historical and current reasons why people are segregated. However, I think it may also be appropriate to talk about self segregation among blacks and hispanics. I'm curious if a discussion about immigrant and ethnic enclaves would be appropriate here. We've learned that many immigrants self segregate because it helps them assimilate into the United States.

I like the fact you included the social policies and and initiatives to promote segregation section. My suggestion for this section is to discuss the challenges of each of the policies or initiative respectively. We know there's challenges to all of these but you only address this in the HOPE VI section. It's good you talk about them all, but I think it would be appropriate to talk about some of the challenges policy makers and residents face.

Again, excellant article!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djadonis206 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]