Talk:Gulfton, Houston/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutral Point of View

As the copy-editor working on this project I am concerned about the potential lack of objectivity in describing the influx of "immigrants" into the area. There appears to be an anti-immigration bias in some of the sequencing of events and emphasis of certain issues. Please consider rewriting parts of this article to improve the objectivity and add supporting information if you are going to point out derogatory issues. From the introduction this does not appear to be about the town, but how the town was brought down by immigration (my opinion). I have edited it with due diligence to the original work, but recommend that a Neutral Point of View should be the goal. Bullock ✉ 02:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• E. W. Bullock, this article has passed the "Good Article" nomination standards in 2008 with the wording "Many residents were illegal immigrants" (see the version here) and with a similar narrative.
• Firstly, in regards to "From the introduction this does not appear to be about the town, but how the town was brought down by immigration (my opinion)." - Gulfton is not an incorporated town, but a community within the City of Houston. Also the factors pointed out by the sources that I used to make the article include the hasty construction of those particular complexes, an economic recession, the repurposing of "singles/couples only" apartments as apartments for families, the existing infrastructure that was ill-prepared to deal with an influx of families (where there were none before), foreclosure, and lax management of apartment complexes by their owners.
• E. W. Bullock, what specific passages do you believe are POV? Why? What do you think would be more objective wording of those passages?
• Because of the very nature of this I am going to post a notice on the NPOV noticeboard and in the Houston Wikiproject. I do not want this article to lose its "Good Article" status, so this issue needs to be addressed immediately. Also I want this article to become a featured article. Hopefully the community will decide how to fix this, and this article will again be on its way to being featured.
• In regards to the one sentence marked with the "fact" tag -- The "Many residents are illegal immigrants" sentence originates from this source - See the sentences "Such conditions, however, mean that many residents have few local ties. Undocumented status also keeps many residents from fully participating in local economies and politics. Meanwhile, language barriers make Gulfton easy for the powerful to ignore." on page 37. As in many residents have undocumented statuses (the word many is used), meaning they are illegal immigrants.
• Also I removed all of the "fact" tags you put in the lead. That is because information in the lead (in case the same information is already cited below) should only be cited if it is controversial, and none of what I stated was deemed controversial in many of the peer reviews, featured article nominations, etc. - If they need in-line citations because they are "controversial" we need to figure out which ones need in-line citations.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the commented out sentence "Apartment complex owners noticed that many immigrants from countries such as Mexico, El Salvador, and Vietnam wished to settle in Houston", Page 37 of the Susan Rogers report says: "About the same time, new waves of foreign immigration were beginning to bring a new group of residents to Houston. Seeking expanded opportunity or fleeing war and poverty, they came from such countries as Vietnam, El Salvador, and Mexico. Apartment owners, in an attempt to remain solvent, began targeting their advertising to these new immigrants," -- So based on this sentence one can conclude that the apartment complex owners noticed that immigrants were settling in Houston, as they changed their tactics to attract immigrants. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear of these NPOV claims especially when the article was reviewed many times for GA and FA promotion (including peer review) and neutrality issues were never mentioned. Postoak (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(WhisperToMe)It is obvious that you have a lot of ownership in this article. Ownership is a great thing but sometimes clouds one's perspective. You have defended your position well. I still feel that the article is not neutral in tone. But I am sure that you will find balance and the community will provide assistance. I do not have any ownership in this article, other than providing copyedit to the best of my ability and in good faith. I'm new to the community and do not know all the nuances yet. Best wishes Bullock ✉ 01:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have ownership of this article? Please tell me how this is "obvious", I'm interested. You probably have edited it more than I have. The neutrality claim appears to be a perception issue on your part. Cheers, Postoak (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't be accused of ownership, so I'll weigh in. Couple things: (1) There should NEVER be citations in the lede, because everything in the lede appears in the article, as the lede is just a summary. (2) I don't see WP:NPOV issues. I don't see weasel words portraying immigrants badly. If anyone is claiming that sequencing, selective reporting, or other subtleties are causing an NPOV issue, they need to outline them clearly, not say "Please consider rewriting parts of this article to improve the objectivity" Parties making the claim need to specifically and clearly state where the lack of objectivity exists. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn the consensus is that the neophyte is wrong. That would be me. Bullock ✉ 06:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I can't see what you see, so I need your help to see it. If you'd rather withdraw, that's fine too, I just don't want you to think I'm telling you that you're wrong. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 10:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Other copyediting

Among the inside notes in regards to foreclosure is "define term" - The term is defined here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foreclosure - Also I see "(Houston citizens)" next to Houstonians. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia. Do we need to define what "foreclosure" means? Would one put New Yorkers (New York citizens) or something similar next to every demonym? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• On another note from this revision "Forcing many complexes into bankruptcy and foreclose." was a sentence fragment, so I fixed that. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• And the "comprised" of change from the same addition was removed by another user, who replaced it with "that primarily house" WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The "define term" was for DPG, it was not until I looked farther into the article that I realized it was a name, not an acronym. Thank you for removing the tag. I believe that Houstonians would not necisarilly be understood by everyone, the intent is not to damage your article, but to improve understanding. Thank you for catching the fragment. The other edit was a good choice also, that is the beauty of the wiki everyone can be correct and the whole is greater than the parts. Bullock ✉ 00:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1