Talk:Landlord/Archives/2015

bias

This article is strongly biased in favor of landlords, including a fairly ridiculous link to a NYT propaganda piece on the joys of being a landlord, and tips for new landlords, as if this were a business association recruitment page.. Are you people serious? Thanks to the previous editor for at least for not fully reverting my edit, and allowing the inclusion of the information that most state governments find it necessary to put in place strong legal protections to protect tenants against exploitative business practices of landlords.Not having this info would be akin to not mentioning that many states employ gun control laws in the gun article, or not mentioning laws restricting tobacco or alcohol use to protect consumers in the respective articles. Let's not allow Wikipedia to be easily exploited by business interests. Kingshowman (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

@Kingshowman: I've removed the external link about tips for new landlords, that sort of link's just a no for inclusion in Wikipedia. —George8211 / T 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

George, don't you think it's worthy of encylopedic inclusion that many, many people find the term 'landlord' offensive, due to its historical connection with arrangements of "lordship" that were ultimately little different than slavery? It would be as if one were forced to call one's supervisor one's "master" in the workplace. I am sure I can find a better reference if you just give me a moment.Kingshowman (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

@Kingshowman: t should be included if it can be cited to a reliable source. Yes, reliable sources again. —George8211 / T 19:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I will look for something. For now, I hope you will find the historical note I've added about Adam Smith and Karl Marx's views on landlords acceptable. I think they are quite relevant and help to reverse the embarrassingly pro-landlord slant the article currently takes just a bit.Kingshowman (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

ohnoitsJamie

Putting a hat on this attack on OhnoitsJamie. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Simply saying "this doesn't belong in the lead" doesn't provide a reason why something doesn't belong in the lead. It's an important element in the article, and I'm summarizing the article in the lead. Please provide better reasons in your edits for deleting relevant material that other editors support. Many thanks. Kingshowman (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC) I did take to the talk page, you did not respond. Nor is this a philosophical "tangent". An encyclopedia article listing the derivation of a term is not a tangent. Please do not pursue grudges against me, you've made clear enough you do not like me with your responses to my unblock request. You should recuse yourself and allow someone else to defend your indefensible position if you insist on pursuing this. Also, please explain how it is a "tangent" to say that "laws have been passed to protect tenants from landlords." I haven't seen one bit of defensible argument for any of your positions. I just see mere unsupported assertion after mere unsupported assertion. You are being extremely uncivil. Kingshowman (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Leads summarize the article: therefore if the article includes a paragraph long note on the term and concept of 'landlord' being traceable to the economic system of feudalism, one may include a one sentence summary of this paragraph in the lead. Please learn your own policies better if you are going to continue to contribute here. Many thanks.Kingshowman (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Also, it takes 2 to have a war, so if I am guilty of edit warring, than equally so are you.Kingshowman (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Frankly speaking, Ohnotisjamie did specify a reason. They stated clearly that it was UNDUE and was duplicated elsewhere in the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC) It's a LEAD. IT IS SUPPOSED TO SUMMARIZE MATERIAL IN THE ARTICLE. Saying it's UNDUE doesn't make it so. For what reason do you regard it as Undue? That is merely your own perspective speaking. In order to convince me, you will have to not merely ASSERT that it is UNDUE, but provide A REASON WHY it is undue. That is what I mean when I say no reason was provided. You have simply cited a policy without making any effort at explaining why it applies. Simply stating things doesnt make them so, as we should all realizer at Wikipedia. Let's GIVE REASONS for the things we say here.Kingshowman (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)