Talk:Rent regulation

On consensus among economists

The last sentence of the introduction reads as follows:"There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing". This statement is misleading and is also being discussed in another Wikipedia article [1]. Maintaining this assertion in the article represents a serious problem of neutrality in the articles involved. Here is why:

The sources used to support this claim are:

a) An article by Blair Jenkins (of whom we do not know if she has a PhD in economics), who has no other publications on this subject and whose article is published in a journal of dubious quality (impact factor 0.920). Furthermore, the article argues that 23% of economists either "agree with provisions"(16.6%) or directly "disagree" (6.5%) with the claim that "A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available". Is this a consensus? No. Is it a reproducible and sufficiently consistent article that it can stand alone to make such a claim? No. Is the publisher neutral? No. The Journal Econ Journal Watch [2] is published by a self-declared "conservative" and "libertarian" think tank called Fraser Institute [3].

b) An opinion survey without peer review and isolated interviews. I think it is not necessary to comment on whether this represents a representative sample in order to support such a statement.

c) One report by another self-declared "liberal" think tank [4].

Given these sources it is clear that we can no longer support this sentence in the article and that this article has a clear ideological bias. My position is that the sentence should be removed. If the sentence is to be retained, then for the sake of truth, we should say something like this: "According to one study published by a libertarian think tank, most economists agree that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available", while 23% of economists have reservations or disagree with the claim". 193.52.24.13 (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Rent_control_in_the_United_States#On_"consensus_among_economists", where the IP has been making the same arguments without convincing anyone. - MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This discussion was continued on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard [5]193.52.24.13 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Funny, I was about to raise much the same complaint, due to having had attention drawn to this claim in an online forum. There certainly was a consensus at the high-tide of neoliberalism (early 1990s), but there has been a controversy since Richard Arnott (UC Riverside, who oddly does not have a WP page despite clearing WP:PROF by a large margin) wrote his highly cited Time for Revisionism on Rent Control? (Google Scholar cites). I don't have a firm grasp on the literature, but my sense is that it has been many years since anything that could fairly be called a consensus exists on this matter. I think the coverage of the current state of the topic is biased. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources being cited in the article aren't from the 1990s, they're from 2009-2016. - MrOllie (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources added by Avatar317 to justify the claim of consensus date from between 1994 and 2008. The 'Economists View' article is slanted, since it pretty much does not mention the existence of a modern theoretical and empirical case against the claim. I'm pleased that more references are surfacing, albeit just links to large textbooks, but I do not think the case for a consensus has been made. In general, claims of consensus are hard to reliably source, an ad-hoc set of links to textbooks does not cut it. I'd be grateful if the pro-"consensus exists" editors were to look at the Arnott survey article I linked to above. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I added another source, to the 8th edition of Mankiw's Principles of Economics, published 2015. 'A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available' is at the top of a list titled 'Propositions about Which Most Economists Agree.' If anyone has the 9th edition, it would be helpful if you could see if it still contains the same statement. I imagine it does, but it never hurts to be up to date. - MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the bio here on Wikipedia, the source you added “is a conservative and has been an economic adviser to several Republican politicians.” Are we going to mention that little detail? Or just assume this Republican adviser’s opinions are totally, definitely not political? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, We could just as well say he's the 11th most cited economist or the most frequently cited author on college syllabi for economics courses. Not every republican is out on the lunatic fringe. MrOllie (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't call him a lunatic. I just can't imagine Mitt Romney ever hiring anybody who wasn't against rent control. Romney believes the capitalist free market is ordained and blessed by God himself. Right? This citation would certainly look more objective if Greg Mankiw had served both Republican and Democratic politicians. If that was the case I don't think anybody would hesitate to add that to this article. But it's not the case. He's only ever associated with fellow conservative Republicans. Totally objective guy, for sure. Totally. So saying, "a conservative Republican economist agrees that rent control reduces the housing supply" would suggest to readers that we shouldn't say this in Wikipedia's voice as if it was the same as saying water is wet and the sky is blue.

I'm willing to drop this but I'd just like everyone to take note of how unwilling they are to add that little fact. I think editors are pretending that this not an opinion held by conservative, pro-market, Republican economists. A fine opinion, but a political opinion. It's embarrassing so instead of saying it it's being ignored so we can give the appearance that this is an apolitical bipartisan fact observed by disinterested "scientists". So don't tell readers this guy is a conservative Republican if you don't want to. That's your choice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, The cite isn't about his personal opinion. Quoting: "Almost all economists believe that rent control adversely affects the availability and quality of housing". Somehow I doubt that his textbook would be so commonly used by econ professors if it misstated their opinions. MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

He believes the survey of economists conducted by the conservative American Enterprise Institute. You know his own students staged a walkout at Harvard? Because they felt he was too partisan, ideological, and intolerant of economic thinking outside what he considered to be the establishment? All of these appeals to authority, just like the appeal to authority in saying "econ professors couldn't be wrong!", are circular, insular. "All of us who are members of this club agree that the ideology which defines membership in the club is true, good, and correct." These guys are so dogmatic as far as they're concerned, an economist who isn't anti-rent control is a quack who doesn't count. And to prove it, they cite each other, economists who by definition are anti-rent control. In any other topic on Wikipedia, if the sources were all known to be politically partisan, we'd describe it as a partisan political opinion. But when the topic is economics we do this charade, pretending it's "science".

Also, I have a watchlist so you don't have to ping me. -Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

So Dennis, how do you explain Paul Krugman's comments on Rent Control? Just to be clear, he calls himself a LIBERAL. He wrote that rent control inhibits construction of new housing, creates bitter tenant–landlord relations, and in markets with not all apartments under rent control, causes an increase in rents for uncontrolled units, and he also cites the American Economic Association poll as consensus in the profession. (BTW, there is a difference between the American Enterprise Institute which you cited above and American Economic Association)

As I said earlier, the objective of rent control was never to increase housing stock or improve the condition of rental properties, but to limit rent increases for existing tenants. If we bring the issue up, we have to do so in a balanced way. Rent controls came in at the same time as wage and price controls. Those controls did not increase the labor market or productivity or increase the supply and quality of goods and services. But that wasn't why they were introduced, hence cannot be seen as successes or failures based on those criteria. Similarly FDA regulation has not increased the supply of food. TFD (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Rent controls in the USA at least predate wage and price controls, and new construction was no so regulated, thus incentivising real investment. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• I put up my case against the consensus statement up at Talk:Rent control in the United States#Three problems with the statement a little over a week ago. I put it there rather than here, because that is where SilkTork moved 193.52.24.13's comment, although the several paragraphs showing the diversity of rent controls that have been proposed was actually referring to the lead of this article. I'm unimpressed by the case that has so far been mounted arguing that there is a consensus: it consists of linking to a number of staunchly marginalist figures and summaries of textbooks; I recall Simon Wren-Lewis saying on his blog about how economics teaching is unfortunate in that economics undergraduates are often taught theories that the economics profession came to regard as false twenty or thirty years before. I don't think either of these things justifies in-wiki claims to consensus, although of course the sources that claim such consensus are interesting. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This debate is still open here (please, see also here [6]). These two pages are on the watch list of a few unscrupulous users without a neutral point of view, but with knowledge of how wikipedia works to keep alternative voices blocked and silenced. I ask for help to elevate this case to a neutral discussion forum, Charles Stewart, Dennis Bratland. 197.230.198.10 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is deeply polemical and inaccurate and cites numerous articles and "studies" that should not be linked in a neutral encyclopedia (including the reason.com article cited at the beginning). It would benefit from more rigorous academic edits. Additionally, certain lines are vague and unsupported, such as the claim that "Many economists suggest housing subsidies as a way to make housing more affordable to renters without distorting the housing market as much as rent control, but expanding the existing subsidy programs would require sharp increases in government spending."

I see that this page is contentious but all editors should be making a good faith effort to put their personal views aside and for this article to represent the breadth of views on rent regulation. There is also an undue focus on economists' perspectives when any urban studies or policy approach would incorporate many other perspectives. Lila1994 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the sources, we don't just say 'polemical and inaccurate' and delete stuff based on our own judgment. If you'd like to add material from an urban studies viewpoint, that sounds like a good improvement to the article - but that some other view is underrepresented is not a good reason to delete the sourced content that we already have. MrOllie (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The content I deleted is not from a legitimate study and the person has no apparent qualifications. Wikipedia can only follow the sources if those sources are accurate and neutral. Lila1994 (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that many other users have raised similar concerns and that you have bullied and harassed them, however that is not a reason for this article to be biased and poorly sourced. Lila1994 (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. Disagreement is not bullying or harassment, and attacking other editors on personal grounds is not going to help you get your preferred changes in the article. You're trying to delete a publication in a reputable journal that has been cited by several other publications, themselves published in reliable outlets. Your personal judgment of the author's qualifications is not a valid reason to delete it. MrOllie (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

what are the author’s qualifications that support their writing on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lila1994 (talk • contribs)

If you are talking about Blair Jenkins who is quoted in her assessment of the field, you can see her school history and current projects here. Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This page indicates that she is a math teacher at a charter school with an undergraduate major in economics from a non-notable program. Do you consider that to be an expert qualification? Lila1994 (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a peer reviewed article, that means it meets our sourcing requirements. MrOllie (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not the only qualification for sourcing requirements. The identity of the author also matters. Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Lila1994 (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I know WP:RS very well, and nothing about this author's 'identity' would disqualify use of this peer-reviewed source. MrOllie (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Remember that the occupation of "economist" is not regulated by any professional body, not the American Economic Association, the European Economic Association nor the International Economic Association. The only ranking of an economist is whether they are cited. Google Scholar reports that 88 other papers have cited Jenkins on this specific issue. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."

This person is neither a specialist nor a recognized expert. Lila1994 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for "economist" offers some helpful guidelines, "An economist is a professional and practitioner in the social science discipline of economics." Lila1994 (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You're citing a line about opinion articles in newspapers. It obviously does not apply here. And even if it did, it would not disqualify this source. MrOllie (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, controversial within the relevant field, or largely ignored by the mainstream academic discourse because of lack of citations."

Just because it is supposedly peer-reviewed does not make this a major or reputable source. Lila1994 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Many other users share my concerns. This is not based on my opinion. It is based on facts. Lila1994 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It has been cited plenty of times, as Binksternet just pointed out. It's not outdated or controversial, we have plenty of other sources making the same point about the consensus view of economists. Cherry picking papers from a few dissenters doesn't change that. MrOllie (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you're not familiar with the process of academic publication? it is extremely unusual for the sole author of a landmark article such as a consensus overview to be a person without an advanced degree and with no professional qualifications in the field in which they are writing. This does make it controversial within its field just by virtue of the qualifications offered. Please compare to any other academic source cited on that page or elsewhere if you need evidence of this. Lila1994 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the 88 citations and the majority of them are questioning or challenging it as a legitimate consensus, not citing it as you claim. If you have a Wiley login, you are free to do the same. Lila1994 (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the process of academic publication? Students publish papers before their advanced degree is complete quite frequently (see for example Thesis as a collection of articles). Something is not controversial just because you personally (and apparently incorrectly) think some aspect of the author's biography is unusual. - MrOllie (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The article you linked to refers to doctoral dissertations. Lila1994 (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

(doctoral is a PhD to clarify so would not be applicable here) Lila1994 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Read it again. It refers to a dissertation that is a collection of previously published articles. MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, most PhD students publish papers over the course of their degrees. That is what it is referencing. Lila1994 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I am engaging with this because the quality of citations matter and not because of my personal opinions. Exceptionally, undergraduates publish original research. This is a literature review however and would require a more advanced degree or professional qualification to be a quality source. Lila1994 (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. And PhD students will not have an advanced degree when they do so. So this is obviously not 'extremely unusual'. The quality of this citation is perfectly fine, your objections appear to be entirely based on misunderstandings. MrOllie (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No, we do not agree. PhD students publish over the course of their degree precisely because they are enrolled in PhD programs. Also many do have MAs before starting PhDs so would have an advanced degree already. You cannot assert that a student completing a PhD does not have an advanced degree.

Clearly you have some bias towards this article. But your lack of familiarity with academic publishing standards is frankly shocking. Lila1994 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You have no idea if Jenkins was enrolled a course of study or not when they wrote the article (and once again it doesn't matter, this was peer-reviewed). Many PhDs do not have a master's degree and never bother to gain one during their studies. But your lack of familiarity with academic publishing standards is frankly shocking. As mentioned before, personal attacks will not help you make your argument. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And, to be clear, neither will making false reports on noticeboards about your perceived enemies. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If they had been enrolled in a PhD program it would have been listed as one of their qualifications. Lila1994 (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have enemies. I am simply trying to establish neutral accuracy. Lila1994 (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Look Lila1994, Dennis Bratland, Charles Stewart, SPECIFICO, the guy and their friends deny the evidence and revert any changes they don't like. They have been doing it for years regarding this issue. Here is another more piece of evidence against consensus that they deny [[7]]. They are a group of ultraliberal fanatics who guard Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a dead project.139.47.70.188 (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please specify how that paper negates the statement "There is consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing units." I still don't see the relevance.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not only one paper, and you know it. A simple google search, a simple Google Scholar search will lead any ernest person to recognise that, obviously, there's no consensus among economists. 2A02:9130:94A2:FA8C:49B6:A26F:92B5:81F (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Google searches are not sources. In this case we do have sources (many sources, in fact) attesting to a consensus. Google searches or original research combinations of single data points do not override plain reading of directly on-topic sources. When something changes in the consensus opinion, we will undoubtedly have sources that directly attest to the change and will not need to play games with OR. And until then, edit warring is not going to get this article changed no matter how many times you change IPs. MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The validity of the many sources you have have been discussed above. The false statement in question was added without discussion on this page, and is maintained against the evidence that there are economists and studies to the contrary, thus proving that there is no consensus in the field. 88.12.218.81 (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The false statement in question was added without discussion on this page It has been discussed many times since, and had obvious consensus support. maintained against the evidence that there are economists and studies to the contrary, thus proving that there is no consensus in the field. Consensus need not be unanimous. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It was NOT discussed before it was added to the article. Obviously, there's not consensus. 88.12.218.81 (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It was NOT discussed before it was added to the article. That is not and has never been a requirement. This has been in the article for years at this point. MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Review needed as the statement is false. Before adding dubious statements, discuss here. The discussion in this page and the many editors confronting your view show that there's no consensus whatsoever. 2A02:9130:94A7:DD05:D79:73BF:89B5:E8D3 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

All these IPs are clearly the same person. MrOllie (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Ollie, it is bad content. It has not been challenged only by the IP. The reasons have been stated, and it's not helpful to reinsert it or declare the question settled without demonstrable consensus. An RfC would establish your claim of consensus for it, if such consensus does exist. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I still see no policy-based 'reasons'. What is not helpful is deleting long-standing, well sourced content. If you'd like to have an RFC, propose wording for one. MrOllie (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No well sourced, content was added without discussion here, studies to the contrary have been discussed here, councils and economists worldwide keep using rent control policies. 2A02:9130:94A7:DD05:1020:3E72:1175:20C8 (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeating false statements and refuted arguments over and over does not make them more convincing. MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The same goes for you. Are you the one who has the last word? 2A02:9130:94A7:DD05:1020:3E72:1175:20C8 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you for real? Provide real high quality sources (published studies, not something from an econ 101 textbook or a libertarian think tank) or just give in that the statement should be removed. 45.44.79.38 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As has been discussed at length, numerous high quality sources have already been cited. MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

On Classical Economists and Landlords

The two conflicting theories explained here are really talking about different things. On the one hand, when the Classical economists Smith and Ricardo talk about rent, they're talking about land rent. One the other hand, the neo-classical and Keynesian economists mentioned later (and really this entire article) are talking about housing rent.

This difference is clear if you look at Smith's quote included on the right - "the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce." He takes issue with land producing rents for landlords, because the value of this land is due to the work of everyone in society. If we introduced regulations on land rent (e.g. land value tax) like is talked about later in the paragraph, there's no problem of reduced supply - the land isn't going anywhere (people can remove their land from the market, but it's not like Land Value Tax is stopping new land from being created - that doesn't even really make sense). In fact, the bottom of Smith's quote, "the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land" shows he is referring to land here.

This is in direct contrast with the other theory mentioned pertaining to neo-classical/Keynesians. The rent control they're referring to is to do with housing rent. That's why they can even mention shortage/scarcity in the first place - rent controls arguably do illicit changes in the supply/creation of houses.

I think it's wrong to posit these two theories as disagreeing with each-other. I'm not convinced that Smith/Ricardo would advocate for housing rent control, and I'm sure that neo-classical/Keynesian economists (and the other economists mentioned) have a wildly different view of Land Value Tax than they do the rent controls mentioned in this article. We should either remove Smith and Ricardo's association completely, or make it clear that they were advocating for a rent control on land, not housing as is being implied. Diojer (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The lengthy quote by Adam Smith should be removed.

Smith was talking about aristocrats who rented out land to farmers and capitalists, not people who rented out apartments in buildings. TFD (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Contested sentence at end of lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's been much discussion and a recently restated dispute related to the final sentence of the lead. I removed it. I doubt there's supportable consensus for restoring it, and I think it should stay out until such consensus is determined.

The sentence about rent regulation reducing the housing stock is vague and overly broad, based on problematic sources, per various talk discussions.

In genereal, all regulation reduces current output. In the case of a capital asset such as housing, the regulations have mostly been designed to exempt new construction, to ensure that current investment is not disincentivized. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC

Until a bunch of cites were removed without discussion (I just put them back) this was/is one of the best cited sentences on Wikipedia. I don't see any policy-based reasoning to indicate that these sources (which include peer-reviewed articles and mainstream econ textbooks) are 'problematic sources'. I suppose we can have a RFC if you feel strongly about it, but a simple BOLD removal of this well-sourced and long-standing sentence isn't the way. - MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As you may recall, the quality of that sourcing has been questioned here and on the Rent control in the United States talk page, here. In addition, several editors have raised other concerns. In view of the evident disagreement about this content, we should achieve an explicit consensus for whether that or some alternative text appears in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I do recall, which is why I said I don't see any policy-based reasoning. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

When mainstream textbooks teach certain concepts about something, that is what is considered the mainstream consensus in the field. That is what our sources here prove.

(Side comment unrelated to the sourcing - As far as YOUR UNDERSTANDING of this concept: you seem to be missing the point that rent-control is not black and white; it has been implemented in many forms, and the consensus view is that the less "strict" (like exempting new construction) versions are less harmful than more strict versions. This is like the effect of tariffs on free trade, one could claim they "aren't harmful" if they are 0.0001% but very harmful at 300%.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Your sources don't prove consensus, and had been largely contested by other sources discussed here. 88.12.218.81 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The sources plainly state that there is a consensus, which is all that is required. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

False. Sources mentioned don't prove consensus. 2A02:9130:94A7:DD05:D79:73BF:89B5:E8D3 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Ollie, those sources are dated and weak. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

They include peer-reviewed articles and textbooks and come as recently as 2 years ago. MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

And how do your sources explain or demonstrate that rent regulation - as it exists and has in the form in which it's been applied in the real world - reduces the stock of available housing? SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I reject the premise of this question - all that matters is that the statement is made in sufficiently reliable sources. Moving the goalposts to this standard isn't supported by any Wikipedia policy. MrOllie (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, when college textbooks teach something, that is considered the mainstream consensus in the field. It is like "standard medical practice." Whether you understand how or why the accepted medical treatment for ailmentX is procedureY doesn't matter here. ---Avatar317^(talk) 07:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources don't prove consensus. 2A02:9130:94A7:DD05:1020:3E72:1175:20C8 (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Avatar, in what jurisdictions are there controls on the rental rates for newly constructed housing units? What do the sources say? SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why was a research paper removed from the article?

I wonder why this source arguing to the contrary of consensus was removed from the article. [[8]] 88.12.244.5 (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As discussed many times before, we cannot use a single paper to undercut higher ranked sources that clearly discuss a consensus. MrOllie (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The scientific paper provided supports an argument against the disputed phrase. The disputed phrase is not well sourced. Why has it been removed from the main article? Why is information systematically deleted from this article and the talk page? 88.12.244.5 (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The "disputed phrase" is found in many sources. People in favor of rent control will have to work around that fact. The best you can do is point to sources that support rent control. You cannot remove the consensus of economists. But economists are not the only authorities. In fact, there's no certification board for economists; they cannot be disbarred for making huge mistakes. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, there's no certification board for economists; they cannot be disbarred for making huge mistakes. - is a rather silly statement; the same can be said for all professors/researchers (other than medicine and law profs) and all scientists: physicists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, etc., as well as 95%+ of engineers, with the special exception of civil engineers, who need certification (Professional engineer) to sign off on public infrastructure builds (like whether a bridge design is structurally sound). ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You are inventing numbers without sources. You haven't yet specified where exactly the claim is sustained in several sources. In the meantime, you are removing scientific papers from the article. And on top of it the sentence was added without prior discussion here. 2A02:9130:9432:2258:D562:8C04:2279:EEA1 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven't yet specified where exactly the claim is sustained in several sources. Citations are in the article. And on top of it the sentence was added without prior discussion here. As you have been told many times, that is irrelevant. It has consensus now, which is all that matters. MrOllie (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)