Talk:Subsidized housing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed merge of Subsidized housing into Affordable housing

I just ran across the page, created in December 2005. As it happens, others began organizing this information under the article affordable housing. I provided a link between the articles, but don't really see a clear difference between the content of they articles as the exist now. The two are not the same subject but there's not enough content to justify the current split. Consider truncating the entry in subsidized housing since the new article is far less developed than affordable housing. Thanks. Castellanet 01:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, Subsidized housing is a distinct article and should remain separate. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 03:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the disagreement, and acknowledge the possible and logical distinction, but ask why now keep separate without sufficient content to justify the split? In other words, why put up divided and duplicate content?Castellanet 05:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Subsidized housing is distinct and not duplicate with sufficient content. Why not go to your local library and find some books, do some research and make a meaningful contribution at Wikipedia rather than starting meaningless discussions. My final words on the matter. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 12:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops, the Ad hominem above is inappropriate. There is duplication here, I was merely suggesting content coordination. I'll come back to do the coordination in a week or two unless reason is given otherwise. Castellanet 06:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. It's patently obvious that affordable and subsidized housing are different concepts and, as such, deserve different articles. Just because affordable housing is over-ambitious is no reason to merge them. I think at least a few of the sub-categories of subsidized housing should be merged here though. 66.122.67.69 10:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits undone

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IS A FREE MARKET DISTORTION, AND UNLESS YOU RECEIVE THE SUBSIDY, YOU ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE, PERIOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.143.123 (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that so many people find my edit to be POV and delete my edits! If this were an article on simple addition, you would probably want a screen shot of a calculator to prove that 2+2=4. It is quite simple. When you have a scarce resource, and you subsidize it, you change the price for some lucky people. This does not create more of the resource. I think that deleting my edits is POV. I think that you should make a section incorporating my edits, if you disagree that my edits are the mainstream. By just deleting my edits, you are biased and POV. All you wikieditors that snoop around looking for POV problems and "rants" have won. And another wikipedia editor is cut off at the roots in the pyramid of wikieditors! Go use your Wiki edit bots! I know the truth, but I have no more energy for this! This is one more reason why I take what's written in wikipedia with a great chunk of salt! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.143.123 (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-prot

I've semi-protected the page for 72 hours. It should be easy to find citations the support the market distortion of subsidised housing, surely Minford will have written something on the subject for example. Rich Farmbrough, 17:59 28 September 2008 (UTC).

housing subsidies in spain

Does a scheme operate in the private rental sector, in Spain for low paid workers and senior citizens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.166.230.203 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

beneficiaries include drug addicts

Who are you to require me to use citations, when most of the article is citation free? Do you own this page? By the history it looks like you frequently undo what others have added, especially on this page. And you call yourself an inclusionist?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.219.220 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that Drug addicts is a useful link to add to this article. The article Drug addicts doesn't have any further information on subsidized housing, and the two subjects don't appear to be closely related. I understand that you think that drug addicts benefit from subsidized housing. You have not yet supported that claim with references, but even if you do, I still don't think it would be a useful link. Cats benefit from rains of fish, but that doesn't mean it would be useful to add a link to cats to the article on that subject. "See also" articles should provide additional information relevant to the subject. I'm also inclined to view your edits as the sort of pushing of a point of view that is so far from being appropriate that it could easily be interpreted as vandalism; I don't recommend making such editing into a pattern. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

FisherQueen, check out User talk:SchuminWeb#Subsidized housing when you get a chance. The same comment was posted on my page, and they indicated in an earlier post that they did have reliable sources, and provided them there. Why they now won't cite them where it counts is beyond me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Drug addicts are beneficiaries. I'm not inclined to put my citations in the page just to please you or your wikibuddies however. I am not a cat so I don't get your fresh fish metaphor (or is it an analogy), which I'm inclined to believe has nothing to do with drug addicts and housing however. Do you see why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.219.220 (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then, so be it. You add the material without citation. We revert the edit and warn you for vandalism as we've been doing. Once you exhaust the various warning levels, we block you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Social Housing Services Corporation

I propose the section on Social Housing Services Corporation be removed from the page. It does not directly provide subsidized housing and as its customers are agencies that do provide affordable housing it's placement is not appropriate and is borderline advertising. Unless a valid argument for why it should be included on this page is made I will remove it in a week.Nel.bly (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and removed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Beneficiaries

I have removed the section "Beneficiaries' because the only content under this heading was a subjective and unsourced list of identifiable groups. If someone thinks that this section is important to this article, do not restore it without providing good sources that verify what is being added under that heading. Isureis (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you - the section's a stinker. I for one won't miss it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rent supplements

I would like to see citations for the section of the article under rent supplements that claim "These may have the unintended effect of increasing rents at nonsubsidized units, by distorting the local supply and demand." I'm not saying it's one way or the other as i don't know enough about the subject, but verifiable in-line citations would be a good thing, as these kinds of subjects can get very inflamed, especially without access to facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.128.140 (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)