Talk:National Association of Realtors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 1 Jan 2008: why arbirarily remove photos?

They have been replaced. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Associated Dangers" section removed and is below

The following was added by Tjsherlock:

"The power being wielded by the National Association of REALTORS® has begun to cause alarm to such watchdog groups as the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, who have been investigating, in attempts to protect Americans from any potential misuse of this power."

I find this rather alarmist in its tone. Already, there are references in the article to the controversy over the MLS system with the D of J's involvement. This editor needs to be specific regarding the FTC issues he/she raises.

Most of the comment under the "misuse" link appears to come from a private blog and has no place here.

I support the removal of this section. Viva-Verdi 19:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Code of ethics

I suggest the removal of the word 'strict' in the last sentence to qualify the 'code of ethics'. It is a value judgment.

Done.69.165.90.240 01:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Color information

Category (t·c) has been repeatedly removing the following information from the article:

The NAR insists that the word [Realtor] be typeset in all capitals with an accompanying ® symbol. The NAR itself prints the word in red (Pantone 186), but insists that individual members and third parties not use the color. Most newspapers and other publications use mixed case (and black letters) in deference to their own style guide.

(In fact, that information was provided by Category himself, in the edit summary accompanying the first removal of color information. I have no reason to think it's inaccurate.)

If Category has some legitimate reason to remove the information (e.g., it's inaccurate, or libelous, or copyvio), would he please state it here? (Also, he's been changing "most" to "many," which is entirely unnecessary weasel wording.) --Quuxplusone 16:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As a member of NAR myself, I am surprised about this reference to red. It is my understanding that blue is used for residential and red is used for commercial. My pin, for example, bears a capital R in blue with a gold background; I have a residential practice.Tjsherlock 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PR-speak

The NAR insists that the word be typeset in all capitals with an accompanying ® symbol. Many newspapers and other publications use mixed case (and black letters) in deference to their own style guide.

I got rid of this PR-speak BS altogether. The NAR is in no position to "insist" on how it is referred to in publications. If you've ever worked at a newspaper, you know that all press releases put the company and brand names in all caps and would like editors to follow suit. None of them do. I left in the bit about the term Realtor, since it's a valid issue as a trademark. Xerox and Kleenex have struggled with the same issue (Kleenex doesn't want you to say that Puffs are "kleenex" because it risks putting their brand name in the public domain, where anyone can use it). --Tysto 20:38, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Here are your recent changes, with my comments:
  1. "a strict Code of Ethics" lowercased. Okay, but you lose the reference to the actual Code of Ethics, as opposed to any old code of ethics. Similarly, I'd say that the Boy Scouts recite a Law and an Oath, rather than a law and an oath — the latter is true, but unhelpful.
  2. "The Association" to "the association". Ditto. Would you refer to Jefferson Airplane as "the airplane"? I rest my case. :)
  3. "Realtor" unbolded. I think this was a good-faith mistake — you may not be aware of the Wikipedia convention of bolding the article subject on its first appearance, even for redirects. (See Realtor.)
  4. "Realtor" replaced with "The title of Realtor". This is simply ungrammatical.
  5. Removal of the NAR's style guidelines. I can at least appreciate that you think Wikipedia is not a repository for companies' style guidelines; but the information is true[1] and relevant, and IMO helpful to the reader, who might otherwise wonder why the term is so often set in all caps. (As for the "Pantone 186" color information, provided by User:Category, I can't verify it anywhere. But that was gone by the time you got here anyway.)
Hence, reverted. I'd consider re-reversions of 1–4 vandalism; number 5, the style guidelines, could go either way — but obviously I'd prefer to keep as much useful information in this article as possible. --Quuxplusone 06:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not appreciate the implication that my edits were malicious. You may disagree with me, but Wikipedia is run by consensus, and my edits were made in part based on the discussion that existed already on this page and in part on my experience as a professional writer and editor; reverting my edits wholesale makes you the vandal.
  1. You cannot capitalize everything that you think is important. The NAR has a "code of ethics" like many other organizations; theirs may be called something like "The Realtor Code of Ethics" or the "NAR Code of Ethics"--I don't know what the official name is, but simply "code of ethics" is a common noun and is not capitalized. The Boy Scouts have the "Boy Scout Oath," which is a type of "oath."
  2. Likewise, the NAR is an "association," not an "Association" for the same reason that IBM is a "company," not a "Company." Since, Jefferson Airplane is not an airplane, I would refer to it as "the band."
  3. If "Realtor" is just a term (applied to people who fit a certain category) and not a title (awarded by meeting some requirement), then what is its value as a tradmark? Regardless, the heading was not ungrammatical.
  4. The NAR's interest in how its name is typeset in other people's publications is not relevant to an encyclopedia. Every organization would like to dictate how its name and logo is used, but editors follow their own standards.
  5. I am perfectly aware that alternate names are bolded the first time they are mentioned. I am also aware that that first mention needs to come in the first sentence or two, not four paragraphs in. But the subject of this article is not Realtor and it should not be bolded.
These are common publishing standards you should be familiar with if you are going go around accusing people of being poor writers and vandals. --Tysto 16:55, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

OMG, what a comparison..... "As a trademark name (like Kleenex facial tissues and Pampers diapers), "Realtor" should always be capitalized." How about Pampers Broker and Kleenex Agent? :) (Unknown Author 12.214.210.51)

To my understanding, the purpuse of placing the ® in print is to warn readers that the word is protected by legal trademark. It is for the reader's benefit to know that to use such words without license may produce a legal liabity. While editors may adopt their own styles, they do their readers a disservice by keeping them ignorant of the trademark.

This is my first week as a Wikipedian, and I've already been taught some important lessons on the subject by Anarchist42. I think his points to me of the global nature of Wikipedia are perfectly valid. Therefore my edits reflect the local scope of North America. Woolhiser 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "However, to use it in trade in North America is trademark infringement" until someone can provide a citation as to where the trademark applies and exactly what is considered "infringment". Also, I can't find mention of Mexico (which is part of "North America" on the NAR website).Anarchist42 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"The NAR wields substantial power as a lobbying organization for real estate buyers and sellers." Talk about PR: They're a lobbying organization for real estate agents. Whether that lobbying benefits the actual buyers and sellers has to be considered debatable. NPOV?


NEW POSTING

I made a number of changes to this description of the National Association of Realtors this week (2-24-06). I encourage others to review and revise. I suspect there is room to edit for point-of-view -- comments that could be made more descriptive. I tried to be flat and fair, but this stuff creeps in. A warning is in order, though...

Please don't whitewash the description under the guise of removing opinion. Material that is unflattering to the organization is not necessarilty inaccurate or POV. My test was whether the matter is important to conveying an understanding of the organization and its role in the industry. I have no intention to air dirty laundry as a means to impair NAR's reputation; but, please don't delete relevant information simply because it is unflattering. A similar caution is due to matters that are controversial. If there is true uncertainty about a fact, that is one thing. But clever and widespread spin or lobbying that casts an apple as an orange does not mean there is controversy about whether an apple is an apple.

As sources for facts stated, please see: -- Report of U.S. Government Accountability Office, August 2005, Real Estate Brokerage. -- U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit complaint and memorandum, located at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/nar.htm -- U.S. Federal Trade Commission reports on real estate brokerage located on www.ftc.gov. -- Paper presented at the American Antitrust Institute Dr. John Weicher and located at http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent2/464.cfm

[edit] MLS

As a REALTOR®, I found the article slanted against the association, for non NAR members, the argument against NAR is that NAR controls access to MLS and therefore the public (in the case of FSBO's and non-member brokers) can not compete fairly.
However, as a member of MLSPIN the largest MLS in New England, I think that it provides balance to mention that there are MLS boards that operate independantly of NAR.
And so the charge is somewhat flawed because NAR does not control some very large and important MLS boards.
I agree that non-flattering information, if it is true should remain part of the article, but it should not be slanted.
The fact is that for many boards, (as in the case of MLSPIN) the public who are not members of the MLS can promote property on the MLS for a flat fee.
As REALTORS® many in our association have done a dis-service to the public and the association by giving the impression that the only value a REALTOR® has to the public is access to an MLS.
The truth in many cases, is that the public can list properties in MLS without using a percentage based listing contract. However, a good REALTOR® is much more than a data entry person, and the public that hires those REALTORS® have come to know the value of a good REALTOR® Woolhiser 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that the term "FSBO" may not be immediately clear to non-Realtors®. It stands for "For Sale By Owner," and a link may be found at FSBO.
Septegram 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC) (former Realtor®)
As a HUMAN® who uses uppercase letters sparingly, I find the ABOVE® paragraph to be exceedingly HILARIOUS® Anarchist42 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ALL CAPS

I don't believe the trademark specifies the capitalization of the word REALTOR. I believe the trademark is on the word itself. Capitalization is a choice that NAR makes in their presentation. The trademark applies either way. -- Barrylb 00:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-PRO certification ???

In cleaning up the Category:Professional certification, I have come across a E-PRO article which, implies but does not state, that NAR issues this certificate. It is not mentioned anywhere in this article, so I am removing this Cat from E-PRO. If I am doing so in error, please correct my bold editing and provide a Cite for verification. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All the NAR-approved designations are listed on their website at

http://www.realtor.org/runivers.nsf/pages/designation?OpenDocument

and this link appears as a reference (#9) in the Refs section of the Real estate broker article.
I'll add this link as a ref. to the E-Pro article as well for clarification.
Your note about learning to email as not being part of a professional designation misses the point: the email section spends some time on issues of the use of email in transactions, customer/client communication, etc. etc.

Viva-Verdi 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Apolagies if I seemd belittling, it was not intended. My only aim is to clean out the cruft and miscategorizations from Category:Professional certification. Is there a article for each of the designations you have pointed out, or is there a single article of Professional certification (realty) somewhere I am missing? Thanks for the assistance. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The list of real estate designations is contained in the Real estate broker#Real estate brokers / agents and further education article.

Apart from the e-PRO article, there's only 1 which has its own article.

Viva-Verdi 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OKies, tonight I will create a Professional certification (realty) article (as a redirect to Real_estate_broker#Real_estate_brokers_.2F_agents_and_further_education) so that it fits into the format of what is already in Category:Professional certification. If in future that section becomes larger, or upon consensus, it can easily overwrite the redirect with actual Article material. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smells like bullshit

It could be just me, but this article looks like it was written by the NAR. I cleaned it up a bit, (readded a deleted link, got rid of a "realtors are better than other real estate brokers" phrase but it still needs work.Klosterdev (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

__________________________________________ AYUH.

It's BS all right. The NAR is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, and they know it. The "Code of Ethics" is a hype, and someone should nail [these folk] for false advertising.

http://outsider222.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/bangor-maine-recap/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.195.59 (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)