Talk:Rent to own

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Added note on "credit sale vs. lease"

I provided information on a long-running criticism and controversy, with reference to Wall Street Journal account of 2003. I will refrain from offering a personal viewpoint. Calamitybrook (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I now see that this article has been messed previously by somebody who would seem to be representing the industry. I didn't realize there was an active dispute here. Perhaps I ought to have waited. But it seemed egregiously unbalanced. User:Calamitybrook|Calamitybrook]] (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Griffaw, conflict of interest

Griffaw, please stop posting links to your corporate web site in the rent to own article. I had originally reverted my merge because you had stated that you would include Verifiable content. If your intention is to provide personal content from your own web site, I am going to remerge this article as it has no independent value.Alan.ca 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Reverts by User:68.189.203.46/User:24.182.146.232

Are the reverts by 68.189.203.46/24.182.146.232 constructive?

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • 68.189.203.46 and 24.182.146.232 are both from Cape Girardeau, Missouri according to MaxMind. I suspect they’re IP socks of Griffaw, since it is his edits that they are maintaining. I think he has a conflict of interest (see above, as well as his talk page), and his edits significantly biased the article. I intend to request semi-protection, assuming the consensus is that the reverts weren’t constructive… —Wulf (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Um, shouldn't you user WP:RFCU and/or WP:COI/N instead of an RfC? Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm… I suppose so. Thanks for pointing those out – I’ve never gone through the whole Wikipedia dispute resolution process before. I’ll comment out the RfC tag. —Wulf (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by editor not involved

The reverts weren't constructive. To have any value, the article must acknowledge that widespread legal and moral objections have been raised regarding the standard practices of the industry.Calamitybrook (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC) The legal argument in the past seems to have hinged on whether the contracts are leases, as the industry believes, or credit sales, as opponents believe. As a practical matter...leases are apparently subject to less regulation than credit sales.


[edit] NPOV Problem

The article, in its original form, presents a viewpoint heavily biased against the RTO industry, as well as some patently incorrect statements. My revision of the article corects these errors. Whomever is constantly reverting to original, the bias of the original article is wholly inappropriate. 71.127.170.30 (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content with unsource essay, is Vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Which statements are "unsourced"? The information I have presented is in the original sources in the article. You cannot revert based on your preference of the original, biased edition over my equally-sourced edit which provides information from both sides. You seem to believe "vandalism" is defined as "removal of bias I like". 71.127.170.30 (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your content is completely unsourced; your only external link is an industry home page in the external links section. Flowanda | Talk 21:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the correct version of any article is the "Verifiable" version cited with ”Reliable sources”. I do find it concerning that this anon claims wiping out "7" sources with this unsourced content [1][2][3] is considered by hm/her "equally-sourced". --Hu12 (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to rewrite and put the sources back in. However, Hu12 (who, through a staggering conflict of interest, is enforcing his own personal viewpoint on the grounds of defending "neutrality"- see my talk page) has prohibited me from making any further edits to the page. I do believe this should be kicked up to higher authority (we'll see if that actually happens). 71.127.170.30 (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. Your deletion of "Verifiable" content cited with ”Reliable sources” is because you don't like it, then lie to editors here that what you added was "equally-sourced"?. Does This edit seem familiar.
See also - Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Rent_to_own
Accounts
Griffaw (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
68.189.203.46 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
24.182.146.232 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
71.127.168.127 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
71.127.170.30 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
--Hu12 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External link to APRO

I added a link to the Association of Progressive Rental Organizations, the trade association of the RTO industry. It was then removed by Flowanda, and I forgot I ever added it, so I added it again. Flowanda then removed it again. Anyway, bottom line: Isn’t a link to the industry’s trade association justifiable? Looking at WP:EL, I see nothing prohibiting such a link. I think it would help address the concerns of those who are claiming that the article is biased against the industry. What specific guideline are you claiming it would be in violation of, Flowanda?

Regards,
Wulf (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Realy serves no purpose, unless its used as a citation (which it is), therefore is uneeded in EL section. --Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good source

Here's a government survey on the RTO industry Uwmad (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I came across that before. The problem is that it’s from 1999. I imagine the industry has changed quite a lot since then. It looks like there’s a serious lack of unbiased research in the area. —Wulf (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)