User talk:2A02:C7E:143A:6000:55A9:DCBC:8B6B:E11A

February 2022
Hello, I'm Arccosecant. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rent control in the United States without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —  csc -1 19:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rent control in the United States, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. —  csc -1 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Arccosecant:

1. Topic: Two Wikipedia articles, namely "Rent control in the United States" and "Rent regulation", contain a statement that reads as follows: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing".

2. This statement was added to the article (without any consensus and without any discussion on the talk page) by Snooganssnoogans on 24 December 2020 at 14:5 (see ).

3. Users have extensively argued the lack of neutrality of these articles on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. As can be seen, many users (e.g. SPECIFICO, TFD, Dennis Bratland, Qzekrom,Charles Stewart) seem to agree that the statement is false (their arguments and weight in the conversation are being ignored by the users who act as the custodians of these pages). Only vague references that are not specific (general economics textbooks), opinion articles, and an article published by a think tank are used by these users as references to substantiate the claim. But the fact is that there is not a single study that can verify the veracity of this claim. Not to mention the obvious interest that these users have in this claim appearing in the second entry of the article, at the top, so that it reads well, even before technically explaining what exactly rent control is. Arguments and counter-arguments can be found on the NPOV Noticeboard.

4. In any case, what is serious is that although it is a manifest fact that there is no agreement among the users who discuss there, the article maintains the statement without any consensus and furthermore the article is not labelled as lacking neutrality.

Is this enough?--2A02:C7E:143A:6000:55A9:DCBC:8B6B:E11A (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you wish to remove longstanding cited material from a page on the basis of being false, please get consensus on the talk page for these changes. Furthermore, would you mind explaining wh you removed an admission to having been blocked? —  csc -1 20:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Arccosecant. The consensus was gained in the past and wikipedia didn't remove the comment. Now you are perpetuating the false statement in the page. I removed it because it doesnt apply to my condition. Cheers. --2A02:C7E:143A:6000:55A9:DCBC:8B6B:E11A (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, would you please provide a direct link to where you gained conseusus? —  csc -1 21:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * To clarify the situation, there are things that count as reliable sources that claim a consensus, but in my opinion this standard of evidence is too low a bar to support the claim, because consensus claims are strong claims with far-reaching implications for how we cover an issue and the existence of a group of experts believing the existence of a consensus is quite compatible with the lack of a consensus. I've been meaning to raise this specific case in a broader discussion on WP:SCIRS, WP:MEDSCI, and WP:Scientific consensus for over half a year now.
 * The right thing is more cautious use of sources, however I fear that if there was an RfC without a bit of consciousness raising on the issue, it would support the status quo, which is why I have not been persisting in simply changing the article. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)