This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Housing and Tenant Rights This page is within the scope of WikiProject Housing and Tenant Rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Housing and Tenant Rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Housing and Tenant RightsWikipedia:WikiProject Housing and Tenant RightsTemplate:WikiProject Housing and Tenant RightsHousing and Tenant Rights

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Nice to see a wikiproject like this spring up. Never properly joined a wikiproject before and more so just lurking while contributing in my own way. I thought that a young wikiproject is as good as any to decide to give them a go.

Small question to put to you folks regarding if Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article (and the ACORN International article) should be included in Category:Tenants unions. ACORN isn't nessarily just tenants unions, but the group also act and talk a fair bit like them. If it's of any bearing, the Scottish tenants union Living Rent, as well as the French union Alliance citoyenne [fr] are both affiliates of the union/org. Should ACORN be added to Category:Tenants unions or is their status in Category:Housing rights organizations based in the United States sufficient? Bejakyo (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome!

For the US ACORN (and its later affiliates after it was dissolved), I think I wouldn't classify them as a tenants union. But for ACORN International or anywhere outside the US, I think its in that sphere, and can be classified as a tenants union or a tenant union federation, especially with you bringing up its affiliation with standalone tenants unions, which could also be great thing to add to their pages.

All of them are still under the purview of this WikiProject so ill make sure to add the template to all their talk pages. :) - LoomCreek (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely fair, thank you. And yeah as you said, it definatly seems like it'd be of intrest to the wikiproject, as whatever it is, it's definatly an org related to tenants rights and welfare so I think the talk page template is a good shout Bejakyo (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejakyo Oh also I recommend joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labor its a very longstanding and active one!

You dont have to participate in it but, I figure itd be useful anyways to join. Just to be in the know with all things going on labor wise. And it seems like a topic you're already very active with, although we could definitely use the most help here rn.

Theres a lot to do with this new project, im considering maybe eventually doing a cross edit-a-thon with them.

There are many great longstanding members of it that are incredibly helpful with this project as well. Anyways I'm very glad to see so many people join, It's been very exciting. - LoomCreek (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh go on then you've twisted my hand haha. I must admit I'm not ace at navigating wikiprojects as I'm never really sure what's up-to-date and what's been left for a while/is no longer as useful. Ironicly I did stumble upon this project through the message on Organised Labour. Bejakyo (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently some articles have had the Wikiproject added to them:

I argue that these arn't really within the scope of the Wikiproject, and area only of indirect intrest to us. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for example arn't within our scope where as 2024 Kansas City metropolitan area rent strike is within our scope – in much the same way that Apple Inc isn't within the scope of the WP:LABOUR wikiproject just for having workers, where as the directly related article Apple and unions is cleanly within WP:Labour's scope

Some other articles added recently which I'm less sure about:

I think this second list mostly fits within our scope but would love some input. I'm shakey on the Board but think these housing types (regarding cheep often social housing buidling types) and the charities fit perhaps? Iirc there is that Irish muslim homeless charity in our scope already (name escapes me though). and as well we do also have Khrushchevkas within our scope if that's of any bearing.

And finally some more added articles recently added to the project:

Which all seem like fantastic additions to me. Bejakyo (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the Federal Housing Finance Agency is directly relevant to a WikiProject focused on housing. As for Mortgage – in the United States, mortgages are the way that many (most?) homeowners finance the purchase of their houses. I'm not sure about other countries. I agree that Receivership seems out of scope, unless there is a relevant aspect that I'm not noticing. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, Receivership being categorized in this must of just been a mistake (potentially by me, ive done quite a bit the categorizing.)

Everything else fits comfortably within the scope of this project in my opinion. Even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with the formers roles in the new deal housing programs, and the later housing project reforms/changes in 70s for the later. The new deal and its segregating of housing permanently (barring drastic action) changed housing across the entire united states to this day. They're both pretty intimately tied into housing rights (although US specific) rather then just two unrelated housing corps.

Thanks for catching the receivership miscategorization!

Cheers, LoomCreek (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose where I'm coming from is I think of this project as being—in simplified terms—a bit like the Organised Labour wikiproject, but for housing rights/tenant rights instead of workers rights. So something like redlining which in the US restricted African-Americans access to morgages and increasing housing inequality is directly within our scope. Going again to my example earlier I said earlier with the fact that Amazon Inc isn't within the scope of the Organised Labour wikiproject just for having workers, where as the directly related article Amazon and unions is cleanly within the scope. Obviously Amazon Inc or Apple Inc isn't exaclty unintresting to people within the OL group, and nor is stuff like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for us, but I would still argue they don't warrent being included directly within our scope as a result

While I'm thinking about it, I've been meaning to ask, would something like the Red Vienna come into our scope? I know the RV era isn't all social housing and such, but it does have a strong legacy due to it's social housing provisions (and even after various rollbacks in the post-war Vienna has some of the lowest rents of a urban centre in europe). Bejakyo (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the scope of the project needs to be clarified. I assumed from the name of the WikiProject that it was supposed to encompass articles related to housing or tenant rights (two distinct topics, but with significant overlap). It sounds like you think it should have a narrower scope, but it's not clear to me what scope you're suggesting. It is hard for me to see how Redlining could be within scope without Mortgage being within scope. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's more a quirk of the name of the project. I read the name as "housing-and-tenant rights", but I can see how why one might conversly see the name as as "housing, and tenants rights". I believe that there are already projects about more bricks and morter or housing studies type stuff (which I would imagine we do have some overlap with), but I don't know all too much about them as they're not really my area of intrest.

taking a look at the project page lead section (welcome section?) it says There is currently a lack of articles covering tenant history, the goal is to improve and widen the scope of articles on tenant subjects in general on Wikipedia. Focusing primarily on the history of land ownership and tenant advocacy which I thought was a pretty good summary. From that it feels like Mortgage Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would be an expansion of scope (where as something Redlining already fits squarely into in comparison), and would be an expansion I would personally be against as not really of use. I struggle to think of a better way to put it than that ( + the Apple Inc vs Apple and unions comparison from earlier). Though to that extent I suppose Federal Housing Finance Agency falls within our scope the same way that the NLRB does for WP:LABOUR. If other members of our wikiproject think that mortgage is within our scope then that's fair enough Bejakyo (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair argument about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, we can exclude it if youd like. The FHFA definitely falls within the scope being a spiritual predcessor of the FHA with its intimate ties with redlining, with its guidelines on loans (which also determined whether they would federally back home loans) basically being the architect of redlining across the entire country. The FHFA is also particularly tied to the Aftermath of the 2008 housing crash. The intent was Housing-and-Tenant Rights, to be clear. I do think mortgage is within the scope. -LoomCreek (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good middle ground. Even if mortgage isn't my first choice, I can see the use in having it. FHFA sounds like a solid includusion, particularly with after highlighting it's links to redlining. I think including mortgage but discluding the companies makes sense with that scope in mind Bejakyo (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and sorry for the late reply on all of this, most of the listed articles were my additions.

My motivation for adding Property management and Receivership was that these are structures that tenants might encounter as they run into issues with their landlords (for ex. receivership in this DC law). Unfortunately neither article has much information on the relevance to tenants rights, so this addition was probably premature.

Mortgage, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Federal Housing Finance Agency were added (at least partially) because of their use by slumlords in extracting from rental properties (example) but again, this information isn't in the articles themselves, so perhaps it would be better to add the information first before adding them to the project.

I appreciate the discussion of the scope of the project and the "housing-and-tenant rights" is clarifying! I've watchlisted this talk page now so hopefully I'll be more responsive. Underswamp (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no worries, you're not on the clock! welcome to the project btw

I realise what I said might have come off as grilling which wasn't my intention. I was just uncertain and personally thought they weren't but wanted to ask about for input. I do see the point you're making with FM and FM, but I don't think its significantly within our scope and I would personally consider it an expansion of project scope if we do include them. I'm personally alright including Mortgage even if it's not my first choice, and I think the addition of FHFA is a solid addition

(also thanks for reminding me to watchlist for talk pages, I didn't realise that carried over for project talk pages) Bejakyo (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]