Talk:Rent-to-own

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Accounts
Griffaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
68.189.203.46 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
24.182.146.232 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
71.127.168.127 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
71.127.170.30 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good source

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

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)[reply]

Drifting back toward fluff

I just restored the DOD stuff.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor reorganization, MOS cleanup suggested -- thoughts?

After taking a look at this article, I’ve taken a stab at a minor reorganization to bring it closer in line with the manual of style. As my employer has existing clients within the industry that is the subject of this article, no direct edits have been made as of yet. Instead, per conflict of interest guidelines, the suggested update is here in my sandbox. Can others take a look, and provide input on this sandboxed version in order to establish consensus? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started comparing the two versions. For others who may also be wanting to add comments, here's a dif between the current article and the proposed draft. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on input and discussions on Barek's user Talk page, the edits proposed above have since been reflected in the article. Inquiries for feedback were also posted to the Wikiproject Business and Wikiproject Finance. While no response to those Wikiproject posts has been received at this point, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and further input, changes or feedback of any kind is still helpful and appreciated. If others identify changes that would better align this article with Wikipedia's style guidelines, do make those changes directly, or, where it would be beneficial, follow up below for the purpose of discussion. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rent-to-own. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rent-to-own. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]