This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Peter Rachman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was surprised to find this term used in this article, and particularly that it links to the Racial segregation article. I'm no legal (or historical) expert, but I don't believe there was any legal segregation in Britain in the 1950s. Indeed, immigration was encouraged by the UK government as a solution to the labour shortage after the Second World War. The linked article makes no mention of Great Britain or the United Kingdom except for Anglo-Saxon (i.e. mid-first millennium CE) England. There was certainly racial prejudice in the 1950s, and there was arguably effective segregation, but to state that black people found it hard to find accommodation "due to the colour bar" is very misleading IMHO. I propose replacing these words with "as many private landlords refused them as tenants" (or words to that effect). Haydn01 ( talk) 08:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have raised a challenge to the objectivity of this article as a whole, as well as asking for citations for at least a sample of the statements made about the legal background to PR's activities. As just one example of a number of sweeping, but very dubious statements on the legal situation, the article speaks of: "the manifold laws prohibiting the settling of these immigrants in most of England, especially in London." So, what were the laws which prohibited the settling of immigrants in "most of" England, where in England did they not apply (!), and how did they apply "especially in London"? The middle section of the piece is riddled with this kind of loose, questionable material.
There are also POV questions about parts of the article. I recognize that even the most careful and well-intentioned drafter faces difficult territory when dealing with an individual who is (a) Jewish, (b) a crook, and (c) who preys on black immigrants. Trying to record the facts honestly, while steering away from anti-Semitism (and possibly racism), is not necessarily easy. My own assessment, for what it is worth, is that the current text nonetheless probably fails the POV test, with language such as "his flashy American Jewish gangster behaviour" (though I suppose some might see this as an anti-American statement more than anti-Semitic...). It would be helpful for other eyes to look at this aspect of the article's tone and see whether I am over-reacting. Nandt1 ( talk) 12:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere - or perhaps it was a BBC R4 documentary? - that actually Rachman was not a bad landlord - but one of his former employees invented bad stuff so as to get paid money by newspapers. 2.97.209.159 ( talk) 01:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Peter Rachman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
"Though generally a happy individual he was somewhat conflicted between his Jewish and Polish heritage, due to traditional Polish anti-Semitism" - sentence like this is OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!!!!!! "Traditional Polish anti-Semitism"???? I think such things such not appear in Wikipedia!!!!!! |
Last edited at 21:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 02:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
"Rachman moved the protected tenants in a smaller concentration of properties or buying them out, in order to minimise the number of tenancies with statutory rent controls. "
This refers to "the protected tenants" for the first time in the article. What tenants? It's the first time they're mentioned, same for rent controls.
Seems like somebody's been hacking bits out of this article without cleaning up what's left behind. Big chunks of it don't make sense. Needs work! 188.29.164.28 ( talk) 22:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I question the relevance of Mr. Rachman's religious beliefs, and have posted a question at Philafrenzy's page: User talk:Philafrenzy#Peter Rachman
It may be better to discuss that question here.
Kablammo ( talk) 15:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Peter Rachman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was surprised to find this term used in this article, and particularly that it links to the Racial segregation article. I'm no legal (or historical) expert, but I don't believe there was any legal segregation in Britain in the 1950s. Indeed, immigration was encouraged by the UK government as a solution to the labour shortage after the Second World War. The linked article makes no mention of Great Britain or the United Kingdom except for Anglo-Saxon (i.e. mid-first millennium CE) England. There was certainly racial prejudice in the 1950s, and there was arguably effective segregation, but to state that black people found it hard to find accommodation "due to the colour bar" is very misleading IMHO. I propose replacing these words with "as many private landlords refused them as tenants" (or words to that effect). Haydn01 ( talk) 08:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have raised a challenge to the objectivity of this article as a whole, as well as asking for citations for at least a sample of the statements made about the legal background to PR's activities. As just one example of a number of sweeping, but very dubious statements on the legal situation, the article speaks of: "the manifold laws prohibiting the settling of these immigrants in most of England, especially in London." So, what were the laws which prohibited the settling of immigrants in "most of" England, where in England did they not apply (!), and how did they apply "especially in London"? The middle section of the piece is riddled with this kind of loose, questionable material.
There are also POV questions about parts of the article. I recognize that even the most careful and well-intentioned drafter faces difficult territory when dealing with an individual who is (a) Jewish, (b) a crook, and (c) who preys on black immigrants. Trying to record the facts honestly, while steering away from anti-Semitism (and possibly racism), is not necessarily easy. My own assessment, for what it is worth, is that the current text nonetheless probably fails the POV test, with language such as "his flashy American Jewish gangster behaviour" (though I suppose some might see this as an anti-American statement more than anti-Semitic...). It would be helpful for other eyes to look at this aspect of the article's tone and see whether I am over-reacting. Nandt1 ( talk) 12:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere - or perhaps it was a BBC R4 documentary? - that actually Rachman was not a bad landlord - but one of his former employees invented bad stuff so as to get paid money by newspapers. 2.97.209.159 ( talk) 01:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Peter Rachman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
"Though generally a happy individual he was somewhat conflicted between his Jewish and Polish heritage, due to traditional Polish anti-Semitism" - sentence like this is OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!!!!!! "Traditional Polish anti-Semitism"???? I think such things such not appear in Wikipedia!!!!!! |
Last edited at 21:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 02:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
"Rachman moved the protected tenants in a smaller concentration of properties or buying them out, in order to minimise the number of tenancies with statutory rent controls. "
This refers to "the protected tenants" for the first time in the article. What tenants? It's the first time they're mentioned, same for rent controls.
Seems like somebody's been hacking bits out of this article without cleaning up what's left behind. Big chunks of it don't make sense. Needs work! 188.29.164.28 ( talk) 22:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I question the relevance of Mr. Rachman's religious beliefs, and have posted a question at Philafrenzy's page: User talk:Philafrenzy#Peter Rachman
It may be better to discuss that question here.
Kablammo ( talk) 15:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)