Talk:Home Forward

Sources

• Nelson, Stub (December 26, 1943). "War Housing Problem, Huge Headache But Year Ago, 'Licked' by Federal, Municipal, and Public Co-operation". The Sunday Oregonian. Sec. 1, p. 14.
• "Housing Jobs Nearing End". The Oregonian. February 8, 1943. Sec. 3, p. 3.
• "History of HAP". The Oregonian. August 18, 1988. p. 2.

– Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

long list of properties

I believe that posting a list of things like store locations, properties managed by the property managed company etc that constructively mirrors a portion of their page is undue and WP:NOTAWEBHOST matter. If you feel this is an incorrect interpretation, a discussion here would be great. Graywalls (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon

Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Prominent controversy in lede

The lede really needs to cover some controversy, which it is completely lacking; per MOS:LEDE which says

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

So, let's discuss which ones are prominent. @Zeibgeist: , since you felt the concern about the travel expense was undue, which do you suggest as "prominent" controversy to feature in lede? Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The lead also does not mention anything about HAP's role in constructing housing for shipyard workers in World War II, which is likely of greater long-term significance than the recent controversy regarding the CEO's traveling expenses. It also does not mention anything about the housing authority's governance structure, which is another entire section of the article. For an article that is this short, it's perfectly reasonable to have a lead section that only gives a very general overview (which I think the current version does just fine), and leave the more granular details to the article body. Zeibgeist (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I will add it to the body later with sources, but there are plenty of controversies and at least one or two prominent controversy that can be in the lede and in compliance with MOS:LEDE. Graywalls (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@Zeibgeist:, above was the follow up despite you saying I did not follow up in your edit summary. There are a number of controversies around Home Forward. The article as it stands now fails to account for those controversies in proportion to what's covered in the press, thus to NPOV issue. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, let's get a third opinion then. To summarize my position for the 3O, I think the current version of the lead is adequate for an article of this length. There are a number of details in the article body would add unnecessary bloat to the lead, including some important historical details that I suspect will have greater long-term significance than the recent controversy regarding the CEO's compensation and similar issues. Maintaining the current version of the lead is I think preferable to avoid undue emphasis on recent events. Zeibgeist (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: The status quo is perfectly fine for the article size and the content of the article. It's not clear what the long term significance these news stories will have. If anything it might be over covered in the controversy section. Upon review, the content seems more at home on an article about the person involved. Hope this helps. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)