Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:50, 8 November 2020

Template:Vital article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Squatting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Squatting Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Squatting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of squatting on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SquattingWikipedia:WikiProject SquattingTemplate:WikiProject Squattingsquatting Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cooperatives (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Urban studies and planning Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): A symmetrics (article contribs).

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Historical Squatting

The current focus of this article is on modern day squatting (ie, modern day occupation of abandoned buildings etc. Squatting, however, has a longer history than that, and in that context usually refers to taking up residence on unoccupied and un-owned land on the American frontier. As an example, the Big_Bottom_massacre article refers to "A group of about thirty-six Company settlers had gone upriver from Marietta, squatting east of the Muskingum on land where the Company did not hold title."

It would be helpful if the present article were expanded to cover this type of historical squatting. TwelveGreat (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi yes I agree "historical squatting" should also be covered in more detail for sure. However, this page is already 100k and needs to be the overview of the global phenomenon which then links to other pages. For example regarding Australia, it links to Squatting in Australia which covers modern day squatting and to Squatting (Australian history) which covers settler colonialism. As regards the US, there already is Squatting in the United States which currently covers historical and modern squatting. So mention of Big Bottom massacre would prob fit best there. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Improving the page

Graywalls, you have deleted some content and added some tags. This page gets quite a lot of drive-by additions so it's always good to prune it back, but as a whole I'm not seeing much original research or unreliable sourcing, please be more specific. On the Turkey section, I reverted the deletion since there were more sources than squat.net. Squat.net is based on WP:USERGENERATED content, but what we have here is WP:SELFSOURCE; the article isn't based primarily on these citations, they are being used to report the existence or eviction of these projects, which seems fine. Anyhow, I'll give the article a read now, definitely the 'see also' section can be pared back for starters. Mujinga (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Squat.net is squatting themed equivalent of Weebly and Blogspot in which some randos post stuff, not verified published experts. This makes it an unreliable source and do not comply with our sourcing guidelines not just in terms of reliability, but for due weight too. I run across this issue with rail fan that puts things into train articles in fan POV too. You're splitting hair with USERG and SPS, because there's little difference between a website under control of some random squatting advocate vs forum posts. Something worth noing in WP:SPS is that... if whatever contents is worth talking about, someone else would've already covered it. You objected sources beyond squat.net was removed. Well edit summary isn't going to let me write a five page summary. http://sosyalsavas.org.. same difference. There are other places for posting fan based contents. Graywalls (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not "splitting hairs" I am quoting policy I am sorry if that doesn't fit to your view. Your edit summary now appears to have been purposefully misleading, if you had just deleted squat links then it would have been fitting. The deleted links I replaced from istanbulstories.net and bianet are reliable in my opinion. "if whatever contents is worth talking about, someone else would've already covered it" - did you even bother checking? Mujinga (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga:, I see you've been importing references but as you do so, are you reading through every single one of them so they directly support what's in the prose? Graywalls (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: are you reading through every single one of them so they directly support what's in the prose please assume good faith, of course I am checking the sources I am adding. This article seems to have a problem with sentences with blue links not being referenced, so I am simply importing the refs, having checked them. Incidentally, this is something you could have done instead of whacking very vague tags on the top of the article. You still haven't answered my request for clarification, in my opinion the South America and Spain sections need some work and I'll hopefully get to that now. I am struggling to assume good faith on your part on this edit, but I'll put it down to ignorance not ill will on your part, since you seem to have a thing against big see also sections, yet ironically enough your edit has just trashed the work I did to prune that section. I would suggest Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as a guide here ... you were bold, I reverted, now we are discussing, it doesn't help for you to revert again. I've also put an inuse tag on the article since I am working on it and would ask you not to revert me again without prior talk page discussion.Mujinga (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It might look like from edit history but it actually took a bit to realize it as we were editing different parts of it.. .and not really reverting one another. Graywalls (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You asserted "I reverted the deletion since there were more sources than squat.net." but instead of re-insert just the other stuff, you re-inserting everything including that squat.net stuff in addition to removing my maintenance template objecting to the quality of sources. I'm struggling to assume you're not trying to push your version seeing you re-inserted squat.net again. When something is pulled, it is on the person reinserting to reliably support the contents they're adding back in per WP:BURDEN. Graywalls (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Look, if you are going to quote policy at me, you should take care not to make edits like this and this, where (as already explained) the edit summaries are far from descriptive of what you actually did. I also already replied about squat.net, quoting policy and you described my reply as "splitting hairs". I'm struggling to assume you're not trying to push your version seeing you re-inserted squat.net again. LOL maybe spend a bit less time trying to fathom my evil intentions - I actually just deleted a squat.net link with the edit summary "‎Turkey: delete Atopya project website, unneeded link". Perhaps, just perhaps, if you had made an edit like that instead of deleting two entire paragraphs, this whole section of discussion would be unnecessary. Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Do what you gotta do. I'll look at the changes when your series of edits are done and I'll look at what links you have used to replace "The deleted links I replaced from istanbulstories.net and bianet are reliable in my opinion." those two sites so I can comment. I'll check everything over when I have time. I only asked if you were checking the contents of each source against the prose, because they were getting added very quickly, certainly much much quicker than I could go through and verify. Graywalls (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

@Mujinga:, ok so which specific sources did you have questions on? Graywalls (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, it was you querying reliability of sources, so I asked you which ones you were talking about. Mujinga (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Squat.net and other sources

@Mujinga:, I object to all contents based on this website as well as some of the other obscure sources that don't meet reliable sources guideline. Graywalls (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not a good position to take when I have already pointed you to WP:SELFSOURCE. With the mostly user generated content on squat.net, it really depends how it is being used. The citation to Atopya's own website was obviously not that useful and I deleted it myself. The citation for the eviction of Caferağa is fine in my opinion since "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" and I'm assuming neither of us speak Turkish to find local sources.

With "other obscure sources" it would be better if you name them, since there are over 100 citations on this article. I have to suppose you mean istanbulstories.net and that site to me is a reliable secondary source, not the best but not the worst.

I will also ask you a second time not to use inflammatory language like bullshit, garbage, junk. It doesn't help your case much, this isn't a battleground, or at least it isn't for me, I'm here to build an encyclopedia.

On the "according to a neighbour" quote, I recently put that in simply as a means to remove the person's name, if you don't think it helps, that's fine. The important thing is to record the existence of the squat, not the comment. So I'll re-add that. Mujinga (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga:I disagree about the use of contents from squat.net; which I liken it to essentially deprecated indymedia.org. I looked at the pages and they are most definitely primary source and reporting the contents from blogs is not a representative of reliably published point of view. If you're chronicling the happenings reported by some blog, you're presenting things from the editorial decision to talk about things reliable media does not. Graywalls (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Graywalls, thanks for adding the fringesite tag to the Ireland section, I've easily found a better reference for Disco Disco. That's a great way to highlight contestable sources and I much prefer that to the "Unreliable sources" tag which I have removed since it is really not clear which sources you are referring to there, this article currently has 137 references. As I hope you have seen, I have been working to improve the article recently and constructive edits are welcome. Maybe we have to agree to disagree on squat.net since you still haven't engaged with my policy-based argument on WP:SELFSOURCE. Regarding the Caferağa squatnet link, this isn't "some blog", this is the project itself reporting its demise. Mujinga (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I addressed you regarding the use of Independent_Media_Center on my talk page in response to your message. Indymedia.org is related to that. The consensus is that that source is disreputable. It is about halfway down in WP:RSP. I'm here to build an encyclopedia and I consider the removal of information that don't conform to the stringent sourcing guidelines an improvement by trimming away fringe view and unreliable or undue information. To call my effort "trashed" as said in your directed edit specifically referencing my edit "(redo edits trashed by a bad revert, see talk Talk:Squatting#Improving_the_page)" is a personal insult and this is not the same as calling sources and contents derived from those sources junk Graywalls (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Article assessment

Hi @Graywalls:, regarding your edit with the summary who did the article assessment? I looked at the assessment quality and I disagree that it's a B; given all these sources like indymedia.org, squat.net, wordpress, etc. i find this a bad faith edit and want to discuss this with you further. Surely you know you can click "view history" and check the talk page edits. If you do so, you will see this edit with the summary Assessment (B): banner shell, Squatting, Cooperatives, Crime, Economics, Human rights, Law, Philosophy, Sociology, Urban studies and planning (Rater) by me. "Rater" means I used the rater plugin, which machine-judges articles for rating. It gives this article B. So do I, based on the WP:SQUAT criteria. These are listed here. Using these criteria I find this article B and wonder why you keep on (twice now) rating it C, since I see it meeting all the B criteria. Please expand on your rationale, because saying "given all these sources like indymedia.org, squat.net, wordpress, etc." is laughable - there are precisely 1 of each of indymedia, wordpress and squat.net amongst 134 other refs. And we are actually already in a debate about two of these refs, with me arguing for their retention. As always, I'm happy to collaborate to improve this article or explain my reasoning further. Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Your accusation of "bad faith" edit when I have already explained multiple times and you continue to put back in questioned sources until its proven otherwise to your expectation, then reverting it and calling those edits are "trashing" the article is a bad faith edit. Graywalls (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As with the section above, you aren't actually responding to what I am saying. You seem to be gearing up for a fight instead, which is unfortunate. Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You're calling my edits "trashing" and such, perhaps because you don't like them. I am trying to remove undue contents while providing proper explanations and it's going up against the reverse onus process even though the guidelines say the burden is on people looking to INCLUDE disputed contents. It seems as you "don't hear" the guidelines and consensus that you do not like. Continuing to insert these contents are fueling the disagreements. Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh huh alright ... well you are definitely in the wrong place sir. Here we are supposed to be discussing why you think the article should be assessed as C. My reasons for it being B have already been expressed. Mujinga (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

C, because: "The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style." from WP:ASSESS. Emphasis added by me. Policy violation being use of sources that have been challenged on which you have not established consensus, but keeps re-introducing against WP:ONUS, Balance/bias being the use of contents of POV sources. Graywalls (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Great thanks for the explanation, we got there in the end. To take the bits you highlighted:

It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow and then you say its about specifically about balance and "the use of contents of POV sources". Which sources out of the 137 references do you mean? If you mean the Caferağa citation from squat.net, then the discussion again comes back to WP:SELFSOURCE, please see above.

contain policy violations you says refers to "sources that have been challenged" err so is that it? you are saying an article is C not B quality because of one reference? that's a bizarre position to take Mujinga (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You're dragging your feet. You're experienced enough to be familiar with contents guidelines. Contents from sources such as, but not limited to http://centro73.wordpress.com/infomedia/, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/464052.html, https://whatever.squat.net which are all used within the article which violates WP:QS policy. I'm done repeating. This sufficiently explains to anyone reasonably experienced with WP editing. Graywalls (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll set "You're experienced enough to be familiar with contents guidelines" against "Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves" from WP:QS, which you just quoted at me but maybe didn't read to the end. Two of these three new sources have not entered the discussion before, despite its length and spread over several pages. I'll have a look now. I'm perfectly sure "anyone reasonably experienced with WP editing" can see what is going on here thanks. Mujinga (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

hence including, but not limited to. Graywalls (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

you realise what you just said doesn't make sense, right? Mujinga (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Radar

Hi Graywalls, I see you have now deleted the Radar agenda from external links, slightly more elegantly than last time. This tome round you gave "remove event calendar WP:PROMO" as the edit summary. On WP:PROMO, I can't see a reason why you would delete the link, since it's not Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment / Opinion pieces / Scandal mongering / Self-promo / Advertising, marketing or public relations, so I have re-added the link. Plus I gave Misplaced Pages:External links a read and I still think including this link is OK. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It serves no purpose other than showing event calendar. I disagree with your continuous re-addition of materials I remove. Get consensus to justify inclusion, not the other way around. Graywalls (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls and Mujinga - I have been following this dispute and hesitated to comment as the back and forth has grown tense. In the spirit of trying to achieve consensus, I am weighing in to say that I believe Graywalls has made the stronger case. The edits in question are in dispute because they are questionable in nature and based upon WP:QS by definition. Before reinserting the edits, I believe Mujinga should seek more community consensus. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Go4thProsper can you specify which edits you are referring to please? Mujinga (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion about individual squats

This is a high level article and I believe the re-insertion of what I removed in October with different source is rather undue, especially given the rather tenuous self-description of one source which says it's a thinktank, and the only tangentially related nature of the second (young people opposing demolition of historic building). The contents I believe to be undue.

Centro 73 was occupied (and evicted) in 2010 in Chişinău, Moldova. It is thought to have been the first squatted social centre in Moldova. Activists were attempting to prevent the building being demolished.

The balcanicaucaso.org source's "about" info description translated to English with Google translate reads:

OBC Transeuropa is a think tank that deals with Southeast Europe, Turkey and the Caucasus and explores the social, political and cultural transformations of six European Union (EU) member countries, seven countries participating in the European Enlargement process and of much of post-Soviet Europe involved in European Neighborhood Policy.

I don't feel that WP:ONUS has been established to include it. Graywalls (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Pinging @Czar: as they've also done substantial pruning on this article. Graywalls (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Caucaso, Osservatorio Balcani e. "Moldavia: Chișinău underground". OBC Transeuropa (in Italian). Retrieved 7 November 2020.
2. "Un grup de tineri a protestat azi împotriva demolării unei clădiri istorice din Capitală". Publika (in Romanian). 1 November 2010. Archived from the original on 2 June 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2020.

This is an article about the global phenomenon of squatting. It is the top article in the squatting hierarchy and concerns squatting globally. Under it are various articles on the level of country such as Squatting in the Netherlands and Squatting in the Czech Republic, under them articles about individual projects and people. I don't really understand (and you haven't explained) what exactly the problem is with an encyclopaedic entry on squatting containing three sentences about squatting in Moldova (apparently the first ever self-managed social centre there); sentences which moreover are cited to two reliable sources. Feel free to rephrase the entry on Moldova but deletion is not the best way forward, it just smacks of systemic bias.

Both sources are in my opinion reliable secondary sources, you seem to be querying balcanicaucaso.org which you can also read about directly in English. It has an editor and it co-ordinates the European Data Journalism Network, I don't see a problem there. Despite your doubt, an article discussing "young people opposing demolition of historic building" is useful here when it concerns a squatted social centre. As you will know if you've read the article, one established typology of squatting breaks it into five forms, one of which is "Conservational – preserving monuments because the authorities have let them decay". So again, not seeing a problem here.

Since I have bothered to take the time to engage with you Graywalls, I'd appreciate an answer to a question as well. Why are you still monitoring my edits on this article after it was said at an ANI I brought about your behaviour: "I will offer the advice that the two of you try to stay away from each other. Inasmuch as there are over 6.1 million articles here, half of which are stubs, that shouldn't be hard to do" and here at least you seemed to be complying with that advice? Mujinga (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class squatting articles
• Top-importance squatting articles
• WikiProject Squatting articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Economics articles
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Urban studies and planning articles
• Mid-importance Urban studies and planning articles