| Revision as of 16:07, 8 January 2021 editMujinga (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users53,162 edits →Moldova: historical building← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:14, 14 October 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers805,671 editsNo edit summary |
| (39 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{{Vital article|class=B|level=5|link=Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life|anchor=Housing (8 articles)}} |
|
|
{{talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Squatting |class=B |importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cooperatives |class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics |class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights |class=B |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law |class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy |class=B |importance=High |anarchism=yes |portal1-name=Anarchism}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology |class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Urban studies and planning |class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime |class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anarchism |class=B |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership|width=570}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/UC_Berkeley/Global_Poverty_and_Practice_(Spring_2019) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2019-01-24 | end_date = 2019-05-16 }} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo = old(180d) |
|
| algo = old(365d) |
|
| archive = Talk:Squatting/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = Talk:Squatting/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 1 |
|
| counter = 1 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Squatting |importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cooperatives|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anarchism}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Urban studies and planning|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Housing and Tenant Rights|importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership|width=570}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
== 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 ] content, but what we have here is ]; 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 11:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|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? ] (]) 10:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Graywalls}} {{tq|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 , but I'll put it down to ignorance not ill will on your part, since you ] against big see also sections, yet ironically enough your edit has just trashed the work I did to prune that section. I would suggest ] 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 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 and , 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". {{tq|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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
======(])======<!--Arbitrary break added to simplify section editing.--> |
|
|
{{ping|Mujinga}}, ok so which specific sources did you have questions on? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Squat.net and other sources== |
|
|
{{ping|Mujinga}}, I object to all contents based on this website as well as some of the other obscure sources that don't meet ] guideline. ] (]) 02:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
: That's not a good position to take when I have already pointed you to ]. With the mostly ] 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 , , . It doesn't help your case much, this isn't a ], 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. ] (]) 01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: {{ping|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. ] (]) 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 ]. Regarding the Caferağa squatnet link, this isn't "some blog", this is the project itself reporting its demise. ] (]) 12:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I addressed you regarding the use of ] 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 ]. 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 ] is a personal insult and this is not the same as calling sources and contents derived from those sources junk ] (]) 04:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article assessment == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi {{yo|Graywalls}}, regarding your with the summary {{tq| 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 {{tq|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 ] criteria. These are listed ]. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::: You're calling my edits "trashing" and such, perhaps because you ]. 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 ] disputed contents. It seems as you ] the guidelines and consensus that you do not like. Continuing to insert these contents are fueling the disagreements. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.<u> 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.</u> 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 ]. 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 ], Balance/bias being the use of contents of POV sources. ] (]) 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 ], 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 ] (]) 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 <u>'''not limited to'''</u> 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 ] policy. I'm done repeating. This sufficiently explains to anyone reasonably experienced with WP editing. ] (]) 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 ], 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. ] (]) 19:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
: hence including, but <u>not limited</u> to. ] (]) 20:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:: you realise what you just said doesn't make sense, right? ] (]) 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 . 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 ] a read and I still think including this link is OK. Cheers, ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:: ] and ] - 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 ] has made the stronger case. The edits in question are in dispute because they are questionable in nature and based upon ] by definition. Before reinserting the edits, I believe ] should seek more community consensus. ] (]) 23:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::: {{u|Go4thProsper}} can you specify which edits you are referring to please? ] (]) 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. |
|
|
] was occupied (and evicted) in 2010 in ], ]. It is thought to have been the first squatted social centre in Moldova. Activists were attempting to prevent the building being demolished.<ref name="Moldova">{{cite web |last1=Caucaso |first1=Osservatorio Balcani e |title=Moldavia: Chișinău underground |url=https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Moldavia/Moldavia-Chi-inau-underground-170763 |website=OBC Transeuropa |accessdate=7 November 2020 |language=it}}</ref><ref name="Publika">{{cite news |title=Un grup de tineri a protestat azi împotriva demolării unei clădiri istorice din Capitală |url=https://www.publika.md/un-grup-de-tineri-a-protestat-azi-impotriva-demolarii-unei-cladiri-istorice-din-capitala_130711.html |accessdate=4 October 2020 |work=Publika |date=1 November 2010 |language=ro |archive-date=2 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120602083920/http://www.publika.md/un-grup-de-tineri-a-protestat-azi-impotriva-demolarii-unei-cladiri-istorice-din-capitala_130711.html |url-status=live }}</ref> |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
The balcanicaucaso.org source's "about" info description translated to English with Google translate reads: |
|
|
<blockquote>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. </blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't feel that ] has been established to include it. ] (]) 19:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
Pinging {{re|Czar}} as they've also done substantial pruning on this article. ] (]) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::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 ] and ], 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 at least you seemed to be complying with that advice? ] (]) 10:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Nothing at ANI suggested that I let you have your way and surrender editing on squatting related articles. I noticed something I removed had been added back in. I am discussing this the matter on talk page as a matter of contents dispute. I believe that inclusion about the happenings at individual squats are ]. This is not a personnel dispute. I started a discussion here to discuss what has been added. Not about who did it. ] (]) 00:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: But to address Mujinga's question, I watch pages I have worked on before, as well as those that interest me. That's the end of it. Nothing in the discussion suggested that an article on which your authorship precedes mine should become an entry barrier against me. You're just as free to abandon working on squatting related articles even though I am not suggesting that you should have to. ] (]) 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: "Nothing at ANI suggested" and "nothing in the discussion suggested" except perhaps the very comment "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". Look we both know you edit by watchlist, and we both know you were stalking my edits. I hoped the latter had stopped for good with you recognising your trolling behaviour on , summary "avoding this page for now". ] (]) 16:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* OBCT is an academic think tank so I'd treat it like any other source without an explicit editorial policy, i.e., as long as it isn't pointedly biased (since it also contains activists), is sufficient for citation. ] should be okay too, though I would not expect thorough analysis beyond first-hand reporting from TV news. This said, I don't think the issue is source reliability here. Both sources say very little about the actual squat and do not source basic info on the occupation/eviction. If these are the best sources for this info, I'd ask why it's important to mention here at all. The bigger question is how this article should be functioning as ]. The parts that read best provide some kind of connective tissue between squats and the practice in a region, avoiding ]. I'd suggest drawing the line at passages like the one above because the article is not going to go into depth about Moldova and this info doesn't bring any additional clarity to the concept of "squatting in Europe". The goal would be what info is necessary to illustrate that broad concept. A portion of this passage could make sense elsewhere if you wanted to illustrate, for instance, an example of squatting to oppose demolition. <small>(not ], please <code>{{tl|ping}}</code>)</small> <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 01:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sooooo what I am able to extract from this wonderful discussion are the claims that the three sentences on Moldova should not be added because 1/the sources are bad and 2/it is undue. 1/We have now established that the sources are OK. 2/Regarding three sentences about Moldova being undue, the only relevant argument given is because "the article is not going to go into depth about Moldova and this info doesn't bring any additional clarity to the concept of "squatting in Europe"", otherwise there is just a strawman argument saying "inclusion about the happenings at individual squats are undue." |
|
|
|
|
|
To answer on point2, there is actually no monolithic thing such as "squatting in Europe" and it would be systemic bias to assume there was. There are very different histories which should all be mentioned on this page, which is after all the global overview for the phenomenon. Mention of squatting in Moldova should of course go here (where else?) and then be spun off eventually into ] if/when it is required. As Piotrowski makes clear, the history of squatting in central and eastern Europe has followed a very different trajectory to western Europe or indeed USA. I've added the context to the article and thus I believe the concerns mentioned here have been resolved satisfactorily. If anyone wants to (shock horror) add information to the page on this point instead of deleting it, the special edition of ''Baltic Worlds'' would be a decent place to start. ] (]) 16:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This article should describe and summarize squatting. The Publika.md source is reliable for the fact that that young people opposed the demolition of a building of historical significance, which happens... just like people opposing felling a tree to build a building. This article as it is contains, in my opinion way too much mentions and references to individual squat houses which in the large picture in my opinion is not pertinent to the bigger picture. Creating articles about "squatting in (each country)" might be content forking unless there's sufficient coverage to justify such creation. There's such thing as ], which actually happens a lot with rail related articles where some editors try to include nearly exhaustive details about each serial number of train cars and such minor details. Misplaced Pages pages aren't journals or books. As an encyclopedia, details about specific squat houses maybe excessively undue details. ] (]) 23:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I see Centro73 was added again, but ] to inclusion has not been achieved. Do you believe the inclusion is due at all? {{re|Czar}}? And to avoid any misunderstanding here, with just those two sources, should Centro 73 be mentioned at all regardless of phrasing? ] (]) 00:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I agree that creating a prose list of individual squats is not pertinent to the larger picture. Individual squats can be covered in breakout articles where appropriate, but the endgame of listing isolated squats where there is no larger narrative is not conducive to an overview article. To incorporate those, something like ] would be a better target. |
|
|
::: It seems unrealistic that there will be enough content for a ] article any time soon, so not seeing how that argument holds. ] might be a different story. Overview articles are meant to house ] excerpts from larger sub-articles, but not indefinitely hold minor details of specific countries just because that fact doesn't live in another article. |
|
|
::: {{ping|Graywalls|p=}}, agreed that it shouldn't be re-added without talk page consensus. Adding it back while the discussion is live is ]. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 22:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: This is pathetic. I want to improve this page and I have had to deal with trolling behaviour for over a month now. Regarding these sentences about squatting in Moldova, I attempted a compromise by rephrasing and contextualising, and the new edits have been deleted without any real justification. Vague recourse to policy doesn't get past the systemic bias in not including salient information from Moldova. In any case, the latest policy referred to is ] which states "Ideally, many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections" and "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." |
|
|
|
|
|
::::With their recent edits on this article, Graywalls has among other things misread a source, misunderstood that there are different legal systems within the UK and deleted blue links without bothering to find references. It's getting to the point where the article is being harmed by these edits and the same pattern is going on at other pages such as ] as well. Graywalls has pestered Czar to intervene here. I find it quite sad that an admin doesn't know better, and I am particularly offended by the of Czar calling me a "pig". I'll suggest a new version of the sentences about Moldova, something which I'll note both Czar and Graywalls have repeatedly shown no interest in doing. ] (]) 16:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I read over the lexology source again and it only says "United Kingdom" and does not identify where in UK. If it said England, then I wouldn't have put it there. What are you supposing where it is applicable to when something says "United Kingdom"? ] (]) 04:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC) I'll go ahead and ping {{re|Czar}}, per their request as they say they're not watching the page. ] (]) 08:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The snippet below has been added again. It doesn't appear we've come to a consensus. {{re|Czar}}. am I mistaken? There's also been no participation from other users. ] (]) 09:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
The first squatted, self-managed social centre was founded in 2010 in the capital ]. ] hosted alternative events and activists attempted to prevent the monumental building from being demolished.<ref name="OBCT">{{cite web |last1=Caucaso |first1=Osservatorio Balcani e |title=Moldavia: Chișinău underground |url=https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Moldavia/Moldavia-Chi-inau-underground-170763 |website=OBC Transeuropa |accessdate=7 November 2020 |language=it |archive-date=16 June 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160616174747/http://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Moldavia/Moldavia-Chi-inau-underground-170763 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Publika">{{cite news |title=Un grup de tineri a protestat azi împotriva demolării unei clădiri istorice din Capitală |url=https://www.publika.md/un-grup-de-tineri-a-protestat-azi-impotriva-demolarii-unei-cladiri-istorice-din-capitala_130711.html |accessdate=4 October 2020 |work=Publika |date=1 November 2010 |language=ro |archive-date=2 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120602083920/http://www.publika.md/un-grup-de-tineri-a-protestat-azi-impotriva-demolarii-unei-cladiri-istorice-din-capitala_130711.html |url-status=live }}</ref> It was quickly evicted and the group occupied the old Turkish embassy before being given a building to use for artistic events by the city council.<ref name="OBCT" /> |
|
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
|
:* Catching up on pings. You're correct that the discussion went stale (no consensus) and that it isn't an invitation to re-add the content. The article state has really improved since October so kudos, Mujinga. I have the same stance on the sourcing now as I did then, but given the current paragraph and brief mention of Rozbrat in Poland, a single sentence on Centro 73 would not be ]. I've suggested phrasing below and hope it's a suitable compromise. |
|
|
:: Mujinga, the idiom you linked was not directed at you, so please don't take it personally. On the topic of language, though, if you would please stop using harsh, charged terms like "pathetic", "trolling", "pestered", "quite sad", and instead keep to the material, these discussions would be less tense for all involved. I would prefer to collaborate with you but that language is not collaboratory. |
|
|
:: I hope you both have a happy and peaceful New Year, <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 08:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Moldova == |
|
|
|
|
|
For some reason I have yet to fully fathom, information about Moldova is being deleted from this page. I'll suggest a new version here and hope for some constructive discussion. ] (]) 16:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In ], homeless people live in state-run shelters or squatter camps.<ref name="Negură">{{cite journal |last1=Negură |first1=Petru |title=The State Policy towards the Homeless in Moldova between the ‘Left Hand’ and the ‘Right Hand’. The Case of Chișinău Shelter |journal=Südosteuropa |date=26 June 2019 |volume=67 |issue=2 |pages=175–195 |doi=10.1515/soeu-2019-0013}}</ref> The first squatted, self-managed social centre was founded in 2010 in the capital ]. ] hosted alternative events and activists attempted to prevent the monumental building from being demolished.<ref name="OBCT">{{cite web |last1=Caucaso |first1=Osservatorio Balcani e |title=Moldavia: Chișinău underground |url=https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Moldavia/Moldavia-Chi-inau-underground-170763 |website=OBC Transeuropa |accessdate=7 November 2020 |language=it}}</ref><ref name="Publika">{{cite news |title=Un grup de tineri a protestat azi împotriva demolării unei clădiri istorice din Capitală |url=https://www.publika.md/un-grup-de-tineri-a-protestat-azi-impotriva-demolarii-unei-cladiri-istorice-din-capitala_130711.html |accessdate=4 October 2020 |work=Publika |date=1 November 2010 |language=ro |archive-date=2 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120602083920/http://www.publika.md/un-grup-de-tineri-a-protestat-azi-impotriva-demolarii-unei-cladiri-istorice-din-capitala_130711.html |url-status=live }}</ref> It was quickly evicted and the group occupied the old Turkish embassy before being given a building to use for artistic events by the city council.<ref name="OBCT" /> |
|
|
{{Reftalk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
After no comments at all were made here for one month, I added the sentences above. Most of it was deleted without discussion, so I've re-added it. Why delete reliably sourced information about Moldova? Per ] this article is discussing a worldwide phenomenon. I'm seeing no attempt at all to collaborate to improve the coverage of squatting in central and eastern Europe. ] (]) 13:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
: I disagree with the inclusion and it has been discussed at length in the section immediately above this. No consensus has been established. When inclusion is disputed, it remains off until consensus is established to include it, per ]. ] (]) 01:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative: |
|
|
In ], homeless people live in state-run shelters or squatter camps.<ref name="Negură">{{cite journal |last1=Negură |first1=Petru |title=The State Policy towards the Homeless in Moldova between the ‘Left Hand’ and the ‘Right Hand’. The Case of Chișinău Shelter |journal=Südosteuropa |date=26 June 2019 |volume=67 |issue=2 |pages=175–195 |doi=10.1515/soeu-2019-0013}}</ref> Squatters in ], Moldova's first squatted, self-managed social centre, attempted to prevent the historical building from demolition, but were quickly evicted and given another building for art events.<ref name="OBCT">{{cite web |last1=Caucaso |first1=Osservatorio Balcani e |title=Moldavia: Chișinău underground |url=https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Moldavia/Moldavia-Chi-inau-underground-170763 |website=OBC Transeuropa |accessdate=7 November 2020 |language=it}}</ref><ref name="Publika">{{cite news |title=Un grup de tineri a protestat azi împotriva demolării unei clădiri istorice din Capitală |url=https://www.publika.md/un-grup-de-tineri-a-protestat-azi-impotriva-demolarii-unei-cladiri-istorice-din-capitala_130711.html |accessdate=4 October 2020 |work=Publika |date=1 November 2010 |language=ro |archive-date=2 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120602083920/http://www.publika.md/un-grup-de-tineri-a-protestat-azi-impotriva-demolarii-unei-cladiri-istorice-din-capitala_130711.html |url-status=live }}</ref> |
|
|
{{sources-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
For due weight, given the sourcing, a single, concise sentence will do. I'm assuming here that "monumental" meant historically protected rather than large. Graywalls, is this a workable compromise? <small>(not ], please <code>{{tl|ping}}</code>)</small> <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 08:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks for the suggestion I'd be OK with that but would prefer "historical monument" if "monumental" doesn't work since it's a listed building and for me "historical" used on its own doesn't convey that meaning. ] (]) 19:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Replacing it with '']'' (with a link) sounds okay. My concern is that "]/]" on the English WP typically refers to memorial statues and obelisks, not buildings, so I didn't want that to get lost in translation. Replacing with something like ] or ] would be the best general descriptor, I think, but if it's important to specify to use the word "monument" then "monument istoric" with a link works. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 01:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Well, do you find that there's enough relevance between this building and squatting, or is it more of something about the building? That may be better suited for something about building than squatting. Let me know what you think. I don't believe that mention of Centro 73 by name is necessary in this overview article. ] (]) 14:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: The relevance would be that it was the first in Moldova, a relatively new nation, and that the overview article should have at least a little leeway because Moldova doesn't (won't?) have its own breakout article. Agreed that in principle this overview article should stay high-level, but that still leaves room for editorial discretion if a singular squat is a regional highlight. Given the cleanup in the rest of the article, structure of the paragraph, and compromise to keep it to a single sentence, if this case was borderline before, it's hard to argue now that this fact alone is still ] (i.e., see Poland's Rozbrat in the next sentence). If someone wants to pick at it in a future GA/FA review, that's their prerogative, but for now and without any broader, overarching source to replace the current sources, I think the compromise sentence should meet everyone's needs. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 01:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
{{ping|Czar}}, I trust that you have a good understanding of balancing things out. As someone who have been less involved in the dispute, if you don't mind, please go ahead and make changes you feel would be appropriate. ] (]) 07:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
: {{done}} <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 04:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Thanks for that Czar. It's a minor tweak but I'll take out ] since that denotes "National Heritage Sites in Romania" and thus doesn't apply. I've gone back to your suggestion of "historical building" ] (]) 16:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==UK legality== |
|
|
In edit, summary says three distinct systems. The source I cited only says United Kingdom and do not indicate which specific area it applies to, so it seems reasonable to include it as applicable to the entire UK. I reverted it back, because the way the source is written does not separate out which part of UK it applies to, so applying to all appears to be proper. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, why is "On 1 September 2012, under Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, squatting in residential property was criminalised by the Government, punishable by up to six months in prison or a £5000 fine, or both." supported by source in England section if the source says "England + Wales" ? ] (]) 04:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Challenging the re-addition of these Squat.net primary SPS == |
|
|
I have removed these links previously, because they're first hand account about an apparently non-notable matter. The authorship is questionable and inclusion seems to be unjustifiable even when attributed. The contents disputed are |
|
|
https://web.archive.org/web/20160919094010/https://en.squat.net/2014/12/19/istanbul-caferaga-mahalle-evi-squatted-community-centre-in-kadikoy-evicted/ ] (]) 01:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Please drop the ], I'm not sure why this needs discussion again. This specific link is needed to back the noncontroversial claims that the centre was in Kadikoy and was evicted in December. If you click through you'll see it's a translation of a statement by the group itself. ] (]) 11:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:: It does not pass ]. It might be appropriate reference for aboutself if the group was notable for its own article, but I feel it is undue to source to a page that is a primary source self published rambling by the group itself on an overview high-level article such as this one. ] (]) 11:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: As previously stated, ] cover this ] (]) 13:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am finding it objectionable that questionable, ] or ] sources continue to be added. I have removed for the second time |
|
|
" There have been major housing movements and periods of squatting in Ireland, including the activities of the ] and ]s of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Each had a militant campaign which participated in dozens or hundreds of actions and protests in demand of better housing conditions" sourced to "cite book|editor1-last=Squatting Everywhere Kollective |last1=MacSimoin |first1=Alan|chapter= The hidden history of squatting in Ireland |title=Fighting for spaces, fighting for our lives: Squatting movements today |date=2018 |publisher=edition assemblage |location=Münster |isbn=9783942885904 |pages=182–185 |edition=1|url=http://struggle.ws/ws/squat48.html |access-date=2015-02-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180605204220/http://struggle.ws/ws/squat48.html |archive-date=2018-06-05". That URL was originally present in the article sourced to "anarchist writers". Now a book and ISBN are inserted, along with this URL but I can not find any correlation of that website to that book. When I search some of phrases within that struggle.ws source, I find exact copies in questionable sites like squat.net but there's no credible reference connecting that source to the book. I was able to track down that book. Within that book, it appears as "Guest article - Alan MacSimoin writing for Workers Solidarity http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/squat48.html http://struggle.ws/ws/squat48.html". I still find the inclusion in this high-level overview article objectionable. I welcome input from editors. ] (]) 08:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
: If a source's authorship cannot be confirmed/attributed (i.e., anyone could have posted it), then it can't be used as a ]. <small>(not ], please <code>{{tl|ping}}</code>)</small> <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 08:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: ] doesn't apply to Graywalls' latest discussion point, which is about deleting information referenced to the book ''Fighting for spaces, fighting for our lives: Squatting movements today'' (). I'd be totally within my rights to re-add this info since it's clearly referenced to a reliable secondary source, but I'll wait a bit for other editors to comment, in the spirit of making a new start for 2021. To track the article in question, it is titled ''The hidden history of squatting in Ireland'' and was written by historian for publication by the Irish group Workers Solidarity Movement. It is helpfully hosted online at http://struggle.ws/ws/squat48.html and https://web.archive.org/web/20000613222259/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/squat48.html. It was then recently republished in ''Fighting for spaces, fighting for our lives: Squatting movements today'' and clearly gives useful historical information about squatting in Ireland so I'd propose this info is be re-added. ] (]) 20:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I tracked down the book where that stuff came from and it's basically a compilation of reader submitted essay and I would liken it to Letters to the Editor and columns. Those sources do not constitute ] other than to say that John Doe #23 wrote the newspaper and said so and so, but to include that sort of thing is a matter of due weight. ] (]) 00:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC) {{re|Czar}} pinging as requested. |
|
|
::: "my rights to re-add" that's edit warring. ] makes it anyone's rights to remove things that can not be reliably verified. Verifiability is a minimum requisite, but verifiable is not an entitlement to inclusion. Disputed content must establish consensus per ]. So far, you have been the only one wanting to include it. ] (]) 00:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== MacSimoin === |
|
|
{{talk quote block|There have been major housing movements and periods of squatting in Ireland, including the activities of the ] and ]s of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Each had a militant campaign which participated in dozens or hundreds of actions and protests in demand of better housing conditions.<ref name="HHI">{{cite book|editor1-last=Squatting Everywhere Kollective |last1=MacSimoin |first1=Alan|chapter= The hidden history of squatting in Ireland |title=Fighting for spaces, fighting for our lives: Squatting movements today |date=2018 |publisher=edition assemblage |location=Münster |isbn=9783942885904 |pages=182–185 |edition=1|url=http://struggle.ws/ws/squat48.html |access-date=2015-02-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180605204220/http://struggle.ws/ws/squat48.html |archive-date=2018-06-05 }}</ref>{{reflist-talk}}|source=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Squatting&diff=997170527&oldid=996202059}} |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a nuanced case, so some detail: |
|
|
# Just on the link itself, it's unclear how long struggle.ws has been hosting the ]'s website and archive but it . Its index this essay was published there shortly after it was printed in 1996. (fwiw, most times I come across struggle.ws on WP, it's a ], but the link seems fine in this case.) The license point is moot because ''Fighting for spaces'' is published under a cc-by-nc-nd-3.0 license , so can just use that link. The author on page 168 looks familiar. ;) |
|
|
# Talking about the book itself, it's from a radical left press ({{ill|Edition Assemblage|de}}) and appears to be mainly featuring "the voices of activists directly embedded in local struggles" (i.e., in their own voices). ] comes from editorial process (publisher/editor's reputation for fact-checking/accuracy), which is hard to see here if it's aggregating work without reviewing or editing. |
|
|
# Looking at the chapter independent of the book then, if it comes verbatim from elsewhere, MacSimoin wrote it for Workers Solidarity {{oclc|51859611}}, an Irish anarchist paper published by the Workers Solidarity Movement, of which MacSimoin was a founding member. In what I've reviewed, I haven't seen an indication that the masthead reviews for factual accuracy. And per the top of the article, MacSimoin wrote this history as a participant in the Dublin squatters movement. Between MacSimoin's connection to the topic and the lack of editorial oversight (book or periodical), it'd be a hard case to call this history ]. One could make a case for it as a ] in MacSimoin's capacity as a historian of Ireland, but per that policy, we'd need to discuss if the author's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". (Most of MacSimoin's works in WorldCat appear to be published through Workers Solidarity, personally affiliated.) Even then, it'd still be subject to ] as a participant, so claims like "major" housing movements and "hundreds" of actions would be better cited by a secondary source. |
|
|
All in all, there should be better citations available for these claims, or replacements. Here's one such alternative: |
|
|
{{talk quote block|1=Groups in Dublin and Derry organized squats during a ], leading to an anti-squatter law.}} <small>(not ], please <code>{{tl|ping}}</code> if needed)</small> <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 01:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi {{ping|Czar}} thanks for the suggestion. You are right that the original sentence can be improved (although that wasn't the original discussion) and I appreciate the suggestion of an alternative sentence since it's a much more constructive way of interacting. I'd like to keep the links for the Housing Action Committees since they were historically significant. Further we need to consider this information as part of the Irish section. With the extra sources info on the 1960s and 1970s can be expanded a bit! So I'll suggest some rejigged sentences, feel free to add something more from your sources to improve it if you want: |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{talk quote block|During the 1960s, the ] in Dublin became a political issue.<ref name="Hanna">{{cite book |last1=Hanna |first1=Erika |title=Modern Dublin: Urban Change and the Irish Past, 1957-1973 |publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-150162-3 |page=125 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LCVoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA125 |language=en}}</ref> The ] formed in 1967 and inspired the formation of other similar groups, including the ] in ].<ref name="Hanna" /> The government responded by introducing the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act of 1971.<ref name="Hill">{{cite book |last1=Hill |first1=J. R. |title=A New History of Ireland Volume VII: Ireland, 1921-84 |publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-161559-7 |page=323 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PfFXarIhGqEC&pg=PA323 |language=en}}</ref> By 1976, the Dublin Squatters Association had been formed and to represent the families squatting in the city.<ref name="HHI">{{cite book|editor1-last=Squatting Everywhere Kollective |last1=MacSimoin |first1=Alan|chapter= The hidden history of squatting in Ireland |title=Fighting for spaces, fighting for our lives: Squatting movements today |date=2018 |publisher=edition assemblage |location=Münster |isbn=9783942885904 |pages=182–185 |edition=1|url=https://sqek.squat.net/wp-content/uploads/sqek/2018/10/sqek-fighting-nocover.pdf |access-date=2021-01-03 }}</ref> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Reftalk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are over one billion squatters worldwide and the phenomenon is under-represented on Misplaced Pages. Join ] to help write articles about squatters, squats and squatting in every country across the globe. Or drop a message on the ] about something else you'd like to see covered, input is welcome. This is just one of many ways to counter systemic bias on Misplaced Pages! ] (]) 11:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I would like to keep the original MacSimoin reference since I think I can argue for it being a reliable secondary source. The original source is no doubt ''Workers Solidarity'' 48 but since a pdf has been found for the SqEK book then we can use that instead. It's clear to me that the SqEK book is a reliable secondary source; "SqEK" are listed as the editorial collective and there is an editorial introduction on page 3. I don't know Editions Assemblage, but from their they seem like a leftwing publisher on the lines of ] or ]. SqEK have on Pluto, ] and ] so they appear to be in good standing as well. Further, the claims being sourced to MacSimoin are not extraordinary (unlike the original sentence). ] (]) 15:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: The MacSimoin cannot be a secondary source because it was written by someone involved in the events. In terms of reliability, it would have to rest in MacSimoin's ] unless there is some indication that SqEK edited the works—it appears they just aggregated the chapters. What makes it reliable is the ], not just that it was published. I don't think it would pass muster at ] given its self-published origins and author affiliation. |
|
|
:: How about this one? Should be a suitable alternative source for the straightforward fact of when the association was formed: {{Cite web |last1=McDermott |first1=Fiachradh |title=The short history of squatting in Dublin: Rejecting consumerism and being 'a bit punk' |work=] |date=2017-12-27 |url=https://www.thejournal.ie/squatting-dublin-3771031-Dec2017/ |language=en |accessdate=2021-01-06 }} If good, then the rest of the proposal above sounds good too. |
|
|
:: <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 04:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::: "unless there is some indication that SqEK edited the works" → {{tq|"SqEK" are listed as the editorial collective and there is an editorial introduction on page 3}} - I'm really not sure how I could be any clearer on that. But moving on yeah I'd be fine with the alternative, thanks for suggesting it. That would work for me. ] (]) 15:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I'm not really following the whole point about having published on Routledge, and MacMillan. Those books that are published there can certainly be used, but I don't believe contents made by a group can be used simply by hinging off of having books published through those publishers in their portfolio. If the argument is group blog should be recognized as good source, because the group have previously published on those publisher, I don't believe that flies. ] (]) 12:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== This does not belong in the "Libertarian" Catagory == |
|
== Kibera / Smith == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A large part of the Libertarian Ideology is personal property rights, which squatting does not respect. |
|
Graywall's latest deletion is . The initial reason was "per ]". Just because something is labelled as blog doesn't invalidate it as a source. I replied that David A. Smith is a subject area expert and gave the to his page as instructor at the ], which states: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary Source: |
|
DAVID A. SMITH is the founder and CEO of the Affordable Housing Institute (AHI), which develops sustainable housing financial ecosystems worldwide. With more than 30 years' '''direct experience in affordable housing''', Mr. Smith uniquely combines the roles of practitioner and theoretician, participant and policymaker. AHI and Mr. Smith have advised the likes of the World Bank, USAID, The Gates Foundation, The Rockafeller Foundation and The African Banking Association. '''His work as an international housing finance policy advisor/ program developer encompasses projects''' on Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, India, Ireland, Kenya, Middle East, Panama, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Turkey, and United Kingdom, and he is a much sought-after speaker on affordable housing issues around the world. In the USA, David provides high-quality analysis to the US Congress, and was a principal member of the 1996 US Senate mark-to-market working group. A 1975 Harvard graduate, he is an '''award-winning author with more than 100 published articles in real estate, valuation, and policy periodicals, and a textbook.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/liberty-property |
|
Emphasis added for relevant parts. I was then reverted by Graywalls with edit summary: {{tq|"subject matter expert" is established by recognition and citation history. Someone who has authored journals and books on this matter, and whose work on the relevant matter has been cited extensively can then be considered subject matter expert when they talk about those things. I looked into him and I couldn't find him being cited as experts in academic materials through Google Scholars. "Founder and CEO Affordable Housing Institute (AHI)" doesn't imply expertise on squatting}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Secondary Source: |
|
So now the issue is that Smith is not a subject matter expert. Not being able to find him on google is perhaps a problem with the name being a common one, since there do seem to be a lot of other David Smiths. In any case, here are a few of his publications: |
|
|
* for Oxfam America |
|
|
* in ] |
|
|
*Mark‐to‐market: A fundamental shift in affordable housing policy - https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.1999.9521330 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/ ] (]) 20:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
He also won the 2014 President’s Award from National Affordable Housing Management Association in "in recognition of his visionary leadership and significant contributions to the affordable housing industry". So I think it's pretty clear he is an expert on the topic at hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The important thing of course is that ] is mentioned in the article, if someone wants to actually ], please go ahead. To talk more generally, Graywalls has been challenging my edits on this article since October and I'd respectfully suggest per ] "there are 6,222,581 other articles on the English Misplaced Pages to improve and discuss". ] (]) 15:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
:Whilst I would agree that squatting is not part of the make-up of modern right-wing libertarianism, historical left-wing libertarianism certainly disputed property rights, as discussed in our own article on ] ] (]) 11:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
: Businesswire press release article based on a source related to the organization awarding the award. What I am saying is, let's see evidence of what he's published having been CITED and recognized by others in relation to things related to squatting. In other words, show that he's someone other scholars go to as the leading expert on squatting matters. Once that's established, then using his self published blog might be considered appropriate, but really blogs and such are best avoided whenever possible even then. I am challenging contents related concerns civilly. Per the 5P4 cited, you're free to go work on other topics you like editing instead of continuing to add contents that maybe challenged to squatting, or squatting in the United States and squatting related articles. " I'd be totally within my rights to re-add" and such is not a collaborative approach to editorial disputes. I provided my reasoning for why including contents based on that source used. I'm open to input from other editors. ] (]) 07:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I'm not seeing where this source makes the (sizable) claim that there are "large squatter communities in Kenya". (This would also be better expressed with more specifics on what "large" means.) It would be more direct, for instance, to say something to the effect of "a fifth of Nairobi lives in Kibera, which is historically squatted ground". I would want a higher quality source for a broad claim of that magnitude. This is a reasonable ] discussion and should neutrally advance to ] if you cannot find talk page agreement. I don't think it's fair to cite 5P4—the way it's written, it works both ways. <small>(not ], please <code>{{tl|ping}}</code> if needed)</small> <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 04:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Err, I'll repeat, if anyone wants to actually ], please go ahead. The thing you are both conveniently forgetting re ] is that I went to ANI because Graywalls was stalking my edits and the advice given there was "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 yet here we are, several months later. ] (]) 15:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
There are over one billion squatters worldwide and the phenomenon is under-represented on Misplaced Pages. Join WP:SQUAT to help write articles about squatters, squats and squatting in every country across the globe. Or drop a message on the talkpage about something else you'd like to see covered, input is welcome. This is just one of many ways to counter systemic bias on Misplaced Pages! Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
A large part of the Libertarian Ideology is personal property rights, which squatting does not respect.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
