Jump to content

Talk:Bungehuis and Maagdenhuis occupations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality

[edit]
Resolved neutrality discussion

This article appears to be written entirely from the point of view of the protesters, and appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as yet another platform on which to transmit their protest. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61, this is now the second time that you have made that objection without any evidence to back it up with. The first time you tried to have it deleted against the guidelines, which state that new articles should be approached carefully and not dismissed out of hand. The issues you had raised then have now been corrected as far I see. If you disagree, then provide evidence showing that it is indeed biased and 'another attempt to transmit the protest', or I will remove the neutrality notice per the guidelines: 'Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.'

So go on, provide that contribution or show why it 'appears' to you to be biased.Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bias is apparent in the fact that the entire article serves to promulgate the protesters' point of view with no attempt made to present the University's position. It further goes out of its way to color the language in favor of the students (with their "more conciliatory efforts" to fight the "very drastic cuts"). It is sourced extensively to articles from Folia, the university's own student-run magazine (whose neutrality in the matter must be questioned), or to the website of the Humanities Rally group that is at the heart of this protest. The events have received national attention, and the citations reflect that, but the lack of balance in presenting the university's position is disturbing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only go by the actual examples of supposed bias you provide, and you mention three concrete points. 1. 'more conciliatory efforts', how would you prefer to have that worded? The efforts in question are those which are less drastic than occupation, like organizing demonstrations and petitions. I have edited it to reflect that, which is a factual claim (demonstrations and petitions are more conciliatory forms of protest than an occupation). 2. The sentence 'very drastic cuts', you're right, I edited that to make sure it reflects the opinions of the people in question by adding 'what they perceived to be'. 3. References to Folia, which is a student-run magazine by the University itself. You probably don't know Dutch, so your ignorance regarding this is understandable, but Folia is far from a biased source. The main column that is currently on its front-page is written against the occupation, and the 'live blogs' are all written from a neutral point of view. In fact, it is arguably biased against the occupiers. This is not strange because it is a University-run magazine. But you have failed to give concrete examples of a reference to Folia which you find problematic, and this also goes for Humanities Rally. The references to Humanities Rally is a purely factual one, namely when their demands or petitions are mentioned that are available on their website. So please provide the examples of which reference(s) for which claims you find problematic, and I will fix that. Unless you do that, your claim is without foundation. Finally, you say the point of view of the University is not presented. Again, provide a concrete example of this so that it can be fixed.

I find it disturbing that you have been breaking Wiki guidelines since this article was started, first by proposing to have it deleted based on the factually inaccurate claim that it was a mere 'local' protest with no national significance (demonstrably false), and then by adding a disputed notification without following the guidelines of resolving it, which are: 'Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.'

You seem to be the one who is biased here, unless, again, you provide concrete examples of bias which I (and others) can fix, so that the dispute notification can be taken down with consensus. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Raskolnikov.Rev: I have given the reasons for my belief that the article is not neutral. The largest issue is that it presents only the protesters' side of the conflict without giving any voice to the University. Surely there are reasons why the austerity measures have been introduced, but no voice is given to that side of the issue. As to the issue of "more conciliatory efforts", I would request that the actual steps that the students took prior to the occupation. A background section, listing the events leading up to the occupation, including the University's actions, the protesters' initial reactions (demonstrations, petitions, etc), the University's response to those initial actions, etc. A chronology of events, showing the actions of both sides of the conflict, would provide a neutral picture of the state of affairs.
And please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I have followed Wikipedia policy as I interpret it in dealing with this article. You have asked that I make contributions to resolve the neutrality issue. I cannot fix the actual article because I don't read Dutch and so cannot properly interpret the available source material. Therefore, I have taken the action that I could: I marked the article as having a neutrality issue, and then I explained the perceived neutrality issue on this talk page. This discussion is the natural outcome of that neutrality tag, and when resolved, I hope we can remove the tag. The resolution is not an instantaneous event; it takes time. The tag is temporary, but I don't believe we're ready to remove it yet. You are free to seek a third opinion or follow other dispute resolution mechanisms if you prefer. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree on the lack of neutrality. I do speak dutch and can say it is showing only one point of view. http://www.uva.nl/nieuws-agenda/nieuws/uva-nieuws/item/college-van-bestuur-betreurt-uitkomst-gesprek-met-bezetters-bungehuis.html This article is a reaction from the university officials that talks with the occupiers have failed and how they feel bout that. The official website, the public documents of the trial and the statements of the city are totally missing in the sources AND the actual content. On top of this, I have to question the entire relevance of this article. This is an conflict within a university that is "ongoing". Without stating my opinion bout this conflict, it remains to be seen if the occupation will have any relevance. For example. The "maagdenhuisbezetting" occupation doesn't have an article like this but is part of the article belonging to the building on the dutch wiki.
The article doesn't have any encyclopidic relevance as it is now. It is bout a conflict between (some) students of the UVA and the board of the same iniversity. This has no historic value at all unless this would be the start of a much bigger movement. In that case the article bout that movement would be the place to note this occupation. So I would step this up one bit further and disagree with the existence of this page.143.176.92.106 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61:

I have made edits to add more explicitly the point of view of the University, please review it again to see if that is sufficient, and if not, what more could be added and where to ensure that it is. As for the user above who speaks Dutch, you replied before the edit I assume, because the University's response is now referenced (and already was in the many other references; again, FoliaWeb, NOS, AT5, etc. are not biased sources). If you believe that is not sufficient, make the necessary edits. Your personal opinion about the relevance of the occupation is irrelevant. It has been shown that it is more than a mere 'local' affair. And of course by denying that this is so, ignoring all the facts that show otherwise (national news attention given to it, parliamentarians asking parliamentary questions about it, etc.), you have already shown your opinions about it, and again, those aren't relevant.

The IP editor has pointed out the fact that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Events such as this occupation are only encyclopedic if thay have long-lasting effects, such as a change in the governance of the school or some other such outcome. If the outcome of the occupation is that 46 students got arrested and nothing at the school changed, the event was probably not significant, despite the fact that it received a blip of national attention. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page you link to says the following: 'Wikipedia does not report on everything going on in the world today. There is usually no need to write articles about things with no historical significance whatsoever.' It does not define 'historical significance' in the way you do, which is that is needs to 'have long-lasting effects, such as a change in the governance of the school or some other such outcome.' Where did you get this criteria from? Please provide a link to it. That seems like an absurd standard to me, meaning that important events that do not have immediate 'long-lasting outcomes', which are hard to define anyway, should be excluded from Wikipedia. Naturally this is not practice, for I can point out countless pages on Wiki that do need meet that standard. For just one example, here's the page for Occupy San Francisco: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_San_Francisco Will you propose to have that as well as countless other pages deleted because Wiki is not a newspaper and it does not meet your criteria of the event having any 'long-lasting' effect? However, even if you do take that standard, the Occupation ended today, so there is no way to know as of yet whether it will have a 'long-lasting outcome' or not. If you read my latest edit, you would have seen that the board of directors has said that they want to maintain dialogue with the protesters, and that that the planned cuts are preliminary and open to change.

Anyway, are you now content with the neutrality of the piece with the edits made reflecting the POV of the University, or do you believe more of that should be added? If so, where exactly? I have so far addressed all the concerns you have mentioned I believe, so it is not unreasonable for me to ask to clarify where you still see bias and if you do not to remove the 'disputed' tag. By the way, the reason I have not asked a third party about this as of yet is because I do assume good faith of editors, and have done so continuously, hence my repeated requests to you for where you want to see edits, and my compliance when you have pointed it out. I would like you to extend the same courtesy to me. Note that from the beginning you have been implicitly accusing me, the creator of the page, of bias and of trying to merely find another platform for the protest without actually knowing what my position on the protest is. Assuming good faith goes both ways.Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The specific guidelines for the inclusion of events can be found at WP:EVENT. The issues of historical significance are covered there.
I don't feel that the neutrality issue has yet been resolved. However, I think there is enough information in the page as it now stands to build a neutral version. I'll see what I can do when I have some more free time (hopefully this evening). I'll create a proposed alternate version of the article to be reviewed by concerned parties prior to updating the live version. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, it confirms what I already said, namely that 'having a lasting effect' is merely one factor to determine whether an event is notable, and: 'It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.'

And I await your proposed revision, I trust it will be done in good faith and won't be biased, and that the dispute notification can then be removed with consensus. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a proposed version at User:WikiDan61/Bungehuis Occupation. I think I have captured the major facts in what I hope is a more neutral version. Please review. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I think that page is fine, though a few edits were necessary I believe. I will list them below, but I also was wondering if you could add a 'box' on the side of the page with the date, location, causes and methods as for example on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_San_Francisco (they overlap in many respects so you can just take over those elements).

And is it possible to add a picture to the box as well? This picture of the occupied building is in the public domain: https://scontent-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10431718_403660026460031_8965783529751310797_n.jpg?oh=ecd4eb0f4a826b0d791d0b7f9f2dd294&oe=554B9171

Here is the few changes I made and my reasoning for it, which I hope you will agree with:

1. When naming 'The New University' and 'Humanities Rally' for the first time, I added a link to their respective websites/pages as reference.

2. I clarified the conflation between Humanities Rally, the protest movement mentioned above that arose in September 2014, and The New University, which is distinct from them and was the group responsible for the occupation in February. Their demands only arose in February and were part of the occupation, so I think it makes more sense to put that part of the text in the 'Occupation' section.

3. I added a link to the actual text of 'Profiel 2016' as it came out in November 2014.

4. I fixed the inaccurate conflation between Profiel 2016 as it came out in November 2014, which did not contain the following plans: 'Masters degree courses with fewer than 20 students would be eliminated, and only three PhD students would be supported at any given time'. That was in the so-called 'houtskoolschets' leaked in early February, so I clarified that. Secondly, I realize that you still for some reason think FoliaWeb is not a neutral source for that claim, so instead I added a citation from the actual document itself: http://www.studentenraad.nl/wp-content/uploads/Ontwerp-Profiel-2016.pdf

Regarding the minimum of 20 students claim (it's in Dutch, but you can use Google Translate to check it): 'Naast inhoudelijke uitgangspunten voor vakken (zie onder 4.2) en het uitgangspunt van wetenschappelijke kwaliteit, geldt vanwege de financierbaarheid voor vakken een minimum aantal studenten van 20 als uitgangspunt.'

And the three PhD students claim: 'Het terugbrengen van het aantal eerste geldstroom promotieplaatsen naar 2,4 fte (drie promotieplaatsen) levert 6,5 fte besparing op.'

5. Het Parool actually did not leak the sketch, I believe he first place the leak became public was on the Humanities Rally website, here: http://humanitiesrally.com/2015/02/03/nieuwe-profielschets-gelekt-ontwerp-profiel-2016-de-houtskoolschets/

The actual source of the leak is unknown as far as I know. However, I know you don't like the Humanities Rally website as a source, so I'm fine with keeping it as it is, but for accuracy sake I think my edit makes more sense. I have made sure to keep the Het Parool as a source as well however.

6. The 46 number is not the actual number of people who occupied the building or were present at the occupation for the entirety of the time. It includes not only people present at the occupation on the last day, but also those who were arrested protesting on the street outside the building. The exact figure is unknown as it fluctuated over time, ranging from about a hundred to about 30/40 on the final day. A reliable report is the Volkskrant, who says dozens of students and teachers were there since the day of the occupation itself, so I added that with a reference to the Volkskrant as the source for it: http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/bezetters-van-bungehuis-uva-willen-niet-wijken~a3851927/. Here is the text for that claim: 'Tientallen studenten en docenten bezetten sinds vrijdagochtend het pand.'

7. I added a citation to the NOS (the Dutch national news service, equivalent of the BBC) for the 'citation needed' part of the following claim: 'Instead, the court ordered the protesters to pay €1,000 per day, up to a maximum of €25,000.'

Here is the link: http://nos.nl/artikel/2020301-bezetters-bungehuis-wachten-nog-op-ontruiming.html, and the relevant part for the claim: 'Weigeren de bezetters te vertrekken, dan moeten ze een dwangsom betalen van duizend euro per dag. Dat bedrag geldt voor de groep, niet per persoon. De dwangsom kan oplopen tot een maximum van 25.000 euro.'

8. Added the name of Judith Butler, Axel Honneth and Simon Critchley to the list of 'notable supporters' mentioned.

9. The following is somewhat contentiously worded: 'but by the end of the day on 24 February, the occupiers broke off negotiations, believing that the CvB were unwilling to make any concrete concessions'

The negotiations weren't broken off by the occupiers, they were open to dialogue from the beginning to the end. Rather, the negotiations failed to yield any agreement within an acceptable period of time for the mayor and the CvB, hence the decision to go over to the evacuation. Neither side really broke off negotiations, so I changed the wording to reflect that, with the Volkskrant as a reference: http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossier-onderwijs/bungehuis-zal-spoedig-worden-ontruimd~a3871820/

Here again is the relevant text: 'De bezetters zouden vanavond onderling nog overleggen of zij ingaan op het aanbod van het UvA-bestuur om een Festival der Wetenschappen te organiseren over de gang van zaken op de universiteit. Volgens de studente is dat voorstel te vrijblijvend omdat de uitkomsten 'zonder invloed op het beleid' zouden zijn.'

10. Fixed the conflation between Profielschets 2016 as it came out in November 2014 and the 'houtskoolschets' that leaked in early February in the 'Outcomes' section.

11. All the occupiers were not arrested, as said above. Rather, the 46 arrested were a mixture of people arrested on the street and within the building. Some occupiers walked out when the police came in and thus avoided arrest. I fixed the text to reflect this (the source already says it).

12. Added new information released today about the sale of the building to the 'outcome' section.

That's about it from my end. Let me know if you have any concerns with the revisions. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Raskolnikov.Rev: I have moved your comments and made my reply at User talk:WikiDan61/Bungehuis Occupation so that we can discuss my draft at its proper talk page. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A resolved neutrality discussion? It still looks extremely one-sided to me. There is not a single word devoted to the problems that staff members experienced, for example the disruption of their research activities. This did indeed take place, even though it was always denied by the occupiers. One example is discussed in this source: http://nieuws.thepostonline.nl/2015/02/19/ik-kan-elk-moment-huilen-uitbarsten-die-bezetters-hebben-geen-idee-welke-schade-ze-aanrichten/

Nor is there any mention of the petition by staff members agains the occupation. Right now, it looks like everyone except the university board supported the occupation, which is not true. 145.18.217.51 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's a good idea when you question the neutrality of this article not to post from a University of Amsterdam IP, it doesn't reflect well on your motivations. Keep in mind that Wiki editors have to contribute from a NPOV. Incidentally, the baby-lab case was in the article before the neutrality dispute was resolved. You are free to add that as well as the petition you refer to (which I have not heard of and I hope you will have a credible source for) if you like, though naturally now that it has been pointed out that the person who is going to do so was posting from a UvA IP I would be extra careful as to how you word it. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the reason why I didn't make the edits myself, I'm not neutral. I can post from another IP and pretend to be neutral of course, but I figured this was more fair. The petition was reported in the media, for example: http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Nederland/article/detail/3853507/2015/02/17/UvA-promovendi-willen-einde-bezetting-Bungehuis.dhtml
One of these neutral Wikipedia people can work it in, I'm sure, just like all the other very neutral edits to this article not made by anyone involved in the protests. 145.18.217.51 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the honesty. I've added the points you've mentioned to the article as a 'neutral Wikipedia person' who, as said, had included some of them before as well before other neutral Wikipedia people had edited them out (see the change log). Now, kindly let us know if it is now satisfactory for you so that the neutrality dispute can be marked as resolved, or otherwise where exactly you believe additional changes, and of exactly what kind, should be made so that it can be marked as such. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's better now, thanks! But I'll note again that there is a new petition by staff to counter the one-sided view that all staff is all for the ongoing protests, and the existing petition against the CvB. Reported here: http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/4/AMSTERDAM/article/detail/3955786/2015/04/15/UvA-hoogleraren-steunen-bestuur-in-petitie-Het-geluid-was-nogal-eenzijdig.dhtml 145.18.217.51 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting to see how things will play out before updating the page with relevant recent events so as to not include the stuff that seems noteworthy as it is happening but turns out not to be in hindsight. None of the recent petitions have been mentioned, supportive or critical of the CvB, but when they are I'll make sure to include both. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Bungehuis and Maagdenhuis occupations which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • https://www.change.org/p/university-of-amsterdam-executive-board-support-the-new-university
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Bungehuis and Maagdenhuis occupations which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • https://www.change.org/p/university-of-amsterdam-executive-board-support-the-new-university
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Bungehuis and Maagdenhuis occupations which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • https://www.change.org/p/university-of-amsterdam-executive-board-support-the-new-university
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is outdated

[edit]

The article is outdated, the Maagdenhuis occupation has ended and members of the CvB have resigned. – Editør (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bungehuis_and_Maagdenhuis_occupations&oldid=1206449441"