Talk:Squatting in the Netherlands

Moira

Charlie Foxtrot66 you again added Moira to the lead, this time with the edit summary "Restored Moira as an extant and active squat. ( Who is this "Mujinga" to decide wich squat deserves to be mentioned and wich not?)". I have removed Moira from the lead again and will explain why here, after first asking you to refrain from attacking me personally. The lead summarises what is in the article, and Moira is only mentioned in the text in the table (alongside 20+ other projects) and in the navbox, so I don't think it needs to be in the lead at all. You created the page for Moira and perhaps have a conflict of interest, if you do that's not necessarily a problem but you should declare it. By the way I replied to your question about references back in May and you haven't replied or added more references. I don't "decide wich squat deserves to be mentioned", reliable sources do. The Staatsarchief is a good guide to notability of historical projects and Moira is not mentioned once there. Mujinga (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Charlie Foxtrot66: please discuss here before reverting again, thanks Mujinga (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I just added Moira because is one of the main squats in Utrecht, the purpose of Wikipedia is to give informations and that's what I added, maybe you have a conflict of interest instead of me? Why is it so important for you to delete it, can't you just leave it being my contribution, in the worst of cases, not harmful for the article quality? What you call "personal attack" seems a legitimate question to me: who are you to decide that ACU is more important than Moira and only ACU deserves to be mentioned? Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not the Staatsarchief, this sound an excuse to me. You also deleted the largest part of my work on the Moira Article, with the excuse of not enought references (you also deleted the moat, being well known that the Utrecht city center is surrounded by a moat and Moira stands right there). You behave as a moderator, and I still don't know wich autority do you have to do so, I keep on asking it but you ignore the question. If the references in my article are not good enough and Moira shouldn't be mentioned in the lead of your article, then let some moderator decide about it, all the info I added are correct, no lies, and you don't have the right to delete the other people work, if the informations are correct, same as I don't do so with yours... I add informations, you cancel them, this is the difference between you an me. Now I will restore the Moira article, will add some more reference, and if you will go on deleting my work, then I will go on restoring it until a moderator will take some decision. According to me, what you are doing is vandalism and I don't understand the reason of such a behaviour unless, as I said, you don't have some personal interest in it. I have no interest, I only wanna share informations while you're spending a lot of time and energy just to boycott Moira. Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, it was partly coherent at least. who are you to decide that ACU is more important than Moira I don't, the secondary sources do, as this source on the ACU page says: "The most renowned squat in Utrecht was ACU on Voorstraat". The Staatsarchief also has a lot on ACU, but yes that's just an excuse. And yes, Utrecht has a moat... The problem actually is what you suggest, the references over at Moira just aren't good enough. Mujinga (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Squatting in the Netherlands/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 02:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Will review this over the next few weeks. AIRcorn (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my recent absence a few technical issues and other commitments came up. Back now though. AIRcorn (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• Squatting in the Netherlands in its modern form has its origins in the 1960s Is there some historical perspective we should know about or is this article purely focused on modern squatting? If the latter is there a better name as I am sure squatting would have occurred pre 1960 and theoretically the article title covers all squatting in the Netherlands. Failing that a short historical mention might be enough to cover due concerns

• Great question. Dutch theorists (Pruijt, Duivenvoorden, Mamadouh etc) definitely seem to take 1960s as the beginning, but I agree with you there was of course squatting before that time. The Dutch wikipage says it began 1964, which seems arbitrary. Paging through the sources, I find Owens makes a comment about this so I can add that. Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• If you find a source saying something along the lines of although squatting has occurred in the Netherlands since ???? it didn't become a major ?cultural institution? until the 1960's i.e. even a throw away line mentioning the past would work. I am happy that WP:DUE means we concentrate on modern squatting, but feel it needs some sort of historical context. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've tweaked it a bit more to reflect that squatting arose as part the general spring of youth movements in the 1960s, I'm not sure if I want to say more since it would then be getting into the debate between academics about when/how the movement began and that seems like too much detail. Mujinga (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am happy with this. I still feel some more historical context would be nice, but we can only say what the sources allow us to.

• Squatting gained legal status under a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1971 which stated that the concept of domestic peace (Dutch: huisvrede), requiring permission from the current occupant to enter a building applied to squatters as well as any other occupant. This seems like a big deal hiden in a beginnings section. It took me a few reads to fully get it, but it seems like a landmark ruling like this deserves a bit more attention given to it.

• OK I can rephrase and add more here Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Actually I feel there is more to the beginnings. It seems to be an unusual, almost accepted, movement and I feel we are not given enough information here. Particularly coming from someone not familiar with this culture.

• Thanks for the comment, it's hard to know how much detail to go into so I'll expand this section a bit Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• In Groningen the eviction of the WNC squat in 1990 led to 137 arrests and the mayor called it war. Should you spell out WNC and include squat in the link

• added "Wolters-Noordhoff Complex" (the name of the printers which then became the name of the squat) and it's already linked to WNC (squat) Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Same with OCCII, OT301, NDSM, ACU, ADM and ORKZ. Or are these just Dutch names.

• These abbreviations are the common names for the projects. They mean varied things, for example ORKZ is mentioned in the article as "ORKZ, or the Old Roman Catholic Hospital (Dutch: Oude Rooms-Katholieke Ziekenhuis)". ADM and NSDM are the names of the shipbuilding companies which previously existed on the two terrains - Amsterdamsche Droogdok Maatschappij (Amsterdam Dry Dock company) and Nederlandsche Dok en Scheepsbouw Maatschappij (Dutch Dock and Shipbuilding company). Similarly, ACU comes from Auto Centrale Utrecht (Car Centre Utrecht). On the other hand, OCCII stands for Onafhankelijk Cultureel Centrum In It (Autonomous Cultural Centre Innit) and OT301 refers to the address of the building, Overtoom 301. I'm happy to insert some of these in the text if you want but also wondering if it becomes a bit of a mouthful to put them all in, especially with the translations as well. They are present in the articles for the individual projects Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• If they are the common names then leave them. If it was one or two then maybe it would be better spelling them out, but you are right that it would probably sacrifice some readability. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• In the past, squats sometimes went through a process of legalisation Could it be explained what this means. I know you have some examples, but it is not clear what is needed in order for a squat to become legal.

• added a bit more Mujinga (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• The Vrijplaats Koppenhinksteeg in Leiden was occupied in 1968 and eventually evicted in 2010. This doesn't match the other examples.

• In terms of its age? Yes it is the oldest but it fits to the general view that political squats began in the 1960s. Ruigoord (1972) and Effenaar (1970) run it quite close. Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I actually meant in that they were evicted. The others weren't. Which makes me wonder if it really is legal. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• ah yes I see that's a good point, I've rejigged to put it with the other projects that did not or could not legalise Mujinga (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Is The Landbouwbelang not leagalised, but also not currently evicted? Every other example says evicted.

• yes as in it still exists and it remains squatted without a legalisaton process and therefore is illegal in terms of the law, but tolerated (because there are currently no other plans for that huge building) Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• That's what I figured. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Of these 529, 210 received convictions and 42 were found not guilty. A minor point, but I initially read this as 529 210 people. Not sure you need the 529 as it is said in the previous sentence.

• changed! Mujinga (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Whats the criteria for a squat to considered notable enough to be included in the table.

• There's a hidden comment requesting that squats already have their own wikipeia page, to avoid people adding completely non-notable projects and all the ones listed are backed by reliable secondary sources Mujinga (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Okay. I do get a bit nervous about using Wikipedia as a reliable source for notability (as it depends on individual editor interests). A single secondary source covering these, and even ideally calling them notable, would be best, but I am happy with how it is currently. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the headings seem a little vague and perhaps arbitrary. "Consolidation" and "Developments" in particular. Can't think of any alternatives off the top of my head though.

• I'm open to changing them but also not sure how else to do it. Mujinga (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am still drawing a blank. Maybe "Riots and legalisation" or even "Conflicts" for the Consolidation section. The other one maybe "Movements". I don't really know so happy to keep the current ones. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Minor nitpick, but you double link a few terms, ADM and speculative are two I noticed. Only a short article so probably not necessary to link them multiple times.

• done! Mujinga (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• kraakbeweging is mentioned in the lead, but not the body

• fixed Mujinga (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I see you took File:Het Poortgebouw (west).jpg. It lacks some of the description elements and formatting found in the other photos (compare File:20090624 Verlengde Hereweg 92 (ORKZ) Groningen NL.jpg). It also has another uploader under file history.

• Huh that's odd about the uploader not being listed as me. I don't think that affects the licensing though. In any case, there's most likely better photos of the Poortgebouw on commons ... shall I switch it out for this one? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poortgebouw_-_Rotterdam,_Holland_-_panoramio.jpg

• This is not really my strong point so I am not sure. Most have a nice summary box, whereas yours has a comment. I guess it doesn't look as professional, but not sure if it is really an issue. The user under file history is Mladifilozof and, again not my strength, but most users are the creators unless someone else has modified it in some way (and even then the uploaders name is still kept). If you want to get some advice from another editor more versed in this area that is fine, but I am a little uncomfortable granting GA status with this image as it currently stands. AIRcorn (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I suppose if this is going on longer I could look into it (maybe I should re-upload it) but in any case I've switched out the photo for the other one I suggested. Mujinga (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Other images seem fine
• Referencing looks fine

@Mujinga: Give me a ping if you need any clarifications or want me to have a second look. AIRcorn (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn thanks for the comments, I enjoyed working through them! Mujinga (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn thanks for the measured response to Graywalls, who is currently stalking my edits. I've had to open a discussion at ANI about that which has taken away the time I had planned to continue with the review here. In terms of the indymedia link, I have rephrased and removed it. In my view Wageningse Barricaden is fine as an external link since it is clearly the work of a subject area expert. The Over/About page says "Barricaden is een idee en project van Jobbe Wijnen, in samenwerking met WikiWageningen (Cultuur in Wageningen / Wim de Vos), het Gemeente Archief Wageningen, het Wagenings Nut en verder zoveel mogelijk tijdgetuigen die bereid zijn verhalen te delen en foto’s te sturen." = "Wageningse Barricaden is an idea and project of Jobbe Wijnen, in collaboration with WikiWageningen (Culture in Wageningen / Wim de Vos), the Municipal Archives of Wageningen, the Wagenings Nut and as many witnesses as possible who are willing to tell stories, share and send photos." Happy to discuss any other specific citations. By the way, I speak Dutch myself but actually googletranslate is pretty good for Dutch → English and I just used it for the Wageningse Barricaden translation. I'm heading into a few days of sporadic internet access but to find a silver lining that will give me time to consider your replies above. Mujinga (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this has taken a turn. Will probably hold off here a bit anyway until that dies down as it might draw other eyes. I haven't actually found anything wrong with Graywalls' comments here. In fact I appreciate that they brought up the issue on the talk page and that they were polite about it. Of course I don't have the background you do. My only other interaction I can recall was at a GAR, and I while found them a bit tendentious it all seemed in good faith. Oh and I would strike the sober comment if I was you. It will end up derailing the ANI and it comes across as a personal attack. AIRcorn (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Things are quiet enough there that I don't think we will get any blow back here. The indymedia source is removed so the main point of contention is resolved. As such I am going to pass this. Congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

SPS and Indymedia

@Aircorn:, I have been working on cleaning out undue contents in various articles that use known questionable sources and insource: search on "indymedia.nl" from the WP:RSP Independent Media Center brought me to this. I've been cleaning out a handful of articles using Indymedia.nl, Indymedia.org, indybay.org; etc. Squatting articles in general certainly appear to utilize that contraindicated source heavily. Perhaps it's the influence of now deprecated Anarchism sourcing essay. Normally I would just remove it, but I noticed GA review in process, so I am choosing to discuss it. That source is also being discussed at RSN again with no support for the source. Anyone can post whatever, whenever, as you can see at https://www.indymedia.nl/node/add/nieuws . I find the presence of http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2006/12/41302.shtml objectionable.

I'm also skeptical about https://wageningsebarricaden.wordpress.com/ and in EL, because it used for a topic, rather than about a person, or a company to talk WP:ABOUTSELF and it is a blog by someone other than a recognized expert which goes against #11 of WP:ELNO and I don't think it's quite up to snuff to be WP:ELMAYBE #4 as "knowledgeable" authority; as well as ELs to self published sources https://maps.squat.net/* per WP:NOTAGUIDE.

Graywalls (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Graywalls (talk · contribs). @Mujinga:This is a very good point and will need to be addressed. I looked at the source and although I am not able to read it its format very much suggests to me it is more a forum than a reliable source. I see from the link that discussion has only just started (although it is heading in one direction) and you are well aware of the issues. I am happy to wait to see if that reaches any sort of conclusion if you really want to keep it here (it is used once and alongside another source). But I don't think I can pass it until this is resolved one way or the other. I will note that it is possible to use SPS sources under certain circumstances and with careful wording.

@Aircorn:, I don't expect that discussion to really go anywhere. It's already classified WP:QUESTIONABLE/level 3, which is just a step short of being deprecated completely. Reliable Sources Perennial list says "The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source." Also, the presence of https://web.archive.org/web/20200610134210/https://romanrobroek.nl/photographing-huize-ivicke-in-wassenaar/ which is just some guy's website which is self published source I firmly believe in the part of the SPS guidelines that say "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources". Graywalls (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I am a bit more lenient on external link reliability (although as a personal rule I favour less being better). They don't really fit under the GA criteria anyway. Again I am at a disadvantage as I can't read it, but I do notice that the page seems to be three years out of date so it may not be a suitable External Link from that perspective. Not bothered about the maps. AIRcorn (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SQUAT

There are over one billion squatters worldwide and the phenomenon is under-represented on Wikipedia. Join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Squatting to help write articles about squatting in every country, or drop a message on the talkpage about something else you'd like to see covered. This is just one of many ways to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia! Mujinga (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)