Jump to content

Talk:Squatting in the Netherlands/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

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)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • The Vrijplaats Koppenhinksteeg in Leiden was occupied in 1968 and eventually evicted in 2010. This doesn't match the other examples.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • kraakbeweging is mentioned in the lead, but not the body
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Aircorn thanks for the comments, I enjoyed working through them! Mujinga (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Squatting_in_the_Netherlands/GA1&oldid=984816413"