Talk:Squatting in the United States

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Squatting Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Squatting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of squatting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SquattingWikipedia:WikiProject SquattingTemplate:WikiProject Squattingsquatting articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Housing and Tenant Rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Housing and Tenant Rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Housing and Tenant Rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Housing and Tenant RightsWikipedia:WikiProject Housing and Tenant RightsTemplate:WikiProject Housing and Tenant RightsHousing and Tenant Rights articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Amount of coverage to be devoted to specific squat houses

Everyone, how much coverage should we devote to specifics about individual squat houses and how much name dropping should we have? Graywalls (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe give some specific examples so people know what you are talking about. I'll give you a hand though - if you are talking about deleting mention of projects from the lead, then read MOS:LEAD. If you are talking about the 11 projects in NYC that are legalising, yes of course they should be mentioned here in the article covering squatting in the united states. Mujinga (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon

Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specific details in lede

This is a broader topic article of squatting in the US. Specific organization/movement name drops in the lede is WP:UNDUE in my opinion. It was added back in after initial removal without any attempt to establish consensus per WP:ONUS. Graywalls (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered you a year ago about this in Talk:Squatting_in_the_United_States#Amount_of_coverage_to_be_devoted_to_specific_squat_houses above. You did not reply and kept on changing the lead so that it doesn't summarise the article. In short, your opinion gets trumped by MOS:LEAD Mujinga (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEDE it summarizes the main concept. The specific examples, chosen sparingly should go in the non-lede part. The selection of arbitrary chosen examples in lede is undue. Graywalls (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:, perhaps you might be more familiar with the general structuring. My take is that the lede should summarize key points, such as the actions taken by some organizations such as homesteading, but the specific organizations names and such could stay in the rest of the prose. I believe arbitrary choosing to highlight certain organizations presents WP:DUE weight issue. Do you believe I'm misunderstanding MOS:LEAD Graywalls (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the lede cannot contain examples, as for instance I don't see how the contents would be summarized without going through the standing examples of the California Gold Rush, Hoovervilles, and housing justice organizations. For this edit, I think the compromise is to explain what types of housing justice orgs exist and then only name ACORN and Take Back the Land as the independently notable ones. Basically I'd pare those removals back (i.e., summarize further) before removing them altogether. czar 17:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then, the question comes to which examples are to be featured. To avoid framing the lede in a way that attracts such predictable problems, I feel not having any specific example would be preferable. I don't see why ACORN, or any specific individual group name should be showcased in the intro paragraph. Graywalls (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to summarise the article, it's that simple. That edit is subpar per MOS:LEAD and also ungrammatical. I've incorporated the suggestion to name ACORN and put Operation Homestead instead Take Back the Land because it has more substantial coverage in the article. If anyone wants to discuss the lead again, I would suggest making a RfC to get wider input. Mujinga (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, fix the grammatical issue. Your recent removal of some contents with edit summary "removal local paper" comes across as selective POV removal, because, you retained contents about reporting from LOCAL NBC about people squatting in their foreclosed homes, as well as retaining info about things like Dignity Village, and eviction of illegal camp villages with King5 local TV as the source. Graywalls (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]