Jump to content

Talk:Urban exploration/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Needs updating regarding Media Attention, And Crane Exploration

In the UK Urbex has been recieving ALOT of media attention, Especially www.28dayslater.co.uk - In fact they have a forum dedicated to news articles regarding Urbex. It should also be noted, Most of the media attention is sensationalist and incorrect.

Also, There is a craze in "Crane Exploration", Once again highlighted by www.28dayslater.co.uk - I feel this should be noted in the wiki article. 86.18.1.196 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree : 'Craning' is now a recognised sub-category of UE and should be featured within this page BenFairless (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You should initiate discussion before making drastic and controversial edits, that were accepted by other editors through a consensus. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you were adding in your own link indicates you have an agenda. Good try. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the entry for "abandoned" belongs there? It takes you to a site listed as 'ababdoned online' which features travel guides to the highways and byways! This is CLEARLY inappropriate and is evidence of someone's agenda.

Some of the other links have at least some basis for being there, tenuous as it may be. If individual or group sites are to be included then ALL personal or group sites should be included. But if there's some pretense that only mass-market or widely beneficial sites are to be included then I would seriously consider editing the list as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.168.3 (talk • contribs)

Please explain why you removed the majority of the links and added your personal site? Abandoned clearly works, but a change only a day ago over a dispute with a former host forced the redirect from the .com to the .net address to fail. I'm sorry I don't spend more time on Wikipedia; that's what other editors are for :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Legality in Australia and the Lurline Bay incident.

As some urbexers may be aware, legality of our hobby is a bit .. how's it going. Further, two people died in Lurline Bay ('The Fortress') the other day and one almost died. First on the subject of legality, after extensive communication with Sydney Water and the New South Wales Police on the matter, I've found that the majority of charges in relation to urban exploration have been 'malicious damage to public property'. If something is deemed public property in caselaw then the ability to charge with 'trespass to private property' is negated. Which, in strictly legal terms, means that you are not trespassing.

Secondly, in relation to the Lurline Bay incident. I brought it to the attention of Randwick Council and the Police that their answer to 'look into ways to secure the drain' was inappropriate and given that the majority of manholes and gutterboxes to that network have been tacked shut with a welder, it could easily be said that Sydney Waters attempt to 'secure' the drain is the reason that two people died, and urban explorers attempt to break into the drain by bending the bar at the end many aeons ago which the third (lucky) person was ejected through in the flash flood is the only reason it's not three fatalaties we're dealing with.

I have been in contact with a group called The Tunnel Rats who will be assisting me in making representations to the state coroner on the issue. Given the eggshell skull principle and the fact it is reasonably foreseeable that people WILL access the drain, sealing all potential emergency exits amounts to negligence which in this instance occasioned death. The idiocy, culpability, assumed risk, et cetera, of the people who went in there is clearly not negated by any court within the Westminster legal system by the fact that all the exits were welded shut.

One equivilent that could be put forth is, if you are the owner of a .. derelict movie theatre on a block of land, and decided to reverse the firedoors push-to-exit system (let's face it, a claw hammer breaks a weld to get in, but from underground getting out nothing would break those welds) and people get trapped within your property and it burns down, you are entirely culpable with a non-delegable duty of care to provide an exit to those people even if they are breaking the law. This is the grounds that many people bitch about 'a burgler fell on my property and sued me', however it is NOT that simple, there has to be negligent action on behalf of the owner, so if the burgler fell, but only fell because the owner had a pit trap full of punji spikes, then yes, the owner WILL be found negligent.

Just thought I'd give you guys a bit of an update on these two pressing issues. Jachin (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jachin. While I agree with you entierley here, it is now no longer possible to sue some one for injuries sustained while in the process of an illegal activity in Australia. Hence burgulars can no longer sue for injures while burgularising you, and drain explorers can no longer sue for death as a result of being within a drain without authorisation.

Despite that, yes, I think sealing the drain is just stupid. In his case Predator's actions of years past saved one person's life. If the outfall was no grilled, it is entierly possible 2 other people would be alive that day, wet, but alive.

I for one would like to see the coroner's report. I should request a copy.

Images

Like I explained to Seicer, what I had been doing is removing redundant pictures. One picture is of the Demolition at Danvers that would be appropriate in the Danvers State hospital article, not the UE. It is not an UE picture. If the picture had been a picture of the hospital's inside, tunnels, or outside when the place sat abandoned, then the image would have been ok. Then I counted not one, but three pictures of drains. Two of the pictures were from the same user and of the same drain. Not only where two of the pictures from the same user, but it also had a picture of him within the drain. One picture of drains is enough to give the reader a good idea what it looks like in drains. I then removed the WV image because it also does not pertain to UE because it is not a picture of some kind of exploration. However, it does advertise that the place give tours (Whoohoo, which break into a place when you can pay to get a tour! that's real exploring!), which is also inappropriate for the UE page. Lastly I removed the bit of text because is was a user's personal opinion with no references to back it up.

The one problem I noticed with this article, which prompted me to remove those users pictures, is because this article seems to attract UE'ers who just want to advertise their web site, their exploits, and their images. Those two personal user shots I removed I put in that class and that was the basis I removed a good portion of the shots.

Now if there were different UE shots of the different aspects of UE (I.E. An abandoned hospital, abandoned mine, abandoned bridges, etc) then I would not have removed the shots. That is my reasoning for removing the shots. Brothejr (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yea, I removed the picture of the book because it is enough to list the book under the UE books, we either list then pictures of every book we put in that section, or we don't have any pictures of books. Plus as cool as Ninja was, his book is both outdated and a bit lopsided, not worthy of it's own picture. If we are going to include that picture, then we need to add the other images because there are some other cool and equally important books on UE out there. Brothejr (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from, and I've edited the page to reflect a possible compromise between you and Seicer and Noodle snacks. I added back the Access All Areas picture, the demolition and one of the drain pictures, and left one drain picture and the asylum picture removed. The Access All Areas should certainly remain, that book has probably had more impact on the activity than any single other work. This does not obligate us to put more pictures of other books up, and it certainly does not stop up should we wish to. The demolition pic was properly placed in the abandonment subsection, and one pic of a drain is proper they didn't both need to be removed. I can see reasons to included the other pics as well, but in the sprit of pleasing everyone that might not be possible. Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is nothing in the IMOS that states that we need to include every image of every book, when one image is sufficient. FU is covered under this article, it seems, given that there is not one dedicated article for the text. We really need to come to a consensus for the images instead of edit warring over something that is rather minute, IMO. I hold no indifference towards the images, but I disagree with the notion that all need to be removed for the sake that they are not related somehow to urban exploration.

What defines urban exploration? We are well aware that it is composed of drainers, abandoned building explorers and the like. Danvers (was) one such target of explorers for years, and an image of it being demolished -- while more favored towards the Danvers State Hospital article -- is still suitable for this page, although a replacement should be sought. Having a better representation of a drain is also more desirable as well, but there is nothing that screams "take me down" at this instance without at least having some replacement on hand. I can provide images for the article in relation to the exploration of abandoned/historic structures, but I have no experience with draining or any of the other variants. seicer | talk | contribs 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While Danvers was such an important part of UE, putting up a picture of it being demolished is not appropriate to this article. What I will do, seeing as people want to have a Danvers image up is that I will find and add one, that is ok to post on Wikipedia that will be related to the article. Also, the book that Ninja wrote did have some impact on UE, but did not have that much impact to warrant a picture of the book. I suggest, that if we are going to include the picture of his book, then we need to find a picture of every book up on that list and post those pictures to to give a fair impact. However, instead I suggest that we remove the picture as a reference within the book section is enough. Brothejr (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded a better Danvers image that better reflects UE. It might not be the best shot, but it is more appropriate to this article. Also, as per my argument above and to be fair to the other books listed, I have removed the all access book image. Brothejr (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You need to come up with a consensus on this, listing every image if you wish to continue. All this is doing is creating a very petty edit war over a very trivial subject that is entirely opinionized. Nothing in the IMOS states that we need to remove these images on the basis that the book was of inferior quality (an opinion), that there is a person in a drain photograph (no reason why it can't), or that Danver's is being demolished (a target for explorers while it was still up). seicer | talk | contribs 00:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to start an edit war and never was. However, all the points that you keep on making to me can be exactly said about you. As I mentioned before, the danvers pic does not belong there. It is a deconstruction pic, not an exploration pic. While I agree that Danvers was a target for exploration, that pic is not of when it was a target of an exploration, unless people were exploring a construction site where all there was left were walls and construction equipment. I had put up an appropriate image of Danvers instead, and then you guys just go and revert that and slap me with a three revert rule? To me, this seems as if you guys don't want to see what I am seeing. Also as far as the book is concern, if you want to keep the image up, then please explain why it is so important to have the image of that book up, but not any other? Why is it, you can go to most other simular articles that contain books and find no images of the books, yet this one has to have a picture of Ninja's book. I've met the man, I've been doing this for long time, and I know quite a bit about the book and the man. while I mourn his death, he was not the end all be all of UE, nor was his book. Not that many people have read the book and those who have said there are a lot of errors within it too.
As far as that guy standing in a drain, my reasoning for removing it was because he had already added one shot of the drain, then he added another shot of the same drain with himself posing in the shot. Did Wikipedia become an image hosting service where any explorer can come and post their own images of their exploits up online like the various UE forums out there? I see it as the same thing as people posting their personal websites up tehre just so they can get more traffic to their site. It's the same thing folks.
So I ask you again, why is it that important to have the image of his book up there when no other book has an image and why is it that important to have the image of Danvers being deconstructed instead of one that is relevant to the article? I ask you guys to prove why an unrelated image and also a picture of one of the books listed have to be up there?
As I stated before I removed unrelated images and removed personal advertising pictures off the article and I create a firestorm.Brothejr (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No intention of personal advertising was made on my part, but having more than one image from one person has obviously upset you a bit. First thing is first, the image with the urban explorer in it that i have placed back is not myself, or one of my friends, therefore not personal advertising as you suspected. I changed the image from the other one and moved it to the top of the page based upon the discussion for a peer review at Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Image:Urban_Explorer_Hobart.jpg. It is more representative of urban exploration as a whole than the other images, which only either show an explorer, or a location of exploration, not a clear picture of both.Noodle snacks (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that I also bumped the size slighty to make the subject of the picture visible from the thumbnail. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the bloke in the image, do you have his permission to put up a photo off him on wikipedia. I am not exactly sure what the rules are, but is it possible that this guy could take legal action. . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

His face is not visible, and no action can be taken. seicer | talk | contribs 03:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The face can be seen quite clearly if it was my head I would complain. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoops. Didn't note the image change. That would be grounds for removal... seicer | talk | contribs 04:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You thought I was talking about the other one. If I was allowed I could photo shop him out completely . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

On the whole, image sizes need not to include the image size, per the MOS so that it is renderable on all browsers. seicer | talk | contribs 03:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can live with moving around the shots and I can see your point of the top one with the explorer. However, my other points is this: I can completely understand peoples ideas and thoughts of Danvers and I would like to have a Danvers shot in the article. However, there has to be a better shot of Danvers then the deconstruction shot. Heck, if we could find a shot of Danvers back when it was abandoned (That we can all agree upon), then that would be more representative to UE and Danvers. Also, my other point was that I don't want to remove the entry about Ninja's book, it's fine and good to leave it there. Yet, my point was why does it need an image of the book when we don't provide images of the other books. To me it seems a little bit lopsided, as if we're saying this book is way better then all the rest, which could be construed as advertising. Brothejr (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A view from the roof of Danvers State Hospital
    A view from the roof of Danvers State Hospital
Here is the image of Danvers, that is UE related, is of when it was abandoned, and is more appropriate to this article. I had origionally put it up before it was reverted and I was slapped with a 3RR warning. Brothejr (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't this this picture represent UE. To me and I would assume to others, would appear to be a picture taken from a rooftop of an historic building. There is nothing in it to suggest that it is UE related. I think an interior shot of the place semi demolished and in ruin would have been more appropriate. Adam (talk) (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with an interior shot of when the place was abandoned and "semi-demolished." My only disagreement with the original picture is that it is just of the demolition of the hospital and does not show any of the grandeur of the place. While, I understand that the destruction of the place was devastating to explorers, most readers won't get the idea of devastating by just looking a the picture. Plus, I argue that sort of thing would be better on the Danvers article.
As I mentioned before, if you have a better picture that shows the interior, then I'm cool with that. Brothejr (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. That image means nothing to me, and the article doesn't even explain the significance of its inclusion. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That has been my point. I also, like others, want to have a Danvers pic in the article. However, this picture has to be some appropriate to UE and a demolition pic of Danvers, while sad to see, is not really related to UE in general, but significant to those who explored there. A pic like that should be included on the Danvers page.
My other point is the picture of Ninja's book. I had raised the question about why we have a picture of his book up, but not the others. Why is his book more special then the others? Brothejr (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that could be a matter of fair use. The book covers are likely copyrighted, so only one or two exemplary books should be shown. Of course, any important book on urban exploration should still be discussed in the text. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you there. Plus also, could there be a copy write issue with the image of Ninja's book too? Also, by adding just that image of that book and no other seems to place undue weight on Ninja's book. Brothejr (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image Vote

It has been over three days since anyone has made a comment on this issue. So I have come up with a plan for people to have a say in this. Twas Now had made a comment that an inside image would be more representative of Danvers and also better UE image and I agree with him. So what I am going to do is to upload a bunch of images that people can vote on (If you have something better then by all means upload it and add it to the list.). It is 8am Eastern Time Zone now and I'll leave the voting open for 48 hours. After the 48 hours has past, I'll tally up the votes and add the image that received the most votes.

  • 1) This is one of the tunnels in Danvers State Hospital
    1) This is one of the tunnels in Danvers State Hospital
  • 2) This is the hole in the brick wall of one of Danver's State Hospital's tunnels that was used in the movie "Session 9".
    2) This is the hole in the brick wall of one of Danver's State Hospital's tunnels that was used in the movie "Session 9".
  • 3) This is a shot of one of the Danvers State Hospital's tunnels. Note the hanging bags off to the right side as they were added there for the movie "Session 9".
    3) This is a shot of one of the Danvers State Hospital's tunnels. Note the hanging bags off to the right side as they were added there for the movie "Session 9".
  • 4) This is one of patient rooms within the Danvers State Hospital's Kirkbride.
    4) This is one of patient rooms within the Danvers State Hospital's Kirkbride.
  • 5) This is a shot of one of the wards in Danvers State Hospital's Kirkbride.
    5) This is a shot of one of the wards in Danvers State Hospital's Kirkbride.
  • 6) This is one of the day rooms in the Danvers State Hospital's Kirkbride.
    6) This is one of the day rooms in the Danvers State Hospital's Kirkbride.
  • 7) This is the entraces to one of the roofs of the Danvers State Hospital Kirkbride.
    7) This is the entraces to one of the roofs of the Danvers State Hospital Kirkbride.
  • 8) This is a shot of the main staircase of the Danvers State Hospital Kirkbride.
    8) This is a shot of the main staircase of the Danvers State Hospital Kirkbride.
  • 9) This is a shot from the upper floors of the administration portion of the Danvers State Hospital's Kirkbride building.
    9) This is a shot from the upper floors of the administration portion of the Danvers State Hospital's Kirkbride building.
  • 10) This is a shot of the end of one of the Wards in the Danvers State Hospital's Kirkbride building.
    10) This is a shot of the end of one of the Wards in the Danvers State Hospital's Kirkbride building.

When voting, please bold your response.

  • My choice would be Number 6. I feel that it is better as it combines a multitude of aspects covered in this article: it is of Danvers State hospital, it shows a tunnel with am mysterious end, and it has parts that are related to the movie Session 9 which is rather popular in the UE world. Brothejr (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I made this a single gallery for (vertical) space reasons. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I like it! It looks better!Brothejr (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that people wanted him there because after removing it, people put it back up. However, with this vote winding down and with the exception of . Adam (talk) everyone else has not responded. I agree with Adam on Number 6 (I've also changed my vote to reflect that too!) so that will be added to the page. (Please note, if you had stayed quiet and had not at least said something against this, then you should not be reverting the picture. You had more then sufficient time to voice your opposition to the change.) Brothejr (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The only person that wanted the drain pic with him in it was the author himself. He uploaded the image with his account and then used his ip address to insert the image. I know this because he left a message on someones talk page to complain about me and the removal of his image from this article. He used his account leave the message and then the ip address the reinsert the image to the article, he then stated on the other persons talk page that some one else put the image back. He then made the mistake of using his ip address to make a correction to the message on Jrons talk page, the same ip that was re adding the image to this article. Adam (talk) (talk)

Drain picture

How about this for the drain section. The quality may not be as good as the other but this picture shows actual people in the act of urban exploration. They are exploring a tunnel in in a Sydney suburb. The tunnel itself is known to the Cave clan as Hercules pillars. You can find pics of this in their website gallery as well. The image is four stitched photos.

Cave clan exploring Hercules pillars

POV/lack of balance

The potential illegality of the activities described in this article has not been given its due coverage, in my opinion. The fact that motion sensors have been installed (uncited fact in the article) strongly hints that urban administrations are not appreciative of urban exploration activities, and that they cause costs to the tax payer, since incidents may have to be investigated by the appropriate authorities. None of this is discussed in the article, which just adds to the existing problems with uncited content. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then if you feel there is a problem with the POV of this article, then please provide references both backing up your argument and also also references as to how this relates to Urban Exploration. Please also note that the burden of proof is on your shoulders. It is not enough to pop up a POV tag and leave it to others to fix.
Please define what you mean "urban administrators"?
Also please provide references to how Urban Exploring causes costs to the the tax payers? (This statement needs hard proof otherwise it is considered an opinion and a POV statement.)
Ummm, sigs? We like to know who is addressing us :-) "Urban administrators" should be fairly easy to understand- the government administrating whatever area uses these underground areas. In regards to taxpayer costs, what he is saying is that people can go down there and either damage public property, which must be repaired or replaced at taxpayer cost, or injure themselves, which requires emergency services and possibly an investigation into what cause his injury, and quite possibly criminal prosecution for trespassing. All this drains funds from the taxpayer-funded budget. Clegs (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned above (Though I found it was funny that you posted your comment right the middle of mine!) while that may be true or not true, it is a POV/Opinion statement. If it is true and you want to include it in the article, then you need proof to back up the statement. Just saying it waists tax payer dollars means nothing, so does jay-walking, throwing trash along the side of the road, and speeding. However, all those things I mentioned are opinion, not facts (And also everyone admittedly does it!). If I really wanted them to be facts, I would look up how much each costs the taxpayers and use that a proof. Brothejr (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell this article is about Urban Exploring, a broadly defined activity, not a specific building or person. While in some places around the world, this is considered an illegal activity, other places this is considered a completely legal activity. How would you consider those points? Would you then research every legal system in the world to define what the legality of Urban Exploring to provide a NPOV in your opinion? Brothejr (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Sewers fall under municipal administration in all localities that I'm aware of. National laws have little to do with it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Brothejr said it best. Certainly much urban exploring is illegal. But there is urban exploring in every country that is legal as well, ever been to the top of the Empire State Building? As far as the POV tag goes, does the article encourage urban exploration or simply describe it? The article should make no moral judgments of itself but reflect moral judgments that groups of people express, well sourced of course. There should be much more about the legality of trespassing, specifically public trespassing among other things. But I don't think its a neutrality problem. Grey Wanderer | Talk 22:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

From the article:

Explorers face various risks in abandoned structures including collapsing roofs and floors, broken glass, guard dogs, the presence of chemicals, other harmful substances, most notably asbestos, hostile squatters and sometimes motion detectors. Some explorers wear respirators to protect their airways.

[...]

Many explorers of abandonments find the decay of uninhabited spaces to be beautiful; many of these explorers are also photographers. Some abandonments are heavily guarded with motion sensors and active security.

Emphasis mine. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but that still does not answer your comment over the expense to the tax-payers. It could be argued that just having those security devices/guards/dogs are a drain on the tax-payers too. Also, while you make a comment about explorers in drains are waisting tax-payers dollars, what about the spray painters (who are not urban explorers), homeless people looking for shelter, animals, maintenance workers who fall down, etc? You make it sound like Urban Exploring is a deep drain on the tax payers? Brothejr (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You're not thinking straight. They obviously put them there so that they can send someone down if the sensors get triggered by one of the "explorers" (I mean, wow, they have regular staff that go, not much exploration left, methinks). That, in addition to the permanent installation that is clearly motivated by preventing access, costs money. Most people don't work for free, you see. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


As I've stated before, you sound like you are voicing an opinion. If you feel that explorers are a drain, then please provide factual truth to back up your statement. It also can be argued that the staff and sensors are there to prevent fire from breaking out. Sure, it costs money, but so do a whole bunch of other things cost money. When you're driving down the road, well over the speed limit, and the cops pull you over that costs money! I could pull out all sorts of examples, my point has been, back up your statements, otherwise they are just POV opinion. Also, it sounds like you are trying to push a POV. Brothejr (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be straight and clear with you. You put up the NPOV tag and then made some comments on legality of Urban explorers and it's impact on tax payers. I have asked you to prove your statement with sources and data. So far, you have not and just have made POV Statements. The article as it stands right now is an overview of urban Exploring and neither endorses or disputes Urban Exploring as much as it explains what it is. As it is currently written, the article is already NPOV. So I ask you to please prove your statement with facts backing it up. (If anyone wants to provide the facts to back up Papa Lima Whiskey's statements, then please do.) Also, on a side note: Urban Exploring is not limited to the United states of America, it is a world wide hobby (If anything it did not originate in the United States of America!), and in a variety of countries it is also quite a legal to do! Brothejr (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't use motion sensors to detect fires. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you have not proven your case for neutrality. The article, as it is written, is just an overview not an in depth article going into the pros and cons of Urban Exploring. It is fair and even balanced and it is also NPOV. Brothejr (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand how POV challenges work. They don't end by you declaring that an article that you have written is NPOV. You have to make it so. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but several editors have disagreed with you and you are the only editor who has expressed that view. Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that by, "the only editor", you're referring to Clegs and myself? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Before you posted the POV tag, the article had been written neutrally in an overview way to give a basic description of Urban Exploring and it's many facets. Then you posted the POV tag and made a couple of POV statements as to why you thought it was not neutrally written. I along with a couple others asked you to back up your statements with facts so we could best understand what you were talking about. Sadly, you never backed up the statements, but made more statements as if they are "fact". The thing you don't understand is that it is not just ok to post a POV tag and expect others to "fix" the article the way you want it (You don't seem to understand how POV challenges work. They don't end by you declaring that an article that you have written is NPOV. You have to make it so.). You have to back up your statements with facts (and proof of those facts) and show how the article is biased. As of right now, you could not prove that the article was biased other then making POV statements (The potential illegality of the activities described in this article has not been given its due coverage, in my opinion. The fact that motion sensors have been installed (uncited fact in the article) strongly hints that urban administrations are not appreciative of urban exploration activities, and that they cause costs to the tax payer, since incidents may have to be investigated by the appropriate authorities. None of this is discussed in the article, which just adds to the existing problems with uncited content. ...You're not thinking straight. They obviously put them there so that they can send someone down if the sensors get triggered by one of the "explorers" (I mean, wow, they have regular staff that go, not much exploration left, methinks). That, in addition to the permanent installation that is clearly motivated by preventing access, costs money. Most people don't work for free, you see. ) Each of those statements are of your own opinion. They may or may not be true, but you could not back up your statements. As mentioned before the burden of proof had been on you. You had been given about a week to prove your statements and show the unbalance of the article. You could not back then up , but made more POV statements and so the tag was removed. I suggest instead of posting the tag and expecting others to improve the article, you first read the article and understand the style it had been written in. Then ask yourself is it appropriate to add this information there. If it is not, then where is it appropriate? If it is, then how can it be put in unbiased and also encompass the entire movement that goes beyond the United States of America? Brothejr (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Moot point. Most of this article isn't even referenced in the first place, and there seems to be no attempt to do so. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Want to continue to reintroduce the POV tag? The burden of proof that the article is POV is not on us, but on the applicant -- you. So far, I can't find any such proof outside of conjecture. seicer | talk | contribs 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What does the tag say? Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. The dispute cannot possibly be resolved as no remedial action has been taken. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem has been is that you do not seem to want to back up your claims. You keep on putting up that POV tag and then sit back and tell us to fix it. As I and others have said, it does not work like that. The burden of proving it is on you, not us. Please cite exact examples of a non-neutral statement within the article and then also please provide sources to back up your claim. As we mentioned before, the article had been written as quick overview of the hobby, not an in depth review. Plus, it has been noted before, and I'll mentioned it again, the illegality/legality of the hobby is not the focus of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothejr (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What? So I guess we have to work out an edit here on the talk page or something? Whatever... These are the references that should be worked into the article as a minimum:

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for those areas, it is illegal. Now, what about all the other areas within the United States, also what about the UK, Australia, Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Etc. This is an international hobby, not just an American one. If we add those, we are implying that those laws are the same around the world, which they are not. Heck, they are not even the same within the united states. Some areas within the United States stipulate that trespassing is not a criminal crime, but a civil one and only required to assess fines, while others it mandates jail time. You would need to have a large section to encompass the entire set of trespassing rules within the United States. There is already an article on Trespassing and and it has been covered by a section within the article, right near the top that says "People entering restricted areas may be committing trespass and civil prosecution may result." Now, you are asking us to give Undue Weight to that issue alone? As the article stands now, it has already covered the idea of illegality with enough weight. Brothejr (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Erm, France: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/08/filmnews.france You really don't know an awful lot about this, do you? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, yea I do, but what about all the other countries within the world. Also, what about every US state, counties, cities, towns, villages, territories? Are you saying those references are the same everywhere? Brothejr (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, what about your claim that this hobby is a drain on tax payers, where is your references on that? Brothejr (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Listen, how about you stop withholding references and instead constructively collaborate on improving this article? Wikipedia has to constantly deal with illustrating different situations in different countries, it's not black magic, you know? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
References to what? My point, as had been other editor's, is that this is a world wide hobby within so many countries that to included any sort of legal section would take up the entire article to cover every country and law as each state/country/county/city/etc has different standards that saying one is the same as the other is ludicrous. I was and still am for the sentence or two that said this: "People entering restricted areas may be committing trespass and civil prosecution may result." It mentioned that the hobby is illegal and if the user would like to learn more, all they had to do was click on the blue link to go to the trespassing article. I would state that a good portion of your arguments should be brought to that article as this one is on Urban Exploring. I would also state that those references does not specifically state Urban Exploring is illegal, just trespassing. As already stated in the article, Urban Exploring is not all about Trespassing. Brothejr (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm willing to work on this point, but I'm not willing to push that article towards it being an illegal hobby. If we could write a section that was overview based that did not hinge on one set of laws or another, but did cover the illegality of trespassing I'd consider it. Problem with Urban Exploring and this article is that it is too board of a hobby. It spans the entire world and all sorts of laws. It isn't even one type of thing as much as it is a whole bunch of different aspects of exploring under one moniker. I feel, and this is my opinion, is that if we cover the illegality of it, we need to cover the legal aspects (I.E. that not all of UE is illegal) so that the reader comes off with a fair and impartial view of the hobby. Brothejr (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why I should shoulder the weight of your having presented a sub-par article. I've already provided the references. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think, before we continue to debate this, we need others to chime in with their views. Also, I would like to point out that your ref's, did not prove Urban Exploring is illegal, but trespassing is. I would also like to point out for further discussion that nothing in any of the laws states: "Urban Exploring" itself is illegal. Plus, for further discussion: is Urban Exploring only about trespassing? If the article is skewed towards UE is about trespassing, then we also need to address this too. The article may or may not be sub-par, but there is more to this then the illegality. As I mentioned, we need more people participating on this other then us two. Brothejr (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur. The references provided explicitly made the point that trespassing is illegal, but it made no mention that urban exploration is an illegal activity. There are many aspects to urban exploration that do not involve trespassing -- and as I have proved on Abandoned, you don't have to trespass to be able to explore.
I'll repeat an above statement: Is urban exploration solely dedicated to trespassing? No. And it's simply silly to believe that we cause undue financial burden somehow by exploring abandonments or etc., when no correlation has been made to that effect. seicer | talk | contribs 00:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The article explicitly refers to drains, and the activity being called "draining". There is a section dedicated to sewers, and another to "utility tunnels". Two of the photos illustrating the article are of drains. Who do you think you are kidding? If you're refusing to acknowledge and deal with the issues, then all I can do right now is shrug and conclude that the POV tag is appropriate and there to stay. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
To me it sounds like you are trying to equate Urban Exploring explicitly with Trespassing. You point out two portion of the entire article and say "that is Urban Exploring" and it is bad. This falls under WP:OR and WP:POV. While there are sections within the article that could be better written and use more ref's, as others have said, it at least is a balanced article. You seem to have something personal about this. You seem to be pushing a viewpoint and have some bias here. We have stated over and over again that Urban Exploring is not just trespassing as there is a whole lot of it that is quite legal. It is also not just an American hobby as it is world wide hobby. It seems to me, you put the POV tag up to prove your viewpoint. You seem to think that this article should be completely rewritten to make it sound only as an illegal activity, when as we've pointed out that there are a whole bunch of actives that fall under "Urban Exploring" that is not. You posted ref's that are laws against trespassing. Yet, none of those ref's says that Urban Exploring is illegal. Heck, some of the draining, you so explicitly refer to, is not illegal. Those shots you pointed too were taken from drains outside of the United States of America and it was quite legal for those people to be exploring them in their own country. If you doubt me, go online and use Google search engine to see the myriad of sites out there discussing and showing Urban Exploring. Some of it may be illegal, yet some of it will not be illegal. Brothejr (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You're misconstruing things I've (supposedly) said. We're not going to get anywhere like this. Please make a reasonable proposal that is in line with WP:NPOV, and addresses the problems raised. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You still have yet to address the issue at hand, and it is up to you (Papa Lima) to clearly demonstrate that there is a POV issue with urban exploration. Failing that, you have resorted to citing weak articles that do not equate urban exploration, draining or the like to illegal activities. Trespassing != urban exploration. Financial burden != urban exploration. None of the citations you provided verify your original research. seicer | talk | contribs 14:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done exactly what you asked for. If you wish to exacerbate the situation, that's up to you. Prior to encountering this article, I had no bias for or against urban exploration. The article, however, is biased in ways that I have substantiated with a cornucopia of references. It seems we have to work this out, but you don't seem to be prepared to do that. Please show me that we've not come to an impassé. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

POV redux

I see no evidence that the concerns I raised have been addressed. References provided have not been used. Nobody has indicated willingness to work on improving the coverage of legal aspects of UE. I don't see how your inaction now justifies removing the POV tag. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

With what? Your wholly unreliable sources? Or original research? You can't justify drive-by tagging with inaction or with references that fail at best. Tagging an article requires that you discuss the rationale and that you are prepared to defend it with an adequate reason; without both, there is no reason for the tag to exist. Consensus was that your sources were not reliable or were questionable, and that there was no reason for the tag to remain. Work was conducted to remove some POV and the unprotecting administrator agreed. seicer | talk | contribs 12:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Your polemics won't work. One source was a newspaper, the others were municipal governments. You can kick and scream if you want, but they're reliable sources. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the activity is not only dangerous but can be penalized under law. Seems like it ought to be possible to write a second paragraph under "safety" that explains all that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The only issue with this is, Papa has been equating urban exploration solely with its illicit nature and with the cost of providing security. Urban exploration is not solely about illicit activities, as I have been exploring abandonments legally for years through communications with various property owners, businesses and even the military -- and so have many others. Security is a side effect, especially if the property has been vandalized -- but urban exploration is not vandalism, and both are wholly separate topics. Urban exploration is also not solely breaking and entering, although some do take the task to do so. But to lump all explorers into both categories is reckless.
We came to a consensus to rewrite portions of the text and remove some of the dubious claims, and the page was unprotected after I made a request at RFPP. Papa has made little effort outside of trying to equate urban exploration with vandalism/breaking and entering and/orproviding rather dubious sources or original research.
As for the protection, I reverted on the basis that Papa has been conducting drive-by taggings, offering little rationale and stating that other editors have the burden to provide the proof of evidence that the article is not POV, instead of the tagger providing the burden of proof that the article is. seicer | talk | contribs 13:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
[1] How many times do you want to go around the block with this? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to echo Guy's comments and Baseball Bug's comments here: if you can provide sourced materials that are neutral, that is fine. But disagreeing with the article on the whole does not make the entire article unbalanced. Since your concerns dealt with one particular section, I moved the disputed tag to Popularity. There is no rationale to tag the entire article as being biased given that almost every sentence in every article can be twisted or conveyed in a way to where it is biased for one particular individual. You are blowing this entirely out of proportion for what is a very minute matter, and I am questioning your motives regarding this. seicer | talk | contribs 16:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You've continued to ignore the references I provided a long time ago. This is why we're not going to make any progress. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying that is a burden to the tax payer is a farce, when most urban explorers pay tax. Most are working class people who use urban exploring as a way to have fun on the weekend 12 January 2009

The entire page seems to be written by an Australian as all of the references and examples are in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.169.132 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Slowly Editing

I was thinking about slowly editing the article to see if we could add more references into the article and also to better describe each section. I had been reading each section and a couple just seem too vague and leave themselves up to the reader's interpretation of what it is. I've also been thinking that it has been this point that has caused some of the troubles over the idea of illegality. I want to differentiate various points to leave the reader no doubt that this hobby is not all about illegal activities, but leave the reader with the knowledge that this hobby is world wide and thus cannot be pigeonholed into one thing or another.

I would like to hear your thoughts about making the article better. Maybe even making it a FA status article? What are your thoughts? Brothejr (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Then again, this might just have to be put on hold until the admin's stop fighting! This cannot go forward until we are able to access the article. Brothejr (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Work out what you want the article to say here so PLW can contribute. Seicer clearly violated the protection policy by removing the protection. As an involved party, he can't do that. This is not admin fighting, but Seicer pretty clearly abusing his tools. Just because you so far have been unwilling to suggest a solution, does not mean the root cause for the protection has gone away. pschemp | talk 12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You also need a plan to address the fact that the main reference is not verifiable and anything from it will have to be removed whne protection is lifted. pschemp | talk 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Standing back a bit, it should also be noted that you seem to have a personal thing about this too, and the same things you leveled against Seicer can be leveled against you. Instead of telling us that it is us that should be primarily doing the work/fixing the article. Maybe you and PLW can actually come up with some fixes. First off, the ref's he provided were great for the Trespassing article, but mentioned nothing about Urban Exploring or Draining (That PLW is so passionate about!). Also, he has yet to provide ref's to back up his statement that Urban Exploring is a drain on tax payers. Instead he has told us that it is the other editors who have to back up our statements and also do the editing of the article. His statements have shown, he is not interested in making the article better as much as pointing out things he disagrees with and expecting others to do the work. He has primarily been the one to edit war and you seem to be backing him up and keeping others from working on the article until they see your point. If this protection issue/war is not resolved then another third party admin might need to step in. Brothejr (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have never edited the article, nor edit warred over it, therefore I am not an involved party. My personal concern is that you settle the dispute. Instead, you and Seicer have ignored references given, not provided any of your own and not even tried to come up with a solution. Neither has Papa Lime Whiskey written a proposal either. That's why the page is still protected, because you have made no progress whatsoever. No consensus on this page was reached to lift protection, and no promises not to edit war were given either. Talk to whomever you want, but I am following the policy and they will confirm that. Instead of complaining about the protection, (or in the case of Seicer quite underhandedly and without even asking me lifting the protection when he was in the edit war to begin with) you should be proposing a solution. Please try it. pschemp | talk 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
First off, you are an involved party for the simple fact you protected the article and continue to push your point. The reason the the protection was removed was because the people who put up the POV tag argument never could prove their point. They have been given more then a week to prove their argument with ref's that say urban exploration is illegal and that this hobby is a drain on tax payers. They could not prove their statements. Thus there is no argument or need of a consensus. Now if they/you come up with ref's that directly say UE is illegal and also ref's that prove that it is a drain on the tax payers, then we would be more then happy to add it into the article. As of right now PLW and you are making a POV argument. Brothejr (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ignored the references given? Did you even bother to read the discussion above? The above sources make no mention of urban exploration being a financial burden on the owners. Or that urban exploration is an illicit activity. Trespassing is illegal, so is breaking and entering, but urban exploration != trespassing != breaking and entering. You seemed to have missed the connections. seicer | talk | contribs 16:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Referencing Inflitration

Per this article --

I've done some news article searches (no access to NewsBank here at the moment) and came across numerous articles mentioning Inflitration and Access All Areas. Should this be considered a first-rate source, given its publisher, Jeff Chapman? seicer | talk | contribs 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

With that... note the addition. I'm sure more can be added on, but feel free to work with that. seicer | talk | contribs 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Also another article:


There is a lot more in that article that can be used as a ref. Brothejr (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be good to single out one death (individual) in this case, but it should be noted there are risk (I think this is covered?). seicer | talk | contribs 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Added in the above passages and cleaned up the text to remove forum references. seicer | talk | contribs 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the two UER ref's as they have been causing credibility issues for the article. I think we can find more reliable ref's to put there instead of forums! Brothejr (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e Batz Jr., Bob (7 September, 2003). "Urban explorers dare to investigate seldom-seen Pittsburgh sites". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2008-06-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ a b {{cite news|title=Urban explorer pays for his hobby with his life|date=[[18 June 2008]

On edit warring and POV

Someone pointed out this 'edit war' on my talk page, and I've been avoiding it. But I took a look today and it seems pretty simple, really. In certain areas, urban exploration is lumped with trespassing and breaking and entering, thus making it illegal. In other areas, it is, what I suppose amounts to, de facto legal, as nobody is being arrested for it, though there probably aren't laws specifically allowing it. So... say something like that in the article. All you need is a couple of sentences, with a few citations, that says exactly what I just said. Some areas consider it illegal and lump it together with .... Other areas don't have any laws .... Really, of all the edit wars we have going on in the project, this one is pretty weak-ass. Work out the differences here and I'll be more than happy to lift the protection and we can all move on. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

But some urban exploration is legal, and it would be of equal importance to include that (see above) from Inflitration. I'll add in some basic citations to where it is needed (to augment some forum-based sources), but I'll leave the POV-issues for the talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 20:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, if we can write a well written intro/couple of sentences that covers both aspects of Urban Exploring with some ref's that back each up, then I would be cool with that. If we can write something that says that it can be both a legal hobby and also in some areas it is lumped with trespassing, then that would be good. Brothejr (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not "lumped with trespassing". Under the legal definition of trespassing, it is trespassing whenever you're not doing it on your own property, a commons, or a patch of land (or sea or sky, if you will) with no valid claim. Even dictionaries define trespassing as, enter[ing] a property without permission [2] [3] [4]. Where buildings and facilities are owned by public governments rather than being a simple commons, entering that property is trespassing under the proper, legal definition. It's up to the owner of the land (which may be a municipal government even if the land is "public property" in the sense that it was purchased using taxpayers' money through a body elected by citizens (at least in a simplified view of things)) to decide whether to press charges and/or implement permanent security measures such as regular patrolling, guard dogs, monitoring equipment, etc. Private property owners can equally press charges for trespassing - whether you were "exploring" or looking to steal is irrelevant to a trespassing charge. There is nothing I'm aware of that unties you from the obligation to stay off other people's property, be it private or government-owned, other than an explicit permission from the owner. So if you want your hobby to be legal, the best thing you can do is lobby your local governments to make permits available. It is likely that in this case, you would also have to sign a form absolving them from all responsibilities should you come to harm, including death. For this reason, they may refuse, and will likely only be able to grant permits to legal adults.
Incidentally, my maintaining that monitoring and patrolling carry a monetary cost has no effect on the stated intention by some municipal governments to press charges on trespassers of sewers being a well-referenced fact that is missing from the article. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
What we've been getting at: is that yes some of Urban Exploring does involve trespassing, yet a good portion does not. Some quick examples, (Also using one of yours) of quite legal Urban Exploring: Entering buildings with the building owner's permission, buildings that have been opened to the public, public parks, etc. Also, please note as mentioned with my examples, not all urban exploring involves trespassing and I would respectfully like to suggest that we don't try to lump all of urban exploring, or the majority of it, with trespassing. While some in veritably does involve trespassing and we should make good mention of that, we should also remember that a good portion of Urban Exploring does not involve trespassing so we must also make that distinction too. Brothejr (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me just point something out to you: the idea that I ever wanted urban exploration equated with trespassing exists in your head only. Can we move on now, please? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
OK..... I was basing that on what you had written, my bad! Maybe next time you could a little more clear, then there will not be any misunderstanding and we can get this worked out. Brothejr (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
(reset) Yet this article is not about trespassing, and adding in what you had stated above would give undue weight to an illegal aspect of this interest. There is much more to urban exploration than trespassing or monetary costs, and the citation I provided above in the other section provides an equal balance -- although it could use some expanding upon.
As Brothejr stated above, not all urban explorers trespass. Some do this with a legit interest; even those that trespass do not necessarily steal, vandalise and what have you. You have lumped (Papa) urban explorers with this wholly illicit interest, and that is simply not true. Yes, some explorers trespass, but not all do, therefore adding undue weight to trespassing/financial burdens when the above statements will do is just adding in your point-of-view. seicer | talk | contribs 01:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for security measures, guard dogs etc.

Within the UK many owners or caretakers of abandoned or under used property are obliged to provide "reasonable" security to ensure that no-one can easily enter the property. The reason is not because entry is necessarily illegal but because an insurer has identified some degree of risk. The provision of guards, dog, CCTV cameras etc. is a cheaper option in many cases than paying the insurance claims of someone who easily enters a property and injures themselves. The law in the UK looks at whether a defendant in such a case has made "reasonable" preparations to prevent entry and injury; if not the owner or the insurer is held liable to pay compensation to the person injured.

The provision of security (in the UK) does not therefore indicate illegality as such; only a defense against claims of this nature. My previous job for the UK government brought me into contact with this environment and I can say that the only area where the legalities were fairly clear was in the area of drinking water provision. If anyone was found trespassing at a service (last stage before the tap) reservoir they could be arrested under citizen's arrest by employees or under Prevention of Terrorism legislation by the police.

I can't really see that anything still remaining in this article to date (24 June 2008) really encourages strictly "illegal" activity any more than other activities such as BASE jumping, Free Running (Le Parkour)or even skateboarding in a private or public owned area. All of these have the potential to become issues of trespass or illegality but it isn't their raison d'etre. Spike (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can get a ref or two that could back that up, then we could also add that to the article as another view point/angle on the legality/illegality of UE. Brothejr (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I've been mentioning above, and what others, like Brothejr, have come to a consensus towards. Urban exploration is not per se trespassing or breaking and entering, and there is nothing that alludes to this activity being strictly illegal. That said, it's good to hear some feedback from the UK on this -- especially in regards to the obligation towards providing basic security at the property. It's much different here in the states, where the liability often lies with the trespasser (although there are exceptions). Echoing the comment above, if we can get a citation for this, it would be fantastic. seicer | talk | contribs 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Urban_exploration/Archive_2&oldid=1048763884"