Talk:Urban exploration/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

UE related videos removed????

Recently I had filmed 2 music videos at 3 different abandoned mental hospitals in New England. I posted those videos under "short films" and they were taken off. I was told by the Wikipedia Gods or the 'bots' that my links were considered spam. I don't really agree with that since I am not selling anything, I am sharing media that was filmed in abandoned places with urban explorers. And even if I was selling the videos, why does Session 9 and Into the Darkness get to keep their links up? What makes my videos different from theirs, except for the fact that they are making money and I am non-profit. Seems pretty unfair to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.72.163.2 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Book Image

This image is in violation of the fair use provision and needs to be fixed. Before anyone flys off the handle, let me explain why. I consulted with several other admins and the verdict is thus: Using an image as "decoration" (which clearly the case here) of related books is arguably a fair use in terms of US fair use provisions, but clearly fails wikipedia's policy, specifically "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." a "list of related books" does not justify using a cover, as the mere picture does not qualify for significantly enhancing readers understanding of the topic. For this to be justified, the article must be ABOUT the book entirely or in the majority.

TO help you understand, the places where a book cover would be able to be used under our fair use provision are things like an article about the author or an article about the book. Merely sticking it the list of references as an example of something important or pretty fails our policy. The fact that it has a fair use justification on it, means nothing here because what is important is the way it is used. So you guys have two choices to make this image meet policy. As it is, because of the fair use violation, it qualifies for speedy deletion. I decided however to let you know this an let you guys make a choice. You can move the image to an article about the book or remove it. These are the only two things that are acceptable under our policy. I'm coming back in a week to delete it if neither of these is done. pschemp | talk 12:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved. It would be nice if you would discuss this on the talk page first rather than hide out at IRC or in private e-mail. I don't keep tabs on this page 24/7, and neither do the others (my watchlist is over 500 items large). seicer | talk | contribs 13:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a better place because it has to do with this article. The image talk page was an incomprehensible mess of insults, and I wasn't going to add to that. Also, the discussion took place on wiki btw. pschemp | talk 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"TO help you understand, the places where a book cover would be able to be used under our fair use provision are things like an article about the author or an article about the book."

The image was moved to Ninjalicious, who is Jeff Chapman, the author of the book. But now you are stating that Urban Exploration is better suited for the image, despite your quotation? seicer | talk | contribs 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that her comment is in reference to where discussion should be held. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears it up. seicer | talk | contribs 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

External links redux

On 15 February 2008, I removed the "Further Reading" section on the basis that we were not holding all of the sites listed to the same same standard. This was after there was some contention regarding on what should be allowed. Previously, there was a generalized tally on any new additions, but that was a cumbersome process.

I'd like to bring the topic back up on the links. "Avatar-X" from UER brought it to my attention that the links were missing last week, and I had completely forgotten about the issue. I am proposing that we list out the links here and reason out through consensus on whether they would be appropriate additions. Unlike a lot of other articles, there is no one "official" site for urban exploration, but in my opinion, UER comes damn close. It contains a location database, an editable encyclopedia, forum and other socialization features that ranks it far above a generalized forum.

What do you guys think? Any other additions? seicer | talk | contribs 22:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO having a further reading section where there are links to other UE sits will only give opportunities for people who only want to advertise their web sites and gain more web traffic. The majority of the sites that were listed last time only barely added to this article (I.E. you remember that Russian forum that kept on trying to add their site back to the article so they could get more members!) I have taken a look at UER.CA site before and I also classify it under the same title. It was the UER.CA ref's that were causing this article so many POV and REF issues, plus the web site does not really add to the history/better understanding of UE. I also see that Avatar-X , while a name semi known within the UE community, is mainly trying to get his site back into the spot-light. If we are to add a link there, then they would have to be strictly related and have to be heavily scrutinized before even being added to the article to make sure they conform to the appropriate links to be added. (Which the majority of UE sites out there would fail.) Otherwise I'd say no. The majority of the UE sites out there consist of either photo sites or forums, neither of which really help to give a better understanding of UE. Brothejr (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously?? UER.CA, along with Infiltration.org are absolutely the two most well known UE related sites. UER is home to the most active UE community around. This hobby has a strong online community and a link to the community's home only makes sense. But sorry, I can't back that statement up with a peer reviewed journal article about a double-blind research study. (sarcasm not intended to be hostile)--DJ Craig (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning behind not including UER.CA and Infiltration.org is while they are well known, they do not contribute to the better understanding of UE then any other forum. To include them also means we should then include a whole host of other forums, that despite lacking the notoriety of UER.CA, are still exactly the same as UER.CA. Being well known does not mean it will better contribute to the understanding of UE. Brothejr (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the ODP link because it includes 604 links about urban exploration. According to the Wikipedia guidelines on external links, listing an external link farm such as ODP is useful to avoid making the Wikipedia article itself into a link farm, and also to avoid arguments as which sites should and shouldn't be listed when there are a lot of potential links. Flatterworld (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that Wikipedia is endorsing all the links in that link farm? Brothejr (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: posting that link will not stop any argument as to which sties should be included or not. Most people will simply ignore the link and post their link anyway. Plus some will say that if we are including that link in the article, why are we not including other links in the article either. Brothejr (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you read the Wikipedia guidelines. Flatterworld (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have. The question is have you? I ask this, seeing as a bunch of the links in that honey pot violate the external link policy (I.E. the sections just after the one you are hanging your argument on). If anything, the majority of the links do. Then again, have you really looked at the links in that directory, or maybe the links in the other directories you have posted throughout the encyclopedia? Brothejr (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you don't want anyone to learn anything about urban exploration other than what you personally have decided should be included in this article, and you're perfectly willing to misuse Wikipedia to do so. You can be as snarky as you like, but in the long run Wikipedia will win over control freaks like you. In the meantime - knock yourself out. Flatterworld (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, sorry, but I most likely know more then you, otherwise you would not be trying to push that link into the article. Realize this: just because a site claims to be a UE site does not mean it deserves to be included here. Most sites are peoples personal sites to show off their "way cool" pictures of the "latest" spot they "discovered!" The majority of these sites are peoples attempts to blend in with the community and show show off how way cool they are. Out of a thousand UE sites, there are maybe only a small handful that are really instructing as to what UE is. The rest are just simply coping each other with what they think is the most artistic shots. So please do not tell me I do not know what UE is, unless you want me to whip out my old site, which is still online as of right now. Brothejr (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think Gwen Gale gave a good suggestion here from the AN thread. "Hopefully y'all can write up a sourced section on legalities/risks and be done with it." Think you guys can do this? pschemp | talk 21:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey! It was me who said that! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, got mixed up. Forgive me? pschemp | talk 21:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say that I think the article needs some re-arrangement in general. It may be possible to write a section that will settle this dispute, and then work on rearrangements to improve flow later. None of this is really possible until seicer recognises that the sources that have been put forward are reliable. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to dive in and declared myself "involved" now. The Guardian ref that PLW provided is certainly considered reliable. "But since 1955, for security reasons, it has been an offence to "penetrate into or circulate within" the rest of the network." That pretty much says it's illegal to carry out urban exploration in the sewers of Paris. Also, they have their own police, which comes at taxpayer expense. Now, no one is saying that all urban exploration is illegal, but to refuse to admit that it is illegal in many places, and is as a result a burden on the taxpayer in some, seems a little strange. All the other references are legit too Seicer. Citing the facts in a mention does not give undue burden. You've as much admitted that your view here isn't neutral since you do this professionally but NPOV has to be maintained, and that means giving all the viewpoints whether you like it or not. I think you are seeing the attempt to make this article balanced as a personal attack on your hobby and it isn't. Please try to stop thinking that way. pschemp | talk 21:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

SOme more refs: [1] James E. Sullivan Jr., 22, of 118 Denrose Drive, and Josh I. Taylor, 23, of 330 Joe McCarthy Drive, Amherst, were charged with criminal trespass and a city ordinance for being in Niawanda Park after 10 p.m. “I was just doing a little urban exploration,” he said, adding that he was down there for only a brief time and didn’t see anything interesting. “It was random and stupid.” pschemp | talk 21:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Indeed, a few kids trespassing in old buildings is nothing new. What makes urban exploration different is that it is not a few kids - it is tens of thousands of people of varying ages and professions." [2]pschemp | talk 21:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that many, if not most, of these explorations involve at least technical illegalities, whether it be the simple fact of being on private property without permission, or ignoring fences and 'Keep Out' signs.[3] pschemp | talk 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said that the hobby was purely legal, and have stated numerous times that there are illicit and legal aspects of this hobby on how you define it. But to lump instances of breaking and entering, and vandalism into the article is stretching it. That said, it is weakly covered currently under Popularity and that needs to be expanded and recategorized into another section, as I mentioned earlier. I wouldn't mind seeing a draft come online to tweak, as I also mentioned previously. That's something I am in favor of.

As far as the sourcing goes, I was referring to labeling the hobby solely as one that is illicit or one that is heavily biased towards. I want to ensure that the new section (or wherever it may be placed at) presents an equal coverage, and I think that I provided some of that in an earlier discussion, if I am not mistaken. If not, once I have access to AccessNews again, I can dig up some sources. seicer | talk | contribs 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

weak articles [4]

wholly unreliable sources [5]

I have to tell you, the way you are trying to wriggle out of statements previously made really disgusts me. You said those things. Now deal with it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, and PLW never said it was purely illegal either, so what the heek are you so against him for? pschemp | talk 21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[6] "Under the legal definition of trespassing, it is trespassing whenever you're not doing it on your own property [...] with no valid claim." With that statement, would it be fair to write something to the effect of, "Some urban explorers trespass, while others ask for permission."? seicer | talk | contribs 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but you have to source it. In other words, while we have lots of evidence floating around that people don't ask, it would be neccessary to have some evidence (i.e. reliable source) that mentions that some do ask. pschemp | talk 22:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also going to chime in here. While I'm not saying that the the hobby is purely legal or illegal, I would like to point out the so far every ref that has been presented talks about trespassing. None of them says explicitly that Urban Exploring is illegal. We need to also make this distinction. We also have a comment above from an editor from the UK that also states that it is not illegal in his country and that the laws stipulate that it is not a criminal offense but on a safety factor only, so if we write a section of legality we need to consider other countries besides America. While everyone here is hell bent on trying to show how illegal this hobby it is, they are also ignoring the legal side to it too. Also if you are going to prove the illegalities, you need to have something state that the Urban Exploring is illegal. Otherwise you could be pushing an incorrect statement and open up Wikipedia to legal problems of its own. Also, if you are pushing for a legality section I would like to remind you that it would have to be extremely neutrally written so as the reader does not get the impression that the hobby itself is illegal. Also, there would be weight issues that we would also need to consider too. Brothejr (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BrotherJ - to engage in urban exploration in the Paris sewers, you must enter them correct? Well entering them is illegal. Therefore urban exploration there is illegal. In that place, the hobby itself is illegal. Note I also have sources aying the hobby is illegal. Because it is in many places. Arguing semantics that it isn't illogical. If it's illegal to enter, and you have to enter to do urban exploration, then urban exploration is illegal in that place. "Please note that many, if not most, of these explorations involve at least technical illegalities" is one such statement. pschemp | talk 22:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To use your example, what happen if that same person had gotten permission to enter the sewers, is it then illegal? This is not semantics and also your comments also seems to be a little bit of WP:OR. Brothejr (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

BrotherJ, yes, some of my reference clearly call urban exploration illegal in that location. I'm not talking about the legal parts because you seem to have that covered. Since you've ignored the illegal parts, I am pointing those out exclusively. There's nothing biased here, but me presenting the opposing view. OF course if you get permission to enter, that's legal. But that doesn't make the hobby itself completely legal, so you can't say that it is because it is specifically outlawed in some places. pschemp | talk 22:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a statute that specifically states that urban exploration is illegal? seicer | talk | contribs 22:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you need to enter a place to conduct urban exploration, then it's either by permission or ownership, or you have to trespass. Those are the only possibilities. If you have trouble accepting that, then I suggest you go back to your earlier suggestion of dispute resolution. Maybe that will be a good way to spend the little time that you have to squeeze out in between "meetings", and we can go over all the contradictions and admin mistakes that you've made in detail. Or we could just work this out with our heads screwed on tight and brains switched on. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It may come to a shock, but I do hold a full-time job. I just have a lot of slack time at the moment. seicer | talk | contribs 23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And it isn't in others, such as the UK. Which makes this one of those areas that needs to be country specific -- or perhaps a little more specific than that, given that each state in the United States has varying laws regarding trespass. Some countries, like the UK, will dole out no punishment, while others will lump trespassing with a Class D Misdom. Your last statement, equating entering with urban exploration, needs to be tailored specifically to the country or locale, because it varies. I entered an ammunitions plant legally, and conducted urban exploration, and therefore urban exploration was legal due to my specifics. If I entered it illegally, and conducted urban exploration, then it would be illegal in that locale.

Now, tailor that to the UK and I wouldn't be hit up with much of anything. And I'd like to see these sources, please (just so I can take a peek). seicer | talk | contribs 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Following up on that, you then have specifics on the type of location. (This can be verified if you want to actually include this as a source.) Here is a listing of trespass laws by state and province. seicer | talk | contribs 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I linked to them already in this section. Read them. Note I also very specifically tied the actions to location, PARIS. BrotherJ can't say though, that the hobby is legal period, because it's not in some places. All of this has to be qualified. You can't even make blanket statements about the UK because some places there its's illegal - they just don't prosecute. Here's another "The fascination with Detroit's buildings has turned into an illegal and sometimes dangerous hobby." [7] pschemp | talk 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In this section? Where? I noted that you were tying them to specific locations, but my question was, how do we go about doing this? Is being specific more relevant to trespass than urban exploration at this point? Or should we offer a generic explanation that "some exploration is illegal and legal"? (Okay, much more specific than that.) seicer | talk | contribs 22:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to numbers 5,6,7 and 11 right above you, all of which note that urban exploration can be illegal. The fact is that unless permission is granted, it is, under the law, the same thing as trespassing. It's fine to say that some urban exploration is legal, but we need references for that. Reliable references. pschemp | talk 22:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were referencing the UER threads above (which contain sublinks for verification later). Some of the articles you provided (one being the SF Gate), I believe are already in the article but can be referenced elsewhere. seicer | talk | contribs 22:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't even make blanket statements the same also applies to you pschemp. You seem hell bent on proving all Urban Exploring is illegal? I and others have been saying that not all of it is illegal and any statement about the legality of the hobby within the article also needs to take the legal side into account too. That has been mine and other's points clear and simple. Brothejr (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest. At least Seicer is trying to work constructively here. pschemp | talk 22:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that what she is saying is that both sides need to be supported by references. I don't see how one can object to that notion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I"m saying. Everything needs references. All sides, all facts. We've got lots of examples where people have done urban exploration illegally, so we need so refs about people who do it legally. For as many countries as possible. (Though it isn't necessary to do every single country, but those where this is a larger movement.) pschemp | talk 22:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Trespassing

I think this got lost up above, but how specific should we be in discussing trespassing? A statement to the effect of, "some explorers trespass, which is illegal, however some conduct their explorations legally" with some explaination and sources should be written. But should we go into detail regarding each state, province, country or type? Isn't that better suited for trespass? seicer | talk | contribs 22:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because not all tresspassing is urban exploration. There are plenty of refs out there to this specifically. I think you only need to list those countries where urban exploration is a large movement. Every state is the most detail I'd go into to, and then only if it's a really strange law. At the very least, let's get the data here. The format of it can be figured out once you have it. And I'll mention again, it all needs a ref.pschemp | talk 22:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pschemp, can you clarify what you mean by this statement? "OF course if you get permission to enter, that's legal. But that doesn't make the hobby itself completely legal, so you can't say that it is because it is specifically outlawed in some places."

Urban exploration (AFAIK) is not specifically outlawed anywhere, but trespassing is. Is there a citation that urban exploration is illegal, and if so, I would love to see the statute for this (not just for here, but to share at UER). seicer | talk | contribs 22:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a problem of basic logic here. I thought I'd covered that with this edit. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refactor this inflammatory comment. Did you provide a statute where urban exploration, by statute, is illegal? We are already well aware that trespassing is illegal. seicer | talk | contribs 23:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't possibly have a law that says "urban exploration is illegal". That's way too vague. You have to be very specific about what's legal or not, i.e. trespassing, breaking and entering, vandalizing, or whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For example, I might think of taking a Grey Line Bus Tour as "urban exploration". Far as I know, that's perfectly legal in most states. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets go back to the Paris sewers. Nobody uses the term urban exploration in laws because 1. It's too vague as Bugs said, and 2. In the eyes of the law, urban exploration without permission is the exact same thing as trespassing. IF you get permission, int he eyes of the law you are visiting the building. They don't recognize urban exploration as a hobby, they don't care. The fact remains that in a place where this is illegal, you must enter the place to do it. Entering is trespassing. Therefore, doing it is illegal. pschemp | talk 23:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clearification. seicer | talk | contribs 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There is no difference. It's trespassing. So that should be in the article. Since the prime complainer isn't willing to write it, maybe someone else could. Something along the lines of "urban exploration can involve trespassing, which can be punishable under the law." Wow, that was hard. Whew! It's Miller time! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be worth actually stating the conditions under which it is/isn't trespassing, otherwise we're basically writing a stub-level sentence. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What's stopping you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of working things out on the talk page is to avoid another edit war. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Listing of laws

• California's trespassing law by industrial location: [8]
• By state (US): [9]
• By province (CN): [10]

I'm trying to figure out why the details of the laws for the US need to be listed. There aren't any where you can enter legally without permission correct? pschemp | talk 23:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So how does this differ, as a practical matter, from trespassing, breaking-and-entering, etc.? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

well you don't neccessarily have to break and enter to get in for one. pschemp | talk 23:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you including cases where there's no sign and no locked door to keep you out? Doesn't the owner of a building bear some responsibility to take measures to discourage trespassing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's where it can get murky. If I recall, you can't be charged with a crime in the UK if there are no signs visible at the entrances. That's a different case here in the states, where it can be lumped into just being solely on the property. seicer | talk | contribs 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What if they leave their doors unlocked and/or wide open? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A huge leap from misdemeanor to felony. Carrying tools with you? Or even a knife? That can sometimes result in a bumped up charge. Trespassing is not always associated with breaking and entering. seicer | talk | contribs 23:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think the laws of every city are different, as regards the penalties (if any) for entering buildings without explicit permission. Trying to list every city's laws here could get a bit tedious. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I think it might be good to just give a generalized overview -- of the countries where urban exploration is a hot topic (i.e. France, U.S., Canada, Australia). Most of this is more suited to trespass, IMO. seicer | talk | contribs 23:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

nO, that's exactly why an overview is sensible. The differences in US law are minute....penalties and stuff. The focus though is on whether you are allowed to do it. Is there any US place that allows entering buildings without permission? I haven't been able to find any. Therefore, you say something like, "details vary, but permission is required to make it legal". If the UK is the opposite, then you say, "details vary, but in general, permission is not required". THe details of tresspassing laws don't belong anywhere in WP. How the laws affect urban exploration in a broad sense does. This the the purpose of an encyclopedia article. To give an overview that is useful and informative without getting stuck in minutia. pschemp | talk 23:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See my one sentence above and see if it suffices. It is not appropriate to turn the article into a "Naughty, naughty! Don't do this!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is anyone's intention. pschemp | talk 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I fail to see any practical difference between "urban exploration" and trespassing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see someone added the explanation above. There is no difference. Roger. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Legality

I put a couple of sentences about this subject in the article. Have at it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now we have no references in that amendment. That kind of puts us back where we started and is sure to lead to further discussions down the road. Maybe we should finish the job. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

...you can add some references in there, you know... seicer | talk | contribs 23:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I put some "cn" tags where the reference points might be. I think it's impractical to list every trespassing law, though. They like to keep articles under 40K. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That rule is now considered obsolete, actually. Since the references probably won't be used elsewhere in the article, you can just put them all in one <ref></ref> tag. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I am and have been in support of just such a simple neutral sentence. I am in consensus of it and feel it should stand. I know that there are some ref's that had posted way before this lengthy discussion started that might be able to be used to back up the sentence. Brothejr (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For now we can still use this ref [11] that does mention how Urban Exploration can involve trespassing. I can pull up some more news articles to replace those ref's if needed. Brothejr (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to cite a reference that requires paying for it to be able to read it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... interesting because when I had posted it a while ago it had been free. Well then we can find another article. It's not that hard. I'll take a look, however, anyone else can also look for a good news article ref to back it up. Brothejr (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

They probably keep it online for awhile and then archive it. Not that they don't have room, they just want to squeeze some bucks (or pounds) out of the public. Meanwhile, there's discussion elsewhere of this activity "catching the attention of the law". I wonder if my lone sentence or two would make more sense in the intro, with further elaboration later? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That works inasfar as the lede doesn't have to be referenced as long as it's supported by the article, and it would probably be good to mention it in the lede. It still means we need a referenced section later on. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I put it in the lead, now that there is other, detailed info in the Safety / Legality section. As I see it, the safety and the legality go hand-in-hand, because often the no-trespassing laws are there in order to deter people (or try to) from getting hurt. That's not necessarily the only reason, but it's one of them. Part of it is the "nuisance factor". This is vaguely related: When the I-35W Bridge collapsed a year ago, there was yellow tape strung all along various areas that normally would be considered public thoroughfares. This was done for a variety of reasons, but crossing the yellow line for the purpose of this particular type of "urban exploration", was threatened with serious punishment (just what, I didn't get far enough to find out). So the various factors include safety, privacy, and just plain causing trouble, even if the trespassers intend no harm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple other articles [12] [13] that I have found that could be used as ref's either for the safety/legality section or in other areas of the article. Brothejr (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's an article that requires payment, comment it out and I'll dig it up if it's at AccessNews. seicer | talk | contribs 00:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to have that article free only because it made such a great ref for a lot of things within the Urban Exploration article. Brothejr (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yea hey, I also found this article too: [14] It is written on giving advice on Legal Urban Exploring and can be cited within the article. I've replaced the CN tag PLW put up with the ref and it might also be used in other parts of the article. All I had to do to find it was do a simple Google search to find the article. Go figure! Brothejr (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that a print publication? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can remove tags, presumably you can answer my question. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

By definition of print publication do you mean a news paper or something that is published in paper form? By taking a look at the web page (which is open to everyone) it is mainly an online publication, though I could print it out and then it is in paper form. Brothejr (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that after discussing WP:RS so much, it's rather odd that we're contenting ourselves with an essentially self-published website. A bunch of references have been posted on this talk page by various people recently, and none of them are used yet. Instead, out of five references in the article, two look like self-published websites, and a third is unavailable. Not cached by Google, not cached by archive.org. It's not a very satisfactory situation. So currently, we have two references in there that can stand on their own. Shouldn't we be rigorous and remove everything that isn't up to scratch so that we can see where we stand? Cheers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well to answer your question, with the exception of one article that turned into a pay article, the rest are solid articles. As far as the one that you call a personal web site, if you actually read some of the articles there you would see that they are published by different people on that web site. It is also a solid article that can be cited in this article. As it stands, the majority of the ref's are solid and usable in this article. While I or others will get around to adding those ref's to the article, you are also welcome to add them to the article or maybe find some ref's to back up other sections. Brothejr (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Targets for exploration sections

You know, some of the ref's I found up above could be used to support some of these sections. However, the idea I want to throw out there is would it be better if we combined some of those sections and maybe did a little condensing? Would it make it better to read and easier to reference? Also there might not be as many problems with the article if we combined some of the sections.

What do you think? Brothejr (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Rooftopping should be re-located to the Targets for Exploration section instead of photography? Jacobssteph (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

History

Please give some kind of history here! These kind of adventures may perhaps be found in literature? I can indeed find thrilling memories in Enid Blytons books. :)

ns(at)flata.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.138.223 (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research tag

As requested by Brothejr on my talk page, here's my rationale for the original-research tag. There are quite a few claims that are fact-defining in structure but have a tone suggesting that they're brain dump material and not from a reliable source (but you're definitely free to correct me! <grin>). I don't use that tag lightly, as it's slightly stronger in scope than primarysources. I don't doubt accuracy, mind you; that would involve a much stronger disputed tag.

Many explorers of abandonments find the decay of uninhabited spaces to be beautiful; many of these explorers are also photographers.

The term 'infiltration' is often associated with the exploration of active structures.

There have been large numbers of fatalities from around the world through being overcome by toxic gases from sewers and the only safe way to enter a sewer is if the atmosphere has been tested by a working monitoring device and other confined space entry procedures followed.

Although they exist worldwide, those who partake in this often reside near New York City, Toronto, London, Sydney and Moscow....

This was once called vadding at MIT, though students there now refer to it as roof and tunnel hacking.

I'm not even halfway through the article with these examples, but hopefully these will shed some light on my reasons for tagging the article. I didn't submit it for deletion or anything nasty like that; the tag is simply there to invite others (including myself) to improve the article over time and back up some of these (interesting, but uncited) claims. Todd Vierling (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are some good points to bring up. Some of those can be backed up with refs (I am thinking of the first three) and the rest could be removed and not hurt the article. Some of the ref's already used in other parts of the article, could reasonably be used to back those statements up too. Heck, all of them could be removed and still not really hurt the article. Brothejr (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thought would be also to remove some of the excess names from the page. (I.E. Vadding). My reasoning is that there are hundreds of local and regional names for this hobby. People are coming up with new names everyday and are using them within their own licks. My thinking would be only to include the main "known" names and keep off more regional or local names. Brothejr (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Many problems...

This article used to be really good. "Urban spelunking"...seriously? I've NEVER heard of that. The introduction makes it sound like all urban exploration is inherently illegal. UE is NOT a criminal activity. Without actually saying it, the introduction really gives that impression. More emphasis on the motivation of urban explorers would be good. Motion detectors and advanced security measures inside truly abandoned buildings is EXTREMELY rare. Urban explorers follow a strict set or rules and ethics. We aren't a bunch of wild teenagers raising hell and getting ourselves in trouble. That's how the article makes it sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Craig (talk • contribs) 03:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Following a strict set of ethics doesn't automatically stop what you're doing being illegal, though. Morality and the law do not always coincide! 86.132.142.153 (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

New image that was just added

An urban explorer stands near a storm drain in the rivulet under Hobart, Tasmania

This image was just added after the author of the image had said that a rule had been found that allowed the copy-write of the image. I am not disputing this and think it is fine that it can be allowed in Wikipedia. However, my concern is that it first seems like it is more advertising/promotion of the person in the picture (Which seems kind of counter to the UE mind set of not posting pictures of yourself exploring in the open public.) then really adding anything substantive to the article. Second I also want to question putting it in the safety and legality section. That image does not really add anything to the section as it does not demonstrate anything about safety nor does it add anything to the legality of the hobby. I am proposing either to completely remove the image from the article, or at least find a better home for it within the article itself. Maybe instead the image would be better for a dughter/side article on drains. While I am not saying that the image is not a bad image, but that it does not seem really appropriate for the article due to the fact that the main focus of the article was on the person and not the drain. Brothejr (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's an excellent good shot, I moved it up to the article top and took out Image:SydCaveClanHercules pillars, Wicks road, Macquarie Park Sydney.jpg. The placement in "Safety and legality" may have had someting to do with Ninjalicious' quote "discovery and a few nice pictures" - anyway, that's a lead pic IMO. Franamax (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that User:Adam.J.W.C. didn't quite appreciate the removal of his image, and has reinstated the Hercules Pillars image. SMC (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are correct I am being selfish in the fact that I already have two other pictures in the article. I felt guilty so I restored the other. _||_Adam (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A long story short, there was a big discussion at Talk:Urban_exploration/Archive_2#Images among other places about the image, the concerns about possible personal promotion etc were raised. Then it got deleted due to copyright problems, then I found a specific policy on the issue and got it undeleted and re-added it to the article per previous consensus. At the time of writing 3/5 of the images in the article are User:Adam.J.W.C.'s. Frankly the most sensible path forward is to shuffle the images a bit and leave them all there for the time being, it avoids edit wars and there is still more text than images anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already restored the Tassy image. If I want to add the other one later on I will simply swap my own pictures around. That's if they are not removed before then. Cheers _||_Adam (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, fair enough, done whilst I was writing the above. No reason there can't be more images in the article though, at least for the time being. The other image would probably even fit right next to the one I provided without problems. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I should probably pop in and apologize here - the image I pushed up imo has some pretty heavy artistic value, look at the transition from man-made conduit, piping and sculptural/functional steel above; through the man-made yet organic and well-shadowed arch shapes; down further through the definitive human markings of grafitti and a solitary person; and to the wholly natural trickle of water and orange slime-molds on the floor. That's a pretty spectacular image.

At the same time though, I just took out the existing lead image, which wasn't particularly polite. I did that because on first inspection, it's quite murky and doesn't present well - however it does in fact show the true aspect of UE when you look at it closely, finding and photographing weird stuff in out-of-the-way places; I shouldn't have simply removed it from the article. Sorry! Franamax (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivial facts not for citing?

Lqstuart has proposed to remove some of the citation needed tags because he feels the facts are obvious. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urban_exploration&diff=250605550&oldid=250528342 How do people feel about this? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree we still need references for those first two tags about the safety, but could we consider that third citation tag covered by that ref at the end of the sentence? If I remember right, the article mentions something about the illegality of the hobby. Brothejr (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Vote/Discussion on lead image

We seem to have a minor edit conflict between three different editors. So instead of continually fighting the war between the two images, lets have a vote/discussion on both images, or a third/fourth image that might be best as a lead image for this article. Also, lets leave this up for a couple days to a week for other editors to come in and comment on the images.

Here are the images that are being discussed:

Image 1

Image 2

Put your votes/comments down below here:

• I am up in the air with this one. While I like the composition of image 1 and the colors in it, I think the actions being depicted in image 2 are more in line with Urban Exploring. The person standing in image 1, to me, makes it look more like a glamor shot then an exploring shot. Brothejr (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Well, I'll just assume that you're gonna strike the "vote" bit, since we really don't do that here. :) I'm of two minds as well: image-1 is fantastic, the colour, lighting and composition are superb - but it's a little light on illustrating the topic; image-2 shows the topic very well, but technically it kinda sux, at least as far as being a thumbnail pic in an encyclopedia (and I understand that you can't exactly perfect your photo technique whilst standing in a small underground room). As far as the humans in the pics go, I think it's a wash. Both images have as their focus a person, which is natural for this activity - depicting humans in the act of exploration. The difference is that image-2 doesn't clearly show the human at the focus. Brighten up that image a bit (which I plan to ask some folks about doing), it's still a "glamour" shot, except they appear to be wearing respirators (?), which is even more glamourous. My solution so far is to put them both up top, since there's some very convenient space beside the TOC. Note: that works for me using IE7, one image sits beside the lead text, one sits beside the TOC. If anyone using a different browser doesn't see the same thing, it's a problem. Franamax (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• This was just discussed at Talk:Urban_exploration#New_image_that_was_just_added (look up just slightly!). The image was swapped due to hurt feelings on another page: [15], [16], [17]. Adam.J.W.C. even agreed on the previous consensus. The obvious solution is just to leave them both there, there is room. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ns, as I hope you'd agree, we discuss things as adults here and preferably don't suggest that others are nursing hurt feelings. Bringing up the topic of hurt feelings often suggests that one is nursing the same. Also, presenting evidence in diff form is usually not done with the technique of showing three diffs where the last two are identical. You could make your substantive point with less than half the text. Why bring other arguments onto this article? Franamax (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, that sounds a little preach-y, doesn't it? Sorry, I have no better words... :) Franamax (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably a mistake on one of the diffs there, the third is now fixed. I noted another message on adams talk page about an image he replaced being reverted from my watchlist. His immediate action was to revert to his picture in that article again. Agreeing with the other editor (I think the taxobox image should show the whole bridge), I reverted adams change and left a friendly note on his talk page to that effect, in the following two minutes he made the now contreversial changes here. I reverted his change per the previous and recent consensus. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Neutrality Tag

I had recently disputed the Neutrality of the article and had placed a tag. I now realize that that was hasty, for it had been at the recommendation of a group of Urban Explorers that I am affiliated with. I will remove the tag, but perhaps someone else may wish to state their opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesinnott (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask the group to be a little more specific which parts of the article are NN. Just saying "this article might not be neutral" isn't particularly helpful. SMC (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

External links in the documentary section?

Say, uh, do we want to maybe change these to reference tags or remove some of the doccos in question altogether? If they aren't notable enough for their own article, I'd question the wisdom of even mentioning them in the first place. I would do one of those aforementioned actions myself, but it seems those have been there for awhile. Thoughts? SMC (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we really the urban exploration in media section?

Seriously folks, this is getting plain ridiculous. Silent hill has as much in common with urban exploration as mike tysons punch-out has a similarity to championship boxing. Seriously.