Talk:Urban exploration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

POV/lack of balance[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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: 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[edit]

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 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Slowly Editing[edit]

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[edit]

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)

On edit warring and POV[edit]

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.[edit]

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)

UE related videos removed????[edit]

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 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Book Image[edit]

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[edit]

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 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 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)


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: [5] 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." [6]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.[7] 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 [8]
wholly unreliable sources [9]
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)
[10] "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." [11] 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)


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[edit]

  • California's trespassing law by industrial location: [12]
  • By state (US): [13]
  • By province (CN): [14]

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)


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) 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 [15] 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 [16] [17] 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: [18] 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 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[edit]

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)


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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research tag[edit]

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...[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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! (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

New image that was just added[edit]

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?[edit]

Lqstuart has proposed to remove some of the citation needed tags because he feels the facts are obvious. 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[edit]

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: [19], [20], [21]. 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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.

Lacking reference[edit]

"but because of the rising popularity, many individuals who may have other intentions are creating a concern among many property owners."

Is there evidence to support this? It would seem that individuals who had "other intentions" would've been already present before the rising popularity of urban exploring. Although property owners may express concern due to these individuals with the intent to steal, vandalize, arson, etc. it doesn't seem likely these individuals are creating more of a concern simply because of the rising popularity of people urban exploring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel ellis (talkcontribs) 04:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add new talk items at the bottom of the talk page (I've moved it for you) and sign your posts. As to the contents of the section, it might be valuable to come up with some core criteria and add or remove as necessary. Removing the section itself seems excessive. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 04:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well this guy "SchuminWeb" has just deleted that entire section for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am in NO way recommending deleting the entire section. It contributes greatly to the article as a whole. I am simply recommending to delete that part of the statement, as it seems false. --Daniel ellis (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of balance in regards to legality[edit]

This article also in my opinion lacks neutrality, but not like discussed and described earlier. Indeed if I compare it to the German WP article about the topic (my only alternative language), this article is embarrassingly conservative, control-freakish. The "legality" section is basically non-existant, lacks subheaders and comparison to other countries and in general both this section and the non-substantial claims in the introduction lack sources (verifiability) in terms of % of urban areas or cities in which "urban exploration" is indeed (regularly) illegal! And, after all, the definition of and distinction to which areas are not "urban exploring areas" (I lack a proper term) but simply public space doesn't make the article more convincing! To make some suggestions: The German article in the introduction simply states neutrally what UE is and urban explorers do. Then they talk about the motivation behind it and then after describing the places / objects (a way of defining and distinguishing!), only then they look first at the dangers and then at the legal issues. I wish the EN page would be that neutral / maturely distanced! For explanation, I am no UE, but just want to keep it truly neutral. Thus I'm especially ticked off by a wording like "inherent dangers" (German WP: "can be have risks...") and stuff like "Many (of the activities associated with urban exploration could be considered ... violations ... laws)" instead of "certain", "several" or simply removing the "considered" (i.e. working out to a more appropriately neutral sense of "could be but not must be") in the initial sentence. --Philipp Grunwald (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I want to add that "funny enough" the exact source ( cited concerning the legal matters does not say what it says in our article here, but: Urban explorers are breaking the law, but it’s generally assumed that such laws are antiquated or unjust. The most notable law that is broken by an explorer is trespass, but others may come into play as well, including: [...] In general urban explorers are liable to be prosecuted for criminal and civil judgements for trespassing, but publishing the photographs themselves is considered a separate issue. The only exception is invasion of privacy. If an explorer publishes photos that infringe on the likeness of someone, or put them in a negative light, then he or she may be held liable for that action in civil court." While the stuff highlighted by me is not even mentioned. --Philipp Grunwald (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2012 (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. 
  2. ^ a b {{cite news|title=Urban explorer pays for his hobby with his life|date=[[18 June 2008]