Jump to content

Talk:Squatting/Archive 1

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

BSDM?

the article says that "some" Social Centers are hosting BSDM rooms. i visited most squats defined social centers all around Europe in the past 10 years and i never saw nor heard of something like that.

I have heard of groups such as Queeruption doing parties with darkrooms etc in squats such as Africa (Amsterdam) and KOPI (Berlin), but I agree that there are probably not permanent BDSM rooms Mujinga 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

wowow! how sexy! however i know some loony left wing squat centres like rampart (east london) or the old theatre near holloway road where the hippies would think they had become nazis for not already having a BDSM room "hey guys! we nazis we dont accept bondage! we are repressing others! no way man thats heavy!" like neil from the young ones TV show. (mira)

Farmers

Squatters The early squatters were brave farmers who moved out to newly discovered lands in the hope of finding a place they could settle for themselves.

Yeah, brave murderous farmers who stole land from its rightful owners--Native Americans. How is the land "newly discovered" if people have been living their for thousands of years? I'm all for modern squatting of unused buildings and land, but amercian 'pioneers' were just a bunch of greedy losers.
First of all, most Native Americans didn't believe in land ownership, so your first point is moot. And a pluarity of those greedy losers were the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" that the empires of Europe didn't want anymore, the rest being refugees of the War of Northern Agression. As for murderous, the native tribes had been relegated to reservations by the Yankee government long before the pioneers ever arrived out west. Righteous indignation is all well and good, but it really does behoove one to do a little independent research before spouting what some agenda-driven professor told you.170.215.105.201 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the Native Americans were savages and not the noble aborigines you'd like to think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Two meanings

I would suggest that a distinction be made between squatting (1) as the act of initially settling on Crown land without permission, as in the Australian pastoral expansion or the westward movement in the USA in the nineteenth century, and (2) the more modern, principally urban act, of occupying a building without any right or title. It seems to me that the motivation and methods of these two processes are fundamentally different, and the use of the same term muddies this distinction. So, could we disambiguate between, say, "Squatting (pastoral)" and "Squatting (urban)". I'm not fussed whether the heading refers to the act (squatting) or the person (squatter). Dick 21:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you will find that the "more modern, principally urban act" of occping private property without the owners permission is actually the older usage, adn goes back in english law before the settlement of either Austrialia or the Americas, and applies to both buildings and undeveloped land. Thjis I think that your distinction is incorrect and should not be made. There may be a distinction to be made between squatting on public and private property. Note that "homesteading" in the US westward expansion was not considered squattign -- it was a procedure created by statute where a person family could occupy unclaimed public land of a certian size, and if they lived on it and developed it to a specified standard within a specified time would be granted title, and in the mean time had legal rights to occupy the land. DES 07:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

__

I think this page is not exactly NPOV. It needs a section on how to get rid of squatters too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.203.116.246 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC+11 hours) (in London the best way is to find a dog that likes the taste of Poland!)

No it doesnt need that info. this isnt a self help guide! it does say how to find an empty property, steal gas/electric and change a lock. (mira)

Split to Squatting (pastoral)

Dick's suggestion that a distinction should be made between the two types of squatting that he outlines is quite correct, and he is also correct in stating the placement of both types within the same article "muddies the distinction". The attempt by DES to counter this is way off the mark. The question of which type of squatting is older than the other is totally irrelevant and misses the point. Talking of "homesteading" in the USA is another red herring; this is an Australian term. In Australia for much of the 19th century squatters were in the upper echelons of society. Their activities were illegal for only a short period, but the term stuck. It started off as derogatory, but very rapidly became a badge of honour. At their height these guys (& the occasional woman) were the feudal landlords of vast domains, and held great sway - economically, socially & politically - in Australia. They are as different as chalk & cheese to the essentially urban & underclass squatters to which most of this article refers. By the way the term "squatter" to describe a large land-owner is still in use in Australia in rural areas. In cities the term would more likely apply to the 2nd category (as outlined by Dick). Hopefully common sense will prevail & this article is split into the two categories. Ikeshut 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support a split to Squatting (pastoral) leaving a reference to that main article in this article. I suspect that otherwise this article covers urban and other squatting.--Golden Wattle talk 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
sorry but i really don't understand what you mean with this pastoral squatting? indeed the use of the word in australia sounds very confusing, anyway the concept of squatting deals with land owners that have more space than they can occupy themselves; so i'm not surprised is just used for its counterpart, it happens in languages. jaromil 01:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I've created the new article Squatting (pastoral), leaving a link in the "squatting" article & added a link to the squat disambiguation page. Ikeshut 05:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Squatting in LDCs

I think this article completely misses the larger portion of squatters in the world: squatters in lesser-developed countries (LDCs). As Robert Neuwirth writes in Shadow Cities, there are 1 billion squatters in the world, and the number is not projected to fall anytime soon. Most of these people are not squatting to make a statement, because they're anarchists, or any other typical university student-type idea. They're doing it because they lack the option to live legally. The introduction to the article does mention the favelas of Brazil, but it could go much further in that direction. It especially should discuss squatters' rights in the developing areas of the world.

Um, maybe I'll get to that when I have time. This is wikipedia, after all.

its been mentioned in the papers that in due to the instability in Iraqi many people have begun squatting there. it mentioned some of this was actions of political bullies, others from having no other choice.

mira.

St. Agnes Place

...is defunct, or so says the article elsewhere on wikipedia. I know nothing about this, but... Something Should Be Done. 14:38, —preceding unsigned comment by 24.91.23.134 (talk • contribs) 5 December 2005 (UTC+11 hours )

yes the place got shut down last summer it was in ever major UK newspaper lat summer, me and my mates were laughing at the tabloid headlines, infact a image of one of the newspaper pages would make a great example of common views towards squaters.

mira.

Socially interesting?

I read "squats are often socially interesting places". What do you mean with "socially interesting"? I live in a town that is full of squats, and sincerely I could objects on this point: there are some interesting places, and some other (the majority, according to me) that are far from being interesting. Guys, gimme some clue! --Angelo 23:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree a POV unverified statement. Hence I will remove. The statement may apply to some of the very famous suats, but the they have their own mentions anyway.--A Y Arktos 04:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My own POV/first-hand experience is that they are interesting because:

The occupants know that the property is not theirs, so the usual "My pink side of the drainpipe" does not apply; meaning squabbles about property ownership. It´s an interesting study on the idea of "All for one, and one for all" theory.

There are lots of reasons why they are not good: because of easy access to drugs/a place where dealers can make a living. Their neighbours are also put under pressure because of the their frequent complaints about parties, and general noise. And why do a lot of people that live in squats have ´raggedy´ mongrel dogs?

andreasegde 16:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

'Socially interesting places' is pretty vague and POV without references or justification, but I would interpret the statement as alluding to the idea that living rent free is an attractive option for artists and musicians who therefore have time to spend on their vocation rather than being trapped in the cycle of working all day to pay the bills for living (rent, electricity etc). Squats therefore tend to have more 'going on' than normal rented apartments both in terms of the range activities being organised from them and more superficially, in terms of the way they appear (painted bright or with lots of agitprop stuck to the walls). Squats can often (in my experience) be interesting both because of the different types of people living there and becuase of the principles they are run on - many radical social centres are found in squats. A squat can be said to be a concrete example of resistance to a capitalistic system which prizes property over people. I could go on, but you probably get my drift. Mujinga 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of section on South Africa

The section on squatting in South Africa could mention the "Red Ants", the procedure for evicting squatters and the legal status of squatter camps. Park3r 13:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of fotos

I reverted to a previous edit to remove the two photographs added today by User:Rafti_Institute. I did this because they are not acceptable under the guidelines of:

To explain my decision, i will take each photo in turn:

Image: Squat_home.jpg came with the text: Very often squatters block off windows to hide the fact that the building is occupied, they are also likely to not take their own garbage out, which tends to encourage insect and rodent infestations.

  • no original research - altho the text for the photo could be said to refer to a point made in the article about squatters hiding out in so-called "back window squats" in the USA, it proceeds to propose its own theory about litter and vermin
  • NPOV - very often, likely and tends are not neutral point of view
  • verifiable - there is no mention of where the squat is/was, or even if it really was a squat

Image: Squat_bed.jpgcame with the text: This is a squatter’s bedroom. Many squatters have drug or alcohol problems and also may be suffering from mental illness, which in part explains living conditions like this

  • no original research - again the photo proposes its own theory, rather than illustrating a point made in the article
  • NPOV - the whole text is not NPOV!
  • verifiable - where is the bedroom? proof of alcohol/drug problems? how do we know this is even a photo of a squat? saying it is "in america" is not enough

Moving forward, i can see that these images could be of use in this article, if illustrating a point made in it, if verified and if both the theory presented in the article and the labelling of the photo are NPOV. There are indeed squatters who leave a mess and have problems, just as there are renters and owners who leave a mess in their house and have mental health issues or drug problems. The article would certainly benefit from a well-researched addition on this theme. Mujinga 18:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Squatting in caves and abandoned mines?

Has anyone heard of people doing this? It was apparantly fairly common in areas of the Appalatchians during the Civil War and Great Depression, and rumour has it that small communities are living in some of the old mines to this very day. I could imagine people staying in them for short periods of time, but staying down there for very long seems to me like a good way to get yourself killed. 170.215.105.201 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There are people squatting in the caves of the Alhambra in Spain and I have seen homeless people sleeping in caves in the parks in and around Prague, in the Czech Republic. The award-winning film Dark Days is a documentary about people living beside the metro tunnels in New York, in the USA. I imagine there are many other places worldwide where people squat unused underground structures either natural or man-made. It wouldn't necessarily be a dangerous thing to do. Mujinga 14:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I imagine subways and and caves are much more sturdy than abandoned mines (some of which are over a hundred years old). I also imagine that odds of running into wild dogs, coyotes, or rattlesnakes is also lower in the urban areas of New York or Europe.

74.36.192.6 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

im removing external links from the page as there are too many, but i thought i would leave them here in case they are still interesting for someone:

- its already on the social centre page

Mujinga 03:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i trimmed the notable squats list ... but i also archived the old version here Mujinga 03:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

developing this page

i would like to add more information to this page, particularly about squatting in poorer countries. i would also like to break up the list of notable squats becuase the redlinks are quite ugly. if anyone wants to help fill in the gaps in my knowledge, you are welcome! Mujinga 00:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

i think it is good to break the sections up by continent, with a paragraph describing the local situation and then a subsection to discuss countries individually, if necessary. the notable squats could then be incorporated by country. i will be adding more stuff over the next few days, it will take a while because i want to make it all well-referenced.Mujinga 16:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Squatts, shanty towns & South America

I removed the section on shanty towns in South America (favelas, villas miseria, etc.) These are not squatt: they are not illegal occupation of land or building, but informal buildings (i.e. shanty towns). This is not the same thing. They are squatts in South America (see fabricas recuperadas in Argentina), but shanty towns are another thing alltogether. Tazmaniacs

Not so. As the introduction states - "Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use". Under this criteria, shanty towns are clearly squatted terrains. I havce reverted your edit. If you do not agree, please let's discuss it here. Cheers! Mujinga 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
But one may perfectly own his house in a shanty town. This is probably a limit case, and I agree that my distinction may be a bit too strict. However, I am used to a definition of shanty town rather in the sense that it is a space deprived of public services. For instance, this article cited the favela da Rocinha, one of the largest, and best known, favela of Rio. It is perfectly legal! And its inhabitants owned their houses, as far as I know. Morros, where the favelas are located, were occupied in the beginning of the century (at least), and where not, at that time, formally owned. But then, what was "formally owned" then? Rules weren't so strict (although this certainly does not mean they're weren't any). In any cases, in Brasil as in lots of other Latin American countries, many of these shanty towns have been legalized in all points. The only thing which continues to make them such sites is their poor, if not inexistent, access to public services (electricity, water, school, police, etc.). This should at least be said in the article, if this part is to remain, don't you think? Tazmaniacs

Squatting in the Philippines

You should add it. Squatters are prolific and are unregulated. And they multiply exponentially. -122.52.22.204 14:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a source? Murderbike 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okupas?

There is no K in the Spanish language so how can the word 'okupas' possibly be the Spanish word used for squatters? True, ocupar is the verb 'to occupy' but I think some more research or at least a citation is needed to verify this word which I've certainly never come across148.197.5.20 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The K is used as a deliberate act of protest, as per this from Cambridge University Press

The word <OKUPACIóN> (<Ocupación> in standard Spanish orthography) here means that the building has been subject to ‘occupation’, that is squatted. Again, a <k> functions as a symbol of ‘otherness’, of resistance to convention; but in this case, arguably, not just to orthographic conventions, but to social conventions more generally. According to Castilla (1997), a journalist writing in the newspaper El País, ‘in the last decade [<k>] has turned itself into the favourite letter of okupas [‘occupations’], war resisters, bakalaeros [adherents of a type of techno music..]

The Okupas article I've been meaning to write (...) is the proper place for this kind of citation, though; not sure it's needed here. Hope this clears up the confusion, anyway. --mikaultalk 19:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

New York suatting group in South Bronx

A squatting group (or atleast a group that began as one) was Banana Kelly, based in the South Bronx. See this page for info

Include in the article. Thanks.

KVDP (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

developing this page

Much of the material on 3rd world squatters settlements could go into the entry on Shanty Towns, which needs further development. Just leave some basic information in this entry and reference the other. That would leave most of this one one central-city squatting in older cities. Michael E. Smith (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A question.

Regarding Netherlands, first we have:

The only illegal aspect would be forcing an entry, if that was necessary.

Then:

The police check whether the place is indeed lived in by the squatter — in legal terms this means there must be a bed, a chair, a table and a working lock in the door which the squatter can open and close.

If a person wants to occupy a place legally, he has to change the lock on the door, so he can lock/unlock it. (If he has gotten a key from the owner, it wouldn't be squatting, now, would it...) Isn't it just possible to break the lock in the first place, while entering the place for the first time, and then replacing it, thus making an illegal entry legal?

Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.122.38 (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have had the same doubt when I have read it --PabloCastellano (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Then both of you are missing the difference between breaking a lock from the outside and changing the lock from the inside. Mujinga (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

computer centre in a squat?

So if squats rarely have infrastructure like electricity, running water, how can they also be said to house cafes, pirate radio stations or public computer centres? Does stealing electricity from a passing cable pose significant additional legal problems, say an excuse for the police to evict them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryah (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that squats do not have utilities? Whenever I squatted a house in London several years ago I had water, gas and electricity connected within the first hour and had recorded meter readings to provide to the utility companies. Having recorded these readings was considered proof that no intention to defraud existed. I also worked in and helped run a squatted café that had full and legal utilities and (eventually) health dept. certification, and other local squats were used as shops, music venues and artists' studios.
Your presumption that squatters are more inclined to steal electricity is not proven. I could also point out that in my experience police were known to "manufacture" damage, such as breaking windows, in order to expedite claims of criminal damage against the squatters, but again that would be anecdotal and not worthy of inclusion here. Fanx (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, no I have no opinion or idea, was simply reading the article here, _it_ states: "In many of the world's poorer countries, there are extensive slums or shanty towns, typically built on the edges of major cities and consisting almost entirely of self-constructed housing built without the landowner's permission. While these settlements may, in time, grow to become both legalised and indistinguishable from normal residential neighbourhoods, they start off as squats with minimal basic infrastructure. Thus, there is no sewage system, drinking water must be bought from vendors or carried from a nearby tap, and if there is electricity, it is stolen from a passing cable." I guess by your comment this is only true for the shanty towns etc. I just misunderstood 'Thus' in the paragraph to imply that the fact they are squats is a reason such shanty towns have no utilities etc Aryah (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Squatting banned in The Netherlands

Please update this article to include the Squatting ban that was passed by the Dutch senate on jun 1st 2010. This new law makes squatting punishable for up to 2 years and 8 months. If you can read dutch, there are a great many sources available on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.232.166 (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This article needs renaming.

I am currently preparing an article on the squatting position (see User:Penbat/squatting position). If you look at any dictionary definition of squatting it starts by describing squatting as a crouching position. Only later will it mention squatting on land or property - presumably the word "squatting" in that sense has a metaphorical meaning. I think i am entitled to call my article "squatting" and this one needs renaming to something like "squatting (land)". There would of course be a link at the top of "squatting" to "squatting (land)" so readers would know where to go if they really wanted the land or property sense of the word.--Penbat (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; it's not clear that yours is. Skomorokh 14:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems self evident to me that the crouching position is the primary meaning and the occupation of land is the secondary meaning. I think it is up to you to make the case to the contrary. The ball is in your court.--Penbat (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I give up for practical reasons. There are over 1000 Wikilinks to here and I will probably not get 100 Wikilinks to mine. I would hate to be the person who had to rename over 1000 Wikilinks. --Penbat (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
What you are referring to may be the primary dictionary definition, but wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think it is beyond credible doubt that the property issue is the primary meaning for encyclopaedic purposes. And for that matter, the dictionary definition would be at squat, not squatting. Mowsbury (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

To me, squatters are simply thieves. They should have no more rights than other thieves. Any they have now should be abolished immediately, and they should all be arrested. I believe this is a pretty mainstream opinion among English small-c conservatives, and I have lived among such people all my life. It is consistent with the respect for property rights that has been a characteristic of English society for hundreds of years. So how on earth did squatters acquire their "rights"!? What made some members of the English ruling class create "rights" that are apparently so at odds with the rest of English legal and social history? When did it happen? And why has no one reversed this outrage? [Though I'm pleased to see a few baby steps have been taken towards the eradication of this plague recently.] The article should answer these questions, but it doesn't. Mowsbury (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

If you care to look at the top of this page, it says "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". Mujinga (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced / Dutch ban

Point of view is disputed. // "Police initiated a horse charge after blocking a protest." Reason for blocking the protest is not given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.145.206 (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject for squatting

I've just started WikiProject Squatting to address our coverage of squatting topics. Please do join if you're interested. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of squatters on Palestine's land?

The so-called "settlers" are living illegally on Palestinian land (what is labelled the "occupied territories") without having purchased the land or obtained it through legal means. It is the exact same thing done to farms in Zimbabwe, the violent eviction of legitimate land owners by squatters, and a corrupt government not just refusing to remove them, but encouraging more squatters to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.248.187.2 (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia isn't the place for spewing anti-Israel hysteria? 87.34.21.187 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Update

I'm going to update this page and remove some of the trash that's blown in. Please join in or make suggestions if you are passing. At the very least i aim to get rid of the weasel word template.Mujinga (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

adding things which need work to the to-do box above Mujinga (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
removing the "unbalanced" template from the Dutch section after tidying Mujinga (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
removing weasel templateMujinga (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Squatting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

the wayback machine link works but ironically backs up a page saying "not found" so the link is truly 150% dead now, i'll remove it Mujinga (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Squatting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Squatting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

List of examples

Extended content

{{Refexample|section|date=November 2018}}

A squat in Viladecans (Barcelona)
A squat in Zagreb
The Chien Rouge in Lausanne, a squat held in the old hospital
Krzyk, a squat in Gliwice
A long-vacant property in Oxford, once occupied by squatters when owned by University College
Country Notable Squats
Austria
Brazil
Canada
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece

Terra incognita (Thessaloniki) Steki sto viologiko (Thessaloniki)

Italy
Lithuania
Moldova
Mozambique
Netherlands
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Russia
Slovenia
Slovakia
South Africa
Spain
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
Venezuela

Removing this list per its maintenance tag. Even with the majority of the entries removed (redlinks or not notable), category:squats better organizes this group than this list can. It might make sense to describe some of these squats in the prose, where appropriate, but that would require sourcing that explains the significance of each squat, not just verification of its existence. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there anywhere on Wikipedia where political squatting is further explored

I've been finding a lot of great sources on pre-figuring squats, refugee/migrant solidarity, theoretical analyses of squatting as a political act, and more and can't seem to find a clear home for this information. I am considering building out Refugee crisis#Political Responses but it really seems like that information belongs somewhere attached to squatting. Thoughts? A symmetrics (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

sounds interesting but also quite vague, maybe give some specific examples? maybe it's good to add info to particular projects? cheers! Mujinga (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well-known squatters

Extended content

{{Refexample|section|date=November 2018}}

References

  1. ^ a b Flanagan, Harley (2016). Hard-Core: Life of My Own. Feral House. ISBN 9781627310390. Retrieved 8 February 2017.
  2. ^ Hove MP calls for end to 'squatter rights', BBC News, 2010-09-19, retrieved 2013-12-26
  3. ^ Feltes, Norman N. (1999). This Side of Heaven: Determining the Donnelly Murders, 1880. University of Toronto Press. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-8020-4486-0.
  4. ^ Bailey, Ron; The Squatters (1973) Penguin:UK ISBN 0140523006
  5. ^ Dobuzinskis, Alex (2010-09-19), Randy Quaid arrested for squatting in old home, Reuters, retrieved 2011-05-24
  6. ^ Eckler, Ross (1996), "Zzyzx", Word Ways: The Journal of Recreational Linguistics, Word Ways: The Journal of Recreational Linguistics, ISSN 0043-7980, archived from the original on 2007-02-21, retrieved 2008-11-02
  7. ^ Lerner, Reuven M (1990-07-18), Stallman wins $240,000 in MacArthur award, The Tech, retrieved 2006-11-26
  8. ^ "The Robert Louis Stevenson Silverado Museum". Silveradomuseum.org. Retrieved 2012-02-20.
  9. ^ Mark Gould (2004-08-25). "Squat 'n' roll hero". London: Society.guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-02-20.
  10. ^ Victoria Government (1879). Victorian Year-book. p. 380.
  11. ^ "A not so brief history of No Commercial Value, Chocking Victim, & Leftover Crack (In the words of Stza himself)". Alternativetentacles.com. 2001-09-11. Retrieved 2012-02-20.
  12. ^ "The Dope on The Sex Pistols". Filthandfury.com. 2000-03-28. Archived from the original on 2008-07-16. Retrieved 2012-02-20. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  13. ^ "Gerard Winstanley: 17th Century Communist at Kingston (Christopher Hill, 1996)". Libcom.org. 1996-01-24. Retrieved 2012-02-20.
  14. ^ Abahlali baseMjondolo. "City: 'Squatters and the cities of tomorrow'". Abahlali.org. Retrieved 2012-02-20.

Removing this section, as tagged, since it reads as trivia. If individual squatters are noteworthy for their squatting, we should be mention them in context in the article, or just simply categorize them under Category:Squatters. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

well i don't disagree with the action but you could have bothered to add the squatters with their own wikipedia pages to the new category otherwise other people's work gets trashed Mujinga (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm about halfway through adding the squatters category to pages where squatter are mentoned, a time consuming process which was only necessitated by the rmoval of this section after a template was added THREE days before the deletion by an unregistered user. So actually I do disagree with the way the action was carried out. Nevertheless i can see the use of a category instead of a list, but the way this was done stinks.Particularly since i was adding referenced people just one month before.Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:SQUAT

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Squatting is a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to squatting. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Everyone is welcome, from beginner to experienced editor. Feel free to pass by with suggestions. Let's get it going again! Mujinga (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Israeli settlements

An IP has been trying to remove these settlements from the article, saying this is a political and not a civil matter. I am leaning towards accepting this viewpoint, the settlements do not appear to match the description in the lede of the article. I would like to see a sourced reference that labels Israeli settlers as "squatters" - something other than from an opinion piece. Has any newspaper called them such? Ifnord (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi thanks for opening the disucssion. So let's take the definition of squatting as mentioned currently in the lead of the article: Squatting is the action of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied area of land or a building, usually residential, that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have lawful permission to use. The section under debate has four references: The first one has a useful quote given, saying "The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law" (Roberts, Adam (1990). "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. American Society of International Law. 84 (1): 85–86. doi:10.2307/2203016); The second has a quote saying "the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars" (Pertile, Marco (2005). "'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi (eds.). The Italian Yearbook of International Law. 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 141. ISBN 978-90-04-15027-0). The third reference is entitled "Settlers evacuate disputed Hebron building after squatting for 8 months" and the fourth is "Hague prosecutor issues war crime warning on Bedouin village demolition". To me it's clear that the references back the inclusion of this section in the article about squatting, because they are discussing occupation of land and buildings regarded by the international community generally as illegal. Further, in the specific matter of the Hebron building it is explicitly named squatting in the Times of Israel). Happy to discuss further. Mujinga (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The Times of Israel is the exact, sourced reference that I was looking for. Thank-you for pointing it out. It appears obvious now that these qualify as squats, at least in some areas/situations. Ifnord (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Historical Squatting

The current focus of this article is on modern day squatting (ie, modern day occupation of abandoned buildings etc. Squatting, however, has a longer history than that, and in that context usually refers to taking up residence on unoccupied and un-owned land on the American frontier. As an example, the Big_Bottom_massacre article refers to "A group of about thirty-six [Ohio] Company settlers had gone upriver from Marietta, squatting east of the Muskingum on land where the Company did not hold title."

It would be helpful if the present article were expanded to cover this type of historical squatting. TwelveGreat (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi yes I agree "historical squatting" should also be covered in more detail for sure. However, this page is already 100k and needs to be the overview of the global phenomenon which then links to other pages. For example regarding Australia, it links to Squatting in Australia which covers modern day squatting and to Squatting (Australian history) which covers settler colonialism. As regards the US, there already is Squatting in the United States which currently covers historical and modern squatting. So mention of Big Bottom massacre would prob fit best there. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Improving the page

Graywalls, you have deleted some content and added some tags. This page gets quite a lot of drive-by additions so it's always good to prune it back, but as a whole I'm not seeing much original research or unreliable sourcing, please be more specific. On the Turkey section, I reverted the deletion since there were more sources than squat.net. Squat.net is based on WP:USERGENERATED content, but what we have here is WP:SELFSOURCE; the article isn't based primarily on these citations, they are being used to report the existence or eviction of these projects, which seems fine. Anyhow, I'll give the article a read now, definitely the 'see also' section can be pared back for starters. Mujinga (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Squat.net is squatting themed equivalent of Weebly and Blogspot in which some randos post stuff, not verified published experts. This makes it an unreliable source and do not comply with our sourcing guidelines not just in terms of reliability, but for due weight too. I run across this issue with rail fan that puts things into train articles in fan POV too. You're splitting hair with USERG and SPS, because there's little difference between a website under control of some random squatting advocate vs forum posts. Something worth noing in WP:SPS is that... if whatever contents is worth talking about, someone else would've already covered it. You objected sources beyond squat.net was removed. Well edit summary isn't going to let me write a five page summary. http://sosyalsavas.org.. same difference. There are other places for posting fan based contents. Graywalls (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not "splitting hairs" I am quoting policy I am sorry if that doesn't fit to your view. Your edit summary now appears to have been purposefully misleading, if you had just deleted squat links then it would have been fitting. The deleted links I replaced from istanbulstories.net and bianet are reliable in my opinion. "if whatever contents is worth talking about, someone else would've already covered it" - did you even bother checking? Mujinga (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga:, I see you've been importing references but as you do so, are you reading through every single one of them so they directly support what's in the prose? Graywalls (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: are you reading through every single one of them so they directly support what's in the prose please assume good faith, of course I am checking the sources I am adding. This article seems to have a problem with sentences with blue links not being referenced, so I am simply importing the refs, having checked them. Incidentally, this is something you could have done instead of whacking very vague tags on the top of the article. You still haven't answered my request for clarification, in my opinion the South America and Spain sections need some work and I'll hopefully get to that now. I am struggling to assume good faith on your part on this edit, but I'll put it down to ignorance not ill will on your part, since you seem to have a thing against big see also sections, yet ironically enough your edit has just trashed the work I did to prune that section. I would suggest Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as a guide here ... you were bold, I reverted, now we are discussing, it doesn't help for you to revert again. I've also put an inuse tag on the article since I am working on it and would ask you not to revert me again without prior talk page discussion.Mujinga (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It might look like from edit history but it actually took a bit to realize it as we were editing different parts of it.. .and not really reverting one another. Graywalls (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
You asserted "I reverted the deletion since there were more sources than squat.net." but instead of re-insert just the other stuff, you re-inserting everything including that squat.net stuff in addition to removing my maintenance template objecting to the quality of sources. I'm struggling to assume you're not trying to push your version seeing you re-inserted squat.net again. When something is pulled, it is on the person reinserting to reliably support the contents they're adding back in per WP:BURDEN. Graywalls (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Look, if you are going to quote policy at me, you should take care not to make edits like this and this, where (as already explained) the edit summaries are far from descriptive of what you actually did. I also already replied about squat.net, quoting policy and you described my reply as "splitting hairs". I'm struggling to assume you're not trying to push your version seeing you re-inserted squat.net again. LOL maybe spend a bit less time trying to fathom my evil intentions - I actually just deleted a squat.net link with the edit summary "‎Turkey: delete Atopya project website, unneeded link". Perhaps, just perhaps, if you had made an edit like that instead of deleting two entire paragraphs, this whole section of discussion would be unnecessary. Mujinga (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Do what you gotta do. I'll look at the changes when your series of edits are done and I'll look at what links you have used to replace "The deleted links I replaced from istanbulstories.net and bianet are reliable in my opinion." those two sites so I can comment. I'll check everything over when I have time. I only asked if you were checking the contents of each source against the prose, because they were getting added very quickly, certainly much much quicker than I could go through and verify. Graywalls (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(arbitrary break)

@Mujinga:, ok so which specific sources did you have questions on? Graywalls (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, it was you querying reliability of sources, so I asked you which ones you were talking about. Mujinga (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Squat.net and other sources

@Mujinga:, I object to all contents based on this website as well as some of the other obscure sources that don't meet reliable sources guideline. Graywalls (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not a good position to take when I have already pointed you to WP:SELFSOURCE. With the mostly user generated content on squat.net, it really depends how it is being used. The citation to Atopya's own website was obviously not that useful and I deleted it myself. The citation for the eviction of Caferağa is fine in my opinion since "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" and I'm assuming neither of us speak Turkish to find local sources.
With "other obscure sources" it would be better if you name them, since there are over 100 citations on this article. I have to suppose you mean istanbulstories.net and that site to me is a reliable secondary source, not the best but not the worst.
I will also ask you a second time not to use inflammatory language like bullshit, garbage, junk. It doesn't help your case much, this isn't a battleground, or at least it isn't for me, I'm here to build an encyclopedia.
On the "according to a neighbour" quote, I recently put that in simply as a means to remove the person's name, if you don't think it helps, that's fine. The important thing is to record the existence of the squat, not the comment. So I'll re-add that. Mujinga (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mujinga:I disagree about the use of contents from squat.net; which I liken it to essentially deprecated indymedia.org. I looked at the pages and they are most definitely primary source and reporting the contents from blogs is not a representative of reliably published point of view. If you're chronicling the happenings reported by some blog, you're presenting things from the editorial decision to talk about things reliable media does not. Graywalls (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Graywalls, thanks for adding the fringesite tag to the Ireland section, I've easily found a better reference for Disco Disco. That's a great way to highlight contestable sources and I much prefer that to the "Unreliable sources" tag which I have removed since it is really not clear which sources you are referring to there, this article currently has 137 references. As I hope you have seen, I have been working to improve the article recently and constructive edits are welcome. Maybe we have to agree to disagree on squat.net since you still haven't engaged with my policy-based argument on WP:SELFSOURCE. Regarding the Caferağa squatnet link, this isn't "some blog", this is the project itself reporting its demise. Mujinga (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I addressed you regarding the use of Independent_Media_Center on my talk page in response to your message. Indymedia.org is related to that. The consensus is that that source is disreputable. It is about halfway down in WP:RSP. I'm here to build an encyclopedia and I consider the removal of information that don't conform to the stringent sourcing guidelines an improvement by trimming away fringe view and unreliable or undue information. To call my effort "trashed" as said in your directed edit specifically referencing my edit "(redo edits trashed by a bad revert, see talk Talk:Squatting#Improving_the_page)" is a personal insult and this is not the same as calling sources and contents derived from those sources junk Graywalls (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Article assessment

Hi @Graywalls:, regarding your edit with the summary who did the article assessment? I looked at the assessment quality and I disagree that it's a B; given all these sources like indymedia.org, squat.net, wordpress, etc. i find this a bad faith edit and want to discuss this with you further. Surely you know you can click "view history" and check the talk page edits. If you do so, you will see this edit with the summary Assessment (B): banner shell, Squatting, Cooperatives, Crime, Economics, Human rights, Law, Philosophy, Sociology, Urban studies and planning (Rater) by me. "Rater" means I used the rater plugin, which machine-judges articles for rating. It gives this article B. So do I, based on the WP:SQUAT criteria. These are listed here. Using these criteria I find this article B and wonder why you keep on (twice now) rating it C, since I see it meeting all the B criteria. Please expand on your rationale, because saying "given all these sources like indymedia.org, squat.net, wordpress, etc." is laughable - there are precisely 1 of each of indymedia, wordpress and squat.net amongst 134 other refs. And we are actually already in a debate about two of these refs, with me arguing for their retention. As always, I'm happy to collaborate to improve this article or explain my reasoning further. Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Your accusation of "bad faith" edit when I have already explained multiple times and you continue to put back in questioned sources until its proven otherwise to your expectation, then reverting it and calling those edits are "trashing" the article is a bad faith edit. Graywalls (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
As with the section above, you aren't actually responding to what I am saying. You seem to be gearing up for a fight instead, which is unfortunate. Mujinga (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
You're calling my edits "trashing" and such, perhaps because you don't like them. I am trying to remove undue contents while providing proper explanations and it's going up against the reverse onus process even though the guidelines say the burden is on people looking to INCLUDE disputed contents. It seems as you "don't hear" the guidelines and consensus that you do not like. Continuing to insert these contents are fueling the disagreements. Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Uh huh alright ... well you are definitely in the wrong place sir. Here we are supposed to be discussing why you think the article should be assessed as C. My reasons for it being B have already been expressed. Mujinga (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
C, because: "The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style." from WP:ASSESS. Emphasis added by me. Policy violation being use of sources that have been challenged on which you have not established consensus, but keeps re-introducing against WP:ONUS, Balance/bias being the use of contents of POV sources. Graywalls (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Great thanks for the explanation, we got there in the end. To take the bits you highlighted:
It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow and then you say its about specifically about balance and "the use of contents of POV sources". Which sources out of the 137 references do you mean? If you mean the Caferağa citation from squat.net, then the discussion again comes back to WP:SELFSOURCE, please see above.
contain policy violations you says refers to "sources that have been challenged" err so is that it? you are saying an article is C not B quality because of one reference? that's a bizarre position to take Mujinga (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
You're dragging your feet. You're experienced enough to be familiar with contents guidelines. Contents from sources such as, but not limited to http://centro73.wordpress.com/infomedia/, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/464052.html, https://whatever.squat.net which are all used within the article which violates WP:QS policy. I'm done repeating. This sufficiently explains to anyone reasonably experienced with WP editing. Graywalls (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll set "You're experienced enough to be familiar with contents guidelines" against "Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves" from WP:QS, which you just quoted at me but maybe didn't read to the end. Two of these three new sources have not entered the discussion before, despite its length and spread over several pages. I'll have a look now. I'm perfectly sure "anyone reasonably experienced with WP editing" can see what is going on here thanks. Mujinga (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

hence including, but not limited to. Graywalls (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
you realise what you just said doesn't make sense, right? Mujinga (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Radar

Hi Graywalls, I see you have now deleted the Radar agenda from external links, slightly more elegantly than last time. This tome round you gave "remove event calendar WP:PROMO" as the edit summary. On WP:PROMO, I can't see a reason why you would delete the link, since it's not Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment / Opinion pieces / Scandal mongering / Self-promo / Advertising, marketing or public relations, so I have re-added the link. Plus I gave Wikipedia:External links a read and I still think including this link is OK. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It serves no purpose other than showing event calendar. I disagree with your continuous re-addition of materials I remove. Get consensus to justify inclusion, not the other way around. Graywalls (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls and Mujinga - I have been following this dispute and hesitated to comment as the back and forth has grown tense. In the spirit of trying to achieve consensus, I am weighing in to say that I believe Graywalls has made the stronger case. The edits in question are in dispute because they are questionable in nature and based upon WP:QS by definition. Before reinserting the edits, I believe Mujinga should seek more community consensus. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Go4thProsper can you specify which edits you are referring to please? Mujinga (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

UK legality

In [this edit, summary says three distinct systems. The source I cited only says United Kingdom and do not indicate which specific area it applies to, so it seems reasonable to include it as applicable to the entire UK. I reverted it back, because the way the source is written does not separate out which part of UK it applies to, so applying to all appears to be proper.

Also, why is "On 1 September 2012, under Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, squatting in residential property was criminalised by the Government, punishable by up to six months in prison or a £5000 fine, or both." supported by this source in England section if the source says "England + Wales" ? Graywalls (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion about individual squats

This is a high level article and I believe the re-insertion of what I removed in October with different source is rather undue, especially given the rather tenuous self-description of one source which says it's a thinktank, and the only tangentially related nature of the second (young people opposing demolition of historic building). The contents I believe to be undue. 

Centro 73 was occupied (and evicted) in 2010 in Chişinău, Moldova. It is thought to have been the first squatted social centre in Moldova. Activists were attempting to prevent the building being demolished.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Caucaso, Osservatorio Balcani e. "Moldavia: Chișinău underground". OBC Transeuropa (in Italian). Retrieved 7 November 2020.
  2. ^ "Un grup de tineri a protestat azi împotriva demolării unei clădiri istorice din Capitală". Publika (in Romanian). 1 November 2010. Archived from the original on 2 June 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2020.

The balcanicaucaso.org source's "about" info description translated to English with Google translate reads:

OBC Transeuropa is a think tank that deals with Southeast Europe, Turkey and the Caucasus and explores the social, political and cultural transformations of six European Union (EU) member countries, seven countries participating in the European Enlargement process and of much of post-Soviet Europe involved in European Neighborhood Policy.

I don't feel that WP:ONUS has been established to include it. Graywalls (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Pinging @Czar: as they've also done substantial pruning on this article. Graywalls (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


This is an article about the global phenomenon of squatting. It is the top article in the squatting hierarchy and concerns squatting globally. Under it are various articles on the level of country such as Squatting in the Netherlands and Squatting in the Czech Republic, under them articles about individual projects and people. I don't really understand (and you haven't explained) what exactly the problem is with an encyclopaedic entry on squatting containing three sentences about squatting in Moldova (apparently the first ever self-managed social centre there); sentences which moreover are cited to two reliable sources. Feel free to rephrase the entry on Moldova but deletion is not the best way forward, it just smacks of systemic bias.
Both sources are in my opinion reliable secondary sources, you seem to be querying balcanicaucaso.org which you can also read about directly in English. It has an editor and it co-ordinates the European Data Journalism Network, I don't see a problem there. Despite your doubt, an article discussing "young people opposing demolition of historic building" is useful here when it concerns a squatted social centre. As you will know if you've read the article, one established typology of squatting breaks it into five forms, one of which is "Conservational – preserving monuments because the authorities have let them decay". So again, not seeing a problem here.
Since I have bothered to take the time to engage with you Graywalls, I'd appreciate an answer to a question as well. Why are you still monitoring my edits on this article after it was said at an ANI I brought about your behaviour: "I will offer the advice that the two of you try to stay away from each other. Inasmuch as there are over 6.1 million articles here, half of which are stubs, that shouldn't be hard to do" and here at least you seemed to be complying with that advice? Mujinga (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Nothing at ANI suggested that I let you have your way and surrender editing on squatting related articles. I noticed something I removed had been added back in. I am discussing this the matter on talk page as a matter of contents dispute. I believe that inclusion about the happenings at individual squats are undue. This is not a personnel dispute. I started a discussion here to discuss what has been added. Not about who did it. Graywalls (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
But to address Mujinga's question, I watch pages I have worked on before, as well as those that interest me. That's the end of it. Nothing in the discussion suggested that an article on which your authorship precedes mine should become an entry barrier against me. You're just as free to abandon working on squatting related articles even though I am not suggesting that you should have to. Graywalls (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
"Nothing at ANI suggested" and "nothing in the discussion suggested" except perhaps the very comment "I will offer the advice that the two of you try to stay away from each other. Inasmuch as there are over 6.1 million articles here, half of which are stubs, that shouldn't be hard to do". Look we both know you edit by watchlist, and we both know you were stalking my edits. I hoped the latter had stopped for good with you recognising your trolling behaviour on this edit, summary "avoding this page for now". Mujinga (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • OBCT is an academic think tank so I'd treat it like any other source composed of journalism/research professionals without an explicit editorial policy, i.e., as long as it isn't pointedly biased (since it also contains activists), is sufficient for citation. Publika TV should be okay too, though I would not expect thorough analysis beyond first-hand reporting from TV news. This said, I don't think the issue is source reliability here. Both sources say very little about the actual squat and do not source basic info on the occupation/eviction. If these are the best sources for this info, I'd ask why it's important to mention here at all. The bigger question is how this article should be functioning as an overview. The parts that read best provide some kind of connective tissue between squats and the practice in a region, avoiding lists written as prose. I'd suggest drawing the line at passages like the one above because the article is not going to go into depth about Moldova and this info doesn't bring any additional clarity to the concept of "squatting in Europe". The goal would be what info is necessary to illustrate that broad concept. A portion of this passage could make sense elsewhere if you wanted to illustrate, for instance, an example of squatting to oppose demolition. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sooooo what I am able to extract from this wonderful discussion are the claims that the three sentences on Moldova should not be added because 1/the sources are bad and 2/it is undue. 1/We have now established that the sources are OK. 2/Regarding three sentences about Moldova being undue, the only relevant argument given is because "the article is not going to go into depth about Moldova and this info doesn't bring any additional clarity to the concept of "squatting in Europe"", otherwise there is just a strawman argument saying "inclusion about the happenings at individual squats are undue."

To answer on point2, there is actually no monolithic thing such as "squatting in Europe" and it would be systemic bias to assume there was. There are very different histories which should all be mentioned on this page, which is after all the global overview for the phenomenon. Mention of squatting in Moldova should of course go here (where else?) and then be spun off eventually into Squatting in Moldova if/when it is required. As Piotrowski makes clear, the history of squatting in central and eastern Europe has followed a very different trajectory to western Europe or indeed USA. I've added the context to the article and thus I believe the concerns mentioned here have been resolved satisfactorily. If anyone wants to (shock horror) add information to the page on this point instead of deleting it, the special edition of Baltic Worlds would be a decent place to start. Mujinga (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This article should describe and summarize squatting. The Publika.md source is reliable for the fact that that young people opposed the demolition of a building of historical significance, which happens... just like people opposing felling a tree to build a building. This article as it is contains, in my opinion way too much mentions and references to individual squat houses which in the large picture in my opinion is not pertinent to the bigger picture. Creating articles about "squatting in (each country)" might be content forking unless there's sufficient coverage to justify such creation. There's such thing as too much information, which actually happens a lot with rail related articles where some editors try to include nearly exhaustive details about each serial number of train cars and such minor details. Wikipedia pages aren't journals or books. As an encyclopedia, details about specific squat houses maybe excessively undue details. Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I see Centro73 was added again, but consensus to inclusion has not been achieved. Do you believe the inclusion is due at all? @Czar:? And to avoid any misunderstanding here, with just those two sources, should Centro 73 be mentioned at all regardless of phrasing? Graywalls (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that creating a prose list of individual squats is not pertinent to the larger picture. Individual squats can be covered in breakout articles where appropriate, but the endgame of listing isolated squats where there is no larger narrative is not conducive to an overview article. To incorporate those, something like list of squats would be a better target.
It seems unrealistic that there will be enough content for a squatting in Moldova article any time soon, so not seeing how that argument holds. Squatting in Europe might be a different story. Overview articles are meant to house summary style excerpts from larger sub-articles, but not indefinitely hold minor details of specific countries just because that fact doesn't live in another article.
@Graywalls, agreed that it shouldn't be re-added without talk page consensus. Adding it back while the discussion is live is edit warring. czar 22:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
This is pathetic. I want to improve this page and I have had to deal with trolling behaviour for over a month now. Regarding these sentences about squatting in Moldova, I attempted a compromise by rephrasing and contextualising, and the new edits have been deleted without any real justification. Vague recourse to policy doesn't get past the systemic bias in not including salient information from Moldova. In any case, the latest policy referred to is Wikipedia:Summary style which states "Ideally, many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections" and "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list."
With their recent edits on this article, Graywalls has among other things misread a source, misunderstood that there are different legal systems within the UK and deleted blue links without bothering to find references. It's getting to the point where the article is being harmed by these edits and the same pattern is going on at other pages such as Squatting in the United States as well. Graywalls has pestered Czar to intervene here. I find it quite sad that an admin doesn't know better, and I am particularly offended by the personal attack of Czar calling me a "pig". I'll suggest a new version of the sentences about Moldova, something which I'll note both Czar and Graywalls have repeatedly shown no interest in doing. Mujinga (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I read over the lexology source again and it only says "United Kingdom" and does not identify where in UK. If it said England, then I wouldn't have put it there. What are you supposing where it is applicable to when something says "United Kingdom"? Graywalls (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC) I'll go ahead and ping @Czar:, per their request as they say they're not watching the page. Graywalls (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The snippet below has been added again. It doesn't appear we've come to a consensus. @Czar:. am I mistaken? There's also been no participation from other users. Graywalls (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC) 

The first squatted, self-managed social centre was founded in 2010 in the capital Chişinău. Centro 73 hosted alternative events and activists attempted to prevent the monumental building from being demolished.[1][2] It was quickly evicted and the group occupied the old Turkish embassy before being given a building to use for artistic events by the city council.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Caucaso, Osservatorio Balcani e. "Moldavia: Chișinău underground". OBC Transeuropa (in Italian). Archived from the original on 16 June 2016. Retrieved 7 November 2020.
  2. ^ "Un grup de tineri a protestat azi împotriva demolării unei clădiri istorice din Capitală". Publika (in Romanian). 1 November 2010. Archived from the original on 2 June 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2020.
  • Catching up on pings. You're correct that the discussion went stale (no consensus) and that it isn't an invitation to re-add the content. The article state has really improved since October so kudos, Mujinga. I have the same stance on the sourcing now as I did then, but given the current paragraph and brief mention of Rozbrat in Poland, a single sentence on Centro 73 would not be undue. I've suggested phrasing below and hope it's a suitable compromise.
Mujinga, the idiom you linked was not directed at you, so please don't take it personally. On the topic of language, though, if you would please stop using harsh, charged terms like "pathetic", "trolling", "pestered", "quite sad", and instead keep to the material, these discussions would be less tense for all involved. I would prefer to collaborate with you but that language is not collaboratory.
I hope you both have a happy and peaceful New Year, czar 08:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Challenging the re-addition of these Squat.net primary SPS

I have removed these links previously, because they're first hand account about an apparently non-notable matter. The authorship is questionable and inclusion seems to be unjustifiable even when attributed. The contents disputed are https://web.archive.org/web/20160919094010/https://en.squat.net/2014/12/19/istanbul-caferaga-mahalle-evi-squatted-community-centre-in-kadikoy-evicted/ Graywalls (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please drop the stick, I'm not sure why this needs discussion again. This specific link is needed to back the noncontroversial claims that the centre was in Kadikoy and was evicted in December. If you click through you'll see it's a translation of a statement by the group itself. Mujinga (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
It does not pass WP:RS. It might be appropriate reference for aboutself if the group was notable for its own article, but I feel it is undue to source to a page that is a primary source self published rambling by the group itself on an overview high-level article such as this one. Graywalls (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
As previously stated, WP:SELFSOURCE cover this Mujinga (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I am finding it objectionable that questionable, WP:UGC or WP:SPS sources continue to be added. I have removed for the second time " There have been major housing movements and periods of squatting in Ireland, including the activities of the Dublin and Derry Housing Action Committees of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Each had a militant campaign which participated in dozens or hundreds of actions and protests in demand of better housing conditions" sourced to "cite book|editor1-last=Squatting Everywhere Kollective |last1=MacSimoin |first1=Alan|chapter= The hidden history of squatting in Ireland |title=Fighting for spaces, fighting for our lives: Squatting movements today |date=2018 |publisher=edition assemblage |location=Münster |isbn=9783942885904 |pages=182–185 |edition=1|url=http://struggle.ws/ws/squat48.html |access-date=2015-02-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180605204220/http://struggle.ws/ws/squat48.html |archive-date=2018-06-05". That URL was originally present in the article sourced to "anarchist writers". Now a book and ISBN are inserted, along with this URL but I can not find any correlation of that website to that book. When I search some of phrases within that struggle.ws source, I find exact copies in questionable sites like squat.net but there's no credible reference connecting that source to the book. I was able to track down that book. Within that book, it appears as "Guest article - Alan MacSimoin writing for Workers Solidarity http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/squat48.html http://struggle.ws/ws/squat48.html". I still find the inclusion in this high-level overview article objectionable. I welcome input from editors. Graywalls (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

If a source's authorship cannot be confirmed/attributed (i.e., anyone could have posted it), then it can't be used as a self-published source. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 08:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:SPS doesn't apply to Graywalls' latest discussion point, which is about this edit deleting information referenced to the book Fighting for spaces, fighting for our lives: Squatting movements today (amazon). I'd be totally within my rights to re-add this info since it's clearly referenced to a reliable secondary source, but I'll wait a bit for other editors to comment, in the spirit of making a new start for 2021. To track the article in question, it is titled The hidden history of squatting in Ireland and was written by historian Alan MacSimoin for publication by the Irish group Workers Solidarity Movement. It is helpfully hosted online at http://struggle.ws/ws/squat48.html and https://web.archive.org/web/20000613222259/http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/squat48.html. It was then recently republished in Fighting for spaces, fighting for our lives: Squatting movements today and clearly gives useful historical information about squatting in Ireland so I'd propose this info is be re-added. Mujinga (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I tracked down the book where that stuff came from and it's basically a compilation of reader submitted essay and I would liken it to Letters to the Editor and columns. Those sources do not constitute WP:RS other than to say that John Doe #23 wrote the newspaper and said so and so, but to include that sort of thing is a matter of due weight. Graywalls (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC) @Czar: pinging as requested.
"my rights to re-add" that's edit warring. WP:V makes it anyone's rights to remove things that can not be reliably verified. Verifiability is a minimum requisite, but verifiable is not an entitlement to inclusion. Disputed content must establish consensus per WP:ONUS. So far, you have been the only one wanting to include it. Graywalls (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

MacSimoin

There have been major housing movements and periods of squatting in Ireland, including the activities of the Dublin and Derry Housing Action Committees of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Each had a militant campaign which participated in dozens or hundreds of actions and protests in demand of better housing conditions.[1]

References

  1. ^ MacSimoin, Alan (2018). "The hidden history of squatting in Ireland". In Squatting Everywhere Kollective (ed.). Fighting for spaces, fighting for our lives: Squatting movements today (1 ed.). Münster: edition assemblage. pp. 182–185. ISBN 9783942885904. Archived from the original on 2018-06-05. Retrieved 2015-02-06.


— https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squatting&diff=997170527&oldid=996202059

This is a nuanced case, so some detail:

  1. Just on the link itself, it's unclear how long struggle.ws has been hosting the Workers Solidarity Movement's website and archive but it appears to be sanctioned. Its index implies that this essay was published there shortly after it was printed in 1996. (fwiw, most times I come across struggle.ws on WP, it's a mirror of a copyrighted work, but the link seems fine in this case.) The license point is moot because Fighting for spaces is published under a cc-by-nc-nd-3.0 license at SqEK's website, so can just use that link. The author on page 168 looks familiar. ;)
  2. Talking about the book itself, it's from a radical left press (Edition Assemblage [de])[1] and appears to be mainly featuring "the voices of activists directly embedded in local struggles" (i.e., in their own voices). Reliability comes from editorial process (publisher/editor's reputation for fact-checking/accuracy), which is hard to see here if it's aggregating work without reviewing or editing.
  3. Looking at the chapter independent of the book then, if it comes verbatim from elsewhere, MacSimoin wrote it for Workers Solidarity OCLC 51859611, an Irish anarchist paper published by the Workers Solidarity Movement, of which MacSimoin was a founding member.[2] In what I've reviewed, I haven't seen an indication that the masthead reviews for factual accuracy. And per the top of the article, MacSimoin wrote this history as a participant in the Dublin squatters movement. Between MacSimoin's connection to the topic and the lack of editorial oversight (book or periodical), it'd be a hard case to call this history reliable. One could make a case for it as a self-published expert source in MacSimoin's capacity as a historian of Ireland, but per that policy, we'd need to discuss if the author's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". (Most of MacSimoin's works in WorldCat appear to be published through Workers Solidarity, personally affiliated.) Even then, it'd still be subject to restrictions on primary sources as a participant, so claims like "major" housing movements and "hundreds" of actions would be better cited by a secondary source.

All in all, there should be better citations available for these claims, or replacements. Here's one such alternative:

Groups in Dublin and Derry organized squats during a 1960s housing shortage, leading to an anti-squatter law.[3][4]

(not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 01:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Czar: thanks for the suggestion. You are right that the original sentence can be improved (although that wasn't the original discussion) and I appreciate the suggestion of an alternative sentence since it's a much more constructive way of interacting. I'd like to keep the links for the Housing Action Committees since they were historically significant. Further we need to consider this information as part of the Irish section. With the extra sources info on the 1960s and 1970s can be expanded a bit! So I'll suggest some rejigged sentences, feel free to add something more from your sources to improve it if you want:

During the 1960s, the shortage of affordable housing in Dublin became a political issue.[1] The Dublin Housing Action Committee formed in 1967 and inspired the formation of other similar groups, including the Derry Housing Action Committee in Northern Ireland.[1] The government responded by introducing the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Act of 1971.[2] By 1976, the Dublin Squatters Association had been formed and to represent the families squatting in the city.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b Hanna, Erika. Modern Dublin: Urban Change and the Irish Past, 1957-1973. OUP Oxford. p. 125. ISBN 978-0-19-150162-3.
  2. ^ Hill, J. R. A New History of Ireland Volume VII: Ireland, 1921-84. OUP Oxford. p. 323. ISBN 978-0-19-161559-7.
  3. ^ MacSimoin, Alan (2018). "The hidden history of squatting in Ireland". In Squatting Everywhere Kollective (ed.). Fighting for spaces, fighting for our lives: Squatting movements today (PDF) (1 ed.). Münster: edition assemblage. pp. 182–185. ISBN 9783942885904. Retrieved 2021-01-03.
I would like to keep the original MacSimoin reference since I think I can argue for it being a reliable secondary source. The original source is no doubt Workers Solidarity 48 but since a pdf has been found for the SqEK book then we can use that instead. It's clear to me that the SqEK book is a reliable secondary source; "SqEK" are listed as the editorial collective and there is an editorial introduction on page 3. I don't know Editions Assemblage, but from their website they seem like a leftwing publisher on the lines of Verso Books or Pluto Press. SqEK have published books on Pluto, Routledge and Palgrave MacMillan so they appear to be in good standing as well. Further, the claims being sourced to MacSimoin are not extraordinary (unlike the original sentence). Mujinga (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The MacSimoin cannot be a secondary source because it was written by someone involved in the events. In terms of reliability, it would have to rest in MacSimoin's background as a historian unless there is some indication that SqEK edited the works—it appears they just aggregated the chapters. What makes it reliable is the editorial process and reputation for accuracy, not just that it was published. I don't think it would pass muster at WP:RSN given its self-published origins and author affiliation.
How about this one? Should be a suitable alternative source for the straightforward fact of when the association was formed: McDermott, Fiachradh (2017-12-27). "The short history of squatting in Dublin: Rejecting consumerism and being 'a bit punk'". TheJournal.ie. Retrieved 2021-01-06. If good, then the rest of the proposal above sounds good too.
czar 04:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
"unless there is some indication that SqEK edited the works" → "SqEK" are listed as the editorial collective and there is an editorial introduction on page 3 - I'm really not sure how I could be any clearer on that. But moving on yeah I'd be fine with the alternative, thanks for suggesting it. That would work for me. Mujinga (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not really following the whole point about having published on Routledge, and MacMillan. Those books that are published there can certainly be used, but I don't believe contents made by a group can be used simply by hinging off of having books published through those publishers in their portfolio. If the argument is group blog should be recognized as good source, because the group have previously published on those publisher, I don't believe that flies. Graywalls (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Moldova

For some reason I have yet to fully fathom, information about Moldova is being deleted from this page. I'll suggest a new version here and hope for some constructive discussion. Mujinga (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC) 

In Moldova, homeless people live in state-run shelters or squatter camps.[1] The first squatted, self-managed social centre was founded in 2010 in the capital Chişinău. Centro 73 hosted alternative events and activists attempted to prevent the monumental building from being demolished.[2][3] It was quickly evicted and the group occupied the old Turkish embassy before being given a building to use for artistic events by the city council.[2]

References

  1. ^ Negură, Petru (26 June 2019). "The State Policy towards the Homeless in Moldova between the 'Left Hand' and the 'Right Hand'. The Case of Chișinău Shelter". Südosteuropa. 67 (2): 175–195. doi:10.1515/soeu-2019-0013.
  2. ^ a b Caucaso, Osservatorio Balcani e. "Moldavia: Chișinău underground". OBC Transeuropa (in Italian). Retrieved 7 November 2020.
  3. ^ "Un grup de tineri a protestat azi împotriva demolării unei clădiri istorice din Capitală". Publika (in Romanian). 1 November 2010. Archived from the original on 2 June 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2020.

After no comments at all were made here for one month, I added the sentences above. Most of it was deleted without discussion, so I've re-added it. Why delete reliably sourced information about Moldova? Per WP:GLOBAL this article is discussing a worldwide phenomenon. I'm seeing no attempt at all to collaborate to improve the coverage of squatting in central and eastern Europe. Mujinga (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion and it has been discussed at length in the section immediately above this. No consensus has been established. When inclusion is disputed, it remains off until consensus is established to include it, per WP:ONUS. Graywalls (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Alternative: 

In Moldova, homeless people live in state-run shelters or squatter camps.[1] Squatters in Centro 73, Moldova's first squatted, self-managed social centre, attempted to prevent the historical building from demolition, but were quickly evicted and given another building for art events.[2][3]
Sources

  1. ^ Negură, Petru (26 June 2019). "The State Policy towards the Homeless in Moldova between the 'Left Hand' and the 'Right Hand'. The Case of Chișinău Shelter". Südosteuropa. 67 (2): 175–195. doi:10.1515/soeu-2019-0013.
  2. ^ Caucaso, Osservatorio Balcani e. "Moldavia: Chișinău underground". OBC Transeuropa (in Italian). Retrieved 7 November 2020.
  3. ^ "Un grup de tineri a protestat azi împotriva demolării unei clădiri istorice din Capitală". Publika (in Romanian). 1 November 2010. Archived from the original on 2 June 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2020.

For due weight, given the sourcing, a single, concise sentence will do. I'm assuming here that "monumental" meant historically protected rather than large. Graywalls, is this a workable compromise? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 08:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion I'd be OK with that but would prefer "historical monument" if "monumental" doesn't work since it's a listed building and for me "historical" used on its own doesn't convey that meaning. Mujinga (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Replacing it with monument istoric (with a link) sounds okay. My concern is that "monument/historical monument" on the English WP typically refers to memorial statues and obelisks, not buildings, so I didn't want that to get lost in translation. Replacing with something like cultural property or historic site would be the best general descriptor, I think, but if it's important to specify to use the word "monument" then "monument istoric" with a link works. czar 01:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, do you find that there's enough relevance between this building and squatting, or is it more of something about the building? That may be better suited for something about building than squatting. Let me know what you think. I don't believe that mention of Centro 73 by name is necessary in this overview article. Graywalls (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The relevance would be that it was the first in Moldova, a relatively new nation, and that the overview article should have at least a little leeway because Moldova doesn't (won't?) have its own breakout article. Agreed that in principle this overview article should stay high-level, but that still leaves room for editorial discretion if a singular squat is a regional highlight. Given the cleanup in the rest of the article, structure of the paragraph, and compromise to keep it to a single sentence, if this case was borderline before, it's hard to argue now that this fact alone is still undue weight (i.e., see Poland's Rozbrat in the next sentence). If someone wants to pick at it in a future GA/FA review, that's their prerogative, but for now and without any broader, overarching source to replace the current sources, I think the compromise sentence should meet everyone's needs. czar 01:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Czar:, I trust that you have a good understanding of balancing things out. As someone who have been less involved in the dispute, if you don't mind, please go ahead and make changes you feel would be appropriate. Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done czar 04:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that Czar. It's a minor tweak but I'll take out monument istoric since that denotes "National Heritage Sites in Romania" and thus doesn't apply. I've gone back to your suggestion of "historical building" Mujinga (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Kibera / Smith

Graywall's latest deletion is this. The initial reason was "per WP:BLOG". Just because something is labelled as blog doesn't invalidate it as a source. I replied that David A. Smith is a subject area expert and gave the link to his page as instructor at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, which states:

DAVID A. SMITH is the founder and CEO of the Affordable Housing Institute (AHI), which develops sustainable housing financial ecosystems worldwide. With more than 30 years' direct experience in affordable housing, Mr. Smith uniquely combines the roles of practitioner and theoretician, participant and policymaker. AHI and Mr. Smith have advised the likes of the World Bank, USAID, The Gates Foundation, The Rockafeller Foundation and The African Banking Association. His work as an international housing finance policy advisor/ program developer encompasses projects on Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, India, Ireland, Kenya, Middle East, Panama, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Turkey, and United Kingdom, and he is a much sought-after speaker on affordable housing issues around the world. In the USA, David provides high-quality analysis to the US Congress, and was a principal member of the 1996 US Senate mark-to-market working group. A 1975 Harvard graduate, he is an award-winning author with more than 100 published articles in real estate, valuation, and policy periodicals, and a textbook.

Emphasis added for relevant parts. I was then reverted by Graywalls with edit summary: "subject matter expert" is established by recognition and citation history. Someone who has authored journals and books on this matter, and whose work on the relevant matter has been cited extensively can then be considered subject matter expert when they talk about those things. I looked into him and I couldn't find him being cited as experts in academic materials through Google Scholars. "Founder and CEO Affordable Housing Institute (AHI)" doesn't imply expertise on squatting

So now the issue is that Smith is not a subject matter expert. Not being able to find him on google is perhaps a problem with the name being a common one, since there do seem to be a lot of other David Smiths. In any case, here are a few of his publications:

He also won the 2014 President’s Award from National Affordable Housing Management Association in "in recognition of his visionary leadership and significant contributions to the affordable housing industry".[5] So I think it's pretty clear he is an expert on the topic at hand.

The important thing of course is that Kibera is mentioned in the article, if someone wants to actually fix it, please go ahead. To talk more generally, Graywalls has been challenging my edits on this article since October and I'd respectfully suggest per WP:5P4 "there are 6,222,581 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss". Mujinga (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Businesswire press release article based on a source related to the organization awarding the award. What I am saying is, let's see evidence of what he's published having been CITED and recognized by others in relation to things related to squatting. In other words, show that he's someone other scholars go to as the leading expert on squatting matters. Once that's established, then using his self published blog might be considered appropriate, but really blogs and such are best avoided whenever possible even then. I am challenging contents related concerns civilly. Per the 5P4 cited, you're free to go work on other topics you like editing instead of continuing to add contents that maybe challenged to squatting, or squatting in the United States and squatting related articles. " I'd be totally within my rights to re-add" and such is not a collaborative approach to editorial disputes. I provided my reasoning for why including contents based on that source used. I'm open to input from other editors. Graywalls (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not seeing where this source makes the (sizable) claim that there are "large squatter communities in Kenya". (This would also be better expressed with more specifics on what "large" means.) It would be more direct, for instance, to say something to the effect of "a fifth of Nairobi lives in Kibera, which is historically squatted ground". I would want a higher quality source for a broad claim of that magnitude. This is a reasonable BRD discussion and should neutrally advance to the reliable sources noticeboard if you cannot find talk page agreement. I don't think it's fair to cite 5P4—the way it's written, it works both ways. (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 04:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Err, I'll repeat, if anyone wants to actually fix it, please go ahead. The thing you are both conveniently forgetting re WP:5P4 is that I went to ANI because Graywalls was stalking my edits and the advice given there was "try to stay away from each other. Inasmuch as there are over 6.1 million articles here, half of which are stubs, that shouldn't be hard to do". And yet here we are, several months later. Mujinga (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the article, I have been seeing you come back and restoring contents that have been challenged without obtaining consensus. I am asking you to stop casting aspersion on me here or on talk pages. Claiming your allegations as facts is libelous. the way you infer to me is unfounded, is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected and you stop doing so. No comments there was intended that one of us should forfeit editing on squatting or a determination whose edits should stay. Nobody owns any articles. None of this is personal. Looking at WP:SPS, it reads "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.". Emphasis added by me. I believe that you're taking WP:ABOUTSELF out of context. What it is saying is that self published source is reliable and probably acceptable if you're citing information about the subject itself in the subject's page, for example some factual information about Will Smith from his own page on Will Smith article provided that the information isn't intended to promote his publicity or boast his accomplishments in anyway. Now, including some information about some obscure shoe company's website from their own website into a overview article on athletic shoes would be another case of contents that is not suitable for inclusion into the overview article. Not the question about the basic factual information about the obscure shoe brand's accuracy. Graywalls (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Legal threat reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I was not making any legal threat. After looking around though, I rephrased it just to clarify no such intentions. I don't believe anyone would have reasonably seen what I said above as "legal threat" but I rephrased it just on the err of the side of making it absolutely clear. Graywalls (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Czar:, would you entertain popping in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat ? . I didn't mean any "legal threat" in the comment above. I don't feel others did either. Graywalls (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Stored sources

Phillipines

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/30/world/manila-squatters-are-an-eyesore-for-mrs-marcos.html parked for later use. Graywalls (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:SQUAT

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Squatting is a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to squatting. If you would like to participate, please visit the project plannig page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Everyone is welcome, from beginner to experienced editor. Feel free to pass by with suggestions. Mujinga (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

A few what?

In the 2nd paragraph, we read:

In African cities such as Lagos, a few of the population live in slums.

There seems to be missing something in this sentence ... --User:Haraldmmueller 11:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

thanks for spotting, someone with an axe to grind had changed the wording ineptly, it was summarising this sentence which comes later in the body of the article: "In 1995, almost 70% of the population of the Nigerian capital Lagos were living in slums" Mujinga (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:SQUAT

There are over one billion squatters worldwide and the phenomenon is under-represented on Wikipedia. Join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Squatting to help write articles about squatting in every country, or drop a message on the talkpage about something else you'd like to see covered. This is just one of many ways to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia! Mujinga (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): A symmetrics.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Too much info in a way

There's basically an article for Squatting in _essentially every country imaginable_ and I think it's WP:UNDUE to include so many specific camp/squat identified by name in this high-level article; and self-published and primary source sources to go with them. Graywalls (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Squatting/Archive_1&oldid=1197907676"