Talk:Ungdomshuset

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

POV issues[edit]

This article has clearly been written by a supporter of "Ungdomshuset". Every place where it is possible, the author has tried to twist the article in his direction. A few examples is listed below:

"Albeit, the municipality of Copenhagen did still own the building officially" - How else do you own property if it isn't official?

"In January 1996 Ungdomshuset was ravaged by a fire and the municipality of Copenhagen tried to shut down the place, claiming that the repair of the damages would cost millions of kroner. Since then the damage was repaired by the squatters themselves, costing far less than the municipality estimated." - Who was the owner again? And the cost of repairs was not a claim - the building WAS in a terrible condition and actually a saftey risk. Furthermore it shouldn't be a surprise for anybody that it costs less when you use voluntary work - the conclusion of this sentence is ridicules since it compares a market price where every hour of work is accountet and paid for with a bunch of people who decides to do a job without accounting for the hours. When voluntary work is used all you account for is the cost of materials which only is a fraction of the total costs. Now you might ask yourself what this has to do with manipulating an article but it is small things like this you place in an article to give the reader a speciel political view of an event and therefore it doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia.

The manipulation of the affair around the sale "to the highest bidder" (how else would you sell anything???) to the STOCK company (read: evil) that were so "evil" as to find and agree on a price with the owner is ridicules.

Last but not least the use of the word "sect" might be the most effective way to create public discontent with the group. ( I don't know much about the group but they have not made a suicide attack or broken the law in any way so I don't think it's fair to use that word!)

This article must definitely be rewritten and the current development must also be added since alot has happened since this article was edited last. A danish court (byret) has decided that the real owner is "Fadergruppen" and not the muncipal or the young people using the house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.255.112.25 (talkcontribs)

I agree. Serious NPOV issue. I've made some deletions. --Stigadk 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is comment about Copenhagens political background situation (with sources of quotes too) with squats at Freetown Christianian's talk page. Christianian is another (and much bigger) squat at Copenhagen. It's goot read when reviewing this articles NPOV issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freetown_Christiania#Private_and_Collective_Ownership -- Zache 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

reading over this article, it now seems to have a pro-government slant. i don't know enough about this to edit it, but i think someone should try to make it more neutral than it is. -noah

I've added NPOV warning. Vacancy 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Faderhuset[edit]

Just to be clear on what fadderhuset is. It is a sect. It fulfills every criteria for a sect. If it walks like a duck it is a duck. Second, let's talk about this sect. it's leader marched hand in hand and arm in arm with a religious fanatic carrying a cross like some kind of jesus through the area of Copenhagen with the highest density of muslims. On their shirts they had the words "Denmark is Christian". These, my friends, are the kind of religious fanatics, homophobic racist people we are talking about. So the next time you read this article and are passing judgement on these young people consider who you are supporting at the same time. MartinDK 17:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether you are a sect or not is a matter of sympathy. The pope is also a sect leader to those who don't like him. I think "sect" is a negatively biased word which should be avoided here. I have seen Mrs Ruth Evensen, leader of "Faderhuset" in a tv interview and she said nothing that was different from general evangelical-lutheran theology. I would say she is a par with the Church of Denmark like they were 30-40 years ago, and even today, of course, there will be priests and congregations in the Church of Denmark who are that conservative. Being against homosexuality and immigration is not really extreme. What people dislike about them is that they actively talk to people in the street and hand out flyers etc. Strangely, the Danes are very intolerant when it comes to Christian minorities, but everything else is OK. There are muslims preaching a much more violent hatred to gays, jews etc. Faderhuset stresses that sinners (e.g. gays etc.) are loved by god aswell, a true Christian point, which people who know nothing about theology just miss. I am not even a Christian myself, but I don't see what is abnormal in bringing your message to others if you have a religion. --Sasper 01:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Being against homosexuality and immigration is not really extreme Sorry I don't argue with people who think such views are not extreme. Even Dansk Folkeparti would never go as far as saying that being against homosexuality itself is not extreme. Second, had you even cared to look at the edit history you would have seen that I reverted my comments because I found the tone of what I had written unfortunate. I have the right to revert myself but for some reason another editor failed to understand this or even care to inform me of her actions and ask me why I reverted myself. Third, if you could show me your sources regarding your claim that the Church of Denmark shared the views of Faderhuset I would like to see them. Otherwise keep your original research to yourself. Strangely, the Danes are very intolerant when it comes to Christian minorities, but everything else is OK sources please? MartinDK 07:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
btw. You reverted at same time my comment as well, but after i checked what you wroted i just thinked that you were trying to revert your own text and deleting my text was a mistake. -- Zache 08:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I am deeply sorry about that. I was using popups to revert myself and your comment was reverted at the same time. This was entirely my mistake. Sorry. I failed to stay cool when I read the comments above my self-reverted comment which was why I reverted it back minutes later. MartinDK 08:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the discussion page, not the article, so it is entirely OK for me to come with views you call "original research". I think those who use a biased word ("sect") should present a good reason, not those who argue for neutral term ("free church", "congregation"). Anyway, my sources are the interview with Ruth Evensen, leader of Faderhuset, on DR TV on 29 November 2006, and Faderhuset's website. They write stuff like: "Temper, education, gender, colour of skin, ethnical background or culture don't qualify to any personal estimation by God, and therefore not by us either. We acknowledge our cultural heritage and respect it. We see it as our task to spread the gospel in our time from our understanding of contemporary man and the certain cultural-historical context he is part of." Maybe idealised, like all credos are. It sounds like classical Christianity to me, but somewhat conservative, like people who are 60+ would agree about. Then, there are other details, like they submerge people totally in water when they christen them, like the Pentecostal church. I don't see it makes them (or the Pentecostals) a sect. May I suggest a description like "the conservative free church Faderhuset". Their being a conservative congregation is, however, not the point to me. I think the real problem is many people (and the media) think they have less right in possessing the house than a "nice" organisation would have. Like there are different legal rights for nice people and less nice people. I wouldn't like that point of view to be uncritically reflected in this wiki article. I think there can be very good reasons to question the court case, the sale of the house etc., but that is another discussion. Now, for my sources you will have to search for caches of their page (faderhuset.org) on archive.org because it is down now. I have a feeling somebody might have hacked them, but I can't cite any source for that allegation. :-) --Sasper 15:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That did not in anyway prove that Danes are inherently discriminate against radical Christians. I agree with your proposal concerning how Faderhuset should described. To sum things up this editorial in Politiken sums up my opinions on this matter. MartinDK 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Just to be clear on what fadderhuset is." - Yes FaderHuset are the legal owners, who have comitted no crime. End of discussion.IceHunter 23:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ½½½½

Faderhuset has the Supreme Court's verdict that they are the rightful owners, so case closed. [1] Valentinian T / C 08:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

cult or sect?[edit]

Read http://www.dci.dk/?artikel=1223 , it explains why Faderhuset should be regarded as a sect, legal owners or not. http://www.dci.dk/?artikel=1111 explains some things about the source, Dialogcentret. If you want to look into which religous minorities are discriminated against and which aren't, I think it's enough to look at the last election. The danish peoples party did well, having 2 prominent mps with a very fundamental christian viewpoint (Jesper Langballe and Søren Krarup), and their rhetorics rubbed off on most other succesful parties. The danish parliament has only 2 members with a religous background other than christian.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the danish "sect" more equivalent with english "cult" (rather than "sect")? Kellen T 13:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. In Danish - and norwegian and swedish - the two are used interchangably, though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, english isn't my first language so I wasn't sure which word to use. Cult it is... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.221.149.194 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
English is my first language. The word Cult has so many negative connotations that it can never be used in a NPOV manner to describe a religious group except in a historical sense. (e.g. the Cult of Mithras). I reverted to the word Sect which does not have negative connotations, at least in American English. (I could ask a church-going acquaintance, "What sect do you belong to?", without causing offense.) Dsmdgold 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely some religious groupings can fairly be declared to be cults so in those cases it's ok with POV.In france they have lists of which organisations are officailly cults set up by parliamentary commitees. I think you are revealing your own bias.It's interesting to see that the primary school set-up by Faderhuset was apparently closed down by the government because it didn't do any science teaching.A lot of very sensible people would say that to fail to instruct children in the sciences is objectively damagable to them and that as such this religion grouping represents a danger for society which would bring it into the cult class.In the wiki article on faderhuset it definetely seems they are reaching a consensus that it's a cult (I corrected the word sect used there to cult because it's more usual in English)shouldn't this page be aligned with the other one for consistency?

After reading the wikipedia entries on cult and sect and comparing it to the article from dialogcentret there's no doubt in my mind that the right word to use is cult, wether it sounds bad or not. Members of Faderhuset are separated from the rest of society and has to obey Ruth as her words come directly from God. Ruth gets messages from God telling the members of the group that they have to work in her cleaning company for free. These three things, separation, subordination and exploitaion makes Faderhuset a cult. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.221.149.194 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
I was just thinking... To make Ungdomshuset neutral, couldn't we just call Faderhuset a religious (christian) group and then link to their own article, Faderhuset. Of course it still creates a problem with their title (cult/sect/whatever), but I think it's more appropriate to discuss that at the specific talk page, right?
By the way, I think the Faderhuset article seems quite neutral, but short though.
G®iffen 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

December 16 riots[edit]

About the text on the riot the 16th December; how relevant is it that two unknown people - among 180 others - were set free the 17th? If they were in the area where there were fired tear gas, then they would be pretty sure about what was going on (it was the in the front of the first collision), and the police would have pretty good reason to believe that they were part of the riot. Also, the cemetery was closed, and filled with police, anyone would get arrested. The case is therefore not remarkable.

What is more interesting is that almost all the Danish people were set free the 17th, but a lot of the foreigners were kept (and is probably still being kept back as I write). The police will try to get evidence against them, and possibly send them out of the country. Also, a lot of media is talking about the foreigners being a lot more aggressive than the local users of the house, which would be the primary cause of the extraordinary aggressiveness of the demonstration. 80.63.189.234 11:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Danish citizens can be detained a maximum of 24 hours before being set before a judge (according to the constitution), but I am not sure whether it applies to foreign citizens too. The police say that many of those set free will be charged later. [2] --Sasper 15:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
According to Danish law foreigners can be detained for up to 72 hours. The police is going to have then expelled from Denmark except for 2 cases of specific violations of Danish criminal law. Second, I just wanted to inform everybody that here is a nice collection of footage from the demonstration as well as the violence that followed. Finally, no the case of the man arrested for crawling over a wall is not exceptional but the fact that a 15 year old took part and apparently attacked a police officer is. MartinDK 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe that is relevant. But then again, a lot of the users of Ungdomshuset are in that age group. 80.163.116.146 23:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a sentence saying that the police stopped the demonstration, because the demonstration wasn't alerted and therefore illegal. Mostly because that wasn't what happened - and because it isn't illegal to demonstrate in Deanmark without alerting the police first. It is a constitutional right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.145.37 (talkcontribs)

Mr Anonymous: Then you are very welcome to describe what actually happened. Most people still think it was an illegal demonstration, you could enlighten us. There is not so much point in removing information and leaving nothing instead if you actually want to correct it. --Sasper 13:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You have a right to demonstrate but you have to notify the police beforehand. In addition it's not legal to wear masking when demonstrating. The demonstrators broke both laws and thus rendered the demonstration illegal. Rune X2 13:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


If you do look at 'Grundloven' (the constitution) it does explicitly state that the public has the right to congregate freely ('forsamlingsfrihed'), although the police (like with any other demonstration, announced or not) is allowed to disperse it if they find it necessary after informing the participants repeatedly. Problems with allowing crowds to disperse freely have previously been recorded in relation to Danish police tactics, namely the 'Stop Bush' demonstrations, therefore I find it an absurdity to maintain the illegality of this demonstration (it should also be noted that the demonstration was clearly announced although not to the police, as the activists referred to the constitution). Whatever, happened subsequently is entirely irrelevant to the legitimacy of the initial LEGAL DEMONSTRATION, despite the development of the demonstration and the public discourse in Denmark: "med lov skal man land bygge" (quote from the front of the high court in Denmark, roughly translates into 'with law you shall build the land/country'). PS. Regarding the masks, yes, but that was still only a small segment of the initial demonstration and does not affect the legal standing of the original demonstration, I think that we can all agree that there were more illegalities taking place subsequently than people wearing masks...84.69.243.193 15:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has the right to assemble violently and all demonstrations must be reported first to the police, which has the right to dissolve any demonstration getting out of control. That was clearly the case on Dec. 16th. Valentinian T / C 07:57, 2 March 2007

(UTC)

http://www.retssal.dk/emneindex.php3?vis=n&side=751 explains why it is legal to demonstrate without notice, as long as the demonstration doesn't make a disturbance. If the demonstration does disturb for example traffic the police has a right to stop the demonstration after declaring it loudly in the name of the queen and the law ("I dronningen og lovens navn eklærer jeg denne forsamling for opløst"). After that the crowd should be given an opportunity to disperse, but sadly that opportunity apparantly hasn't always been given by the police.

Illegal maskings and illegal demonstrations[edit]

The article states: The police had not been notified of the demonstration, thus rendering it illegal by Danish law. In addition, many of the demonstrators wore maskings or helmets which is not permitted by law during demonstrations in Denmark.

There is no such thing as an illegal demonstration in danish law. Danes have the right of gathering freely at will. Yet if you are disturbing the public traffic ('den offentlige samfærdsel') or using the gathering to make criminal acts, the police have the rigth and might to dissolve the gathering. Therefore many local police regulations ('politivedtægt') have some procedures, you can follow, if you are arranging a demonstration or some other form of procession, that will disturb the public traffic - thereby making sure you have permission from the local police to walk in the streets in a certain place at a certain time. Usually this means a notification to the police at least 24 hours in beforehand. This notification the police can accept, turn down or they can make suggestion of alterations of plans. But this procedure is just some sort of a negotation of terms in beforehand, making sure demonstrations don't get dissolved, that just as well can happen at the spot in case of demonstration. It isn't something that renders a demonstration legal or illegal. The police can dissolve a notified demonstration at the same terms as anything else, and they can let a unnotified demonstration continue. The illegal demonstrations doesn't exist in the danish legal complex - yet it is a myth (or misunderstanding) widespread enough to be mentioned in danish medias too.

And their is no law against wearing a helmet at a demonstration. There is a law against wearing maskings of any kind to prevent identification (whether worn on the face or in a bag for later use).

sure there is. In May 2001, the following addition was made to the criminal law: :[3]]
What the three parts of the addition mean is:
  1. It's illegal to publically wear headwear in a way meant to disguise your identity
  2. It's illegal to publically be in possesion of said headwear
  3. The rules don't apply to headwear worn to protect against the weather or for other recognized practical purposes

193.88.0.7 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


And I agree that this araticle is very pro-Ungdomshuset. There is no mention of weapons stored in the house, the very massive vandalism and graffiti related to the house the rest of Copenhagen suffers under (through the last six months I personally have seen the "69"-graffiti spreading like a plague through town) or the general disturbance of peace emaniting from the house leading to the sale of the house.

please do mention the graffiti & especially the weapons. I assume if you are a resident you can read Danish & therefore could cite some newspaper articles about the weapons, so it would really be best if you could enter this information yourself.--Jaibe 14:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The graffiti is obviously related, but whether or not it is relevant to the article on the house I am not certain, moreover the weapons discussed are in fact of a mainly defensive nature, thus Berlingske Tidende (danish national newspaper) reported gas masks and barricades as "weapons". Nevertheless large amounts of cobblestone and bottles were found, and these arguably had offensive capacity and intent, but I guess what they say is true: everything is a weapon if you hold it right... including the bricks, concrete and floorboards forming the house... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.25 (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Initial contract[edit]

Does anybody hace any link or info on the original contract/agreement between the municipality and youths? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mossig (talkcontribs) 15:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Found it myself: http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article259450.ece (in danish).Mossig 21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ungdomshuset.info[edit]

Just a quick note: http://ungdomshuset.info/ has probably been taken down by its webhost (surftown) due to the heavy traffic it's bound to have suffered during the last few days. Sources attributed to that site should stay until substitutes can be found, as they are real. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ungdomshuset.dk? Kellen T 13:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge March 2007 Denmark Riots back into this article[edit]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The news styled article should be merged back into this encyclopedic article. --Monotonehell 15:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

True. It'll fit here. For now, anyways. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the riots merit their own article. True, it needs some work, but the riot itself is being covered in international newsmedia. This article is to talk about the building itself, if I am not mistaken. The riots have spread out of the context of this article. --Hojimachongtalk 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The separate article beings "The March 2007 Denmark Riots are an ongoing series of riots and civil disobedience in Denmark. The riots were brought about by the eviction of squatters from the Ungdomshuset, a underground cultural center and a popular anarchist gathering point in Copenhagen." The centre and cause of this riot is firmly seated in the history of this building. What's in the separate article is just a repetition of what's in this main article.
The practice of creating new articles about events in the media is not a good idea for Wikipedia. Doing so is more the area of Wikinews. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, events should be presented in their context. In 5, 10 or 50 years this event will probably be forgotten and will only be considered as part of the history of this building. As a stand alone article it serves little purpose, except as a defacto-newspaper article. --Monotonehell 12:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The riots are significant events in their own right; the danish police said that nothing like them had been seen in 10 years. Past riots are remembered and referenced by the media as distinct events from their causes. Kellen T 12:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's flexibility contains the benefit that, if and when this event is considered a part of the history of this building and nothing more, the less important details can be weeded out and the articles can be remerged. At the moment however, the information is building quickly and it can only be a good thing to have ample space for it to be added. There is no need to merge right away, it is better to wait and see how the situation develops. Jdcooper 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that this is not only in Denmark; Germany and Norway are seeing riots aswell, and Norwegian police drove back 70 demonstrators from the Danish embassy using tear gas - I'm not going to add this to either article until the dispute is settled, but I think the riots are more suited to their own article. The article ought to be renamed March 2007 Danish eviction riots or something similar, though, because of the internationalism of the events. --Joffeloff 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And there were international protests which aren't riots too, and riots last year over the same cause. I propose the March 2007 Denmark Riots be renamed to something like Ungdomshuset eviction protests, update its content, and then have a short section here with a "see main article" link. --Cedderstk 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support merge (wikipedia is not a newspaper) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support merge ----LasseFolkersen 08:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support merge ---- nice point theFEARgod(Jschager 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Support merge Valentinian T / C 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose --protests sin't inclusive enough. Kdammers 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tingluti[edit]

In the article, Tingluti is described as a folk music ensemble. I don't think that's accurate, it is an organization comprising several ensembles and school activities. How is this described briefly and accurately?--Niels Ø (noe) 07:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Copenhagen categories[edit]

The article has been moved from category:Copenhagen to category:Buildings and structures in Copenhagen. Though it is a building (well, was, actually), the article is not really about the building as such, but about significant events in the history of Copenhagen. So should we change that back?--Niels Ø (noe) 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It's a building and structure, even if it's being torn down. It's also a youth center, venue, and is related to a number of historical events (riots, etc). It may fit in both Category:Copenhagen and Category:Buildings and structures in Copenhagen, but it definitely belongs in the buildings category. Kellen T 10:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Now it has been demolished it belongs in Category:History of Copenhagen. AshbyJnr 13:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Inspired by the Ground 69 and Ground Zero connection:
World Trade Center contains (among others): | Buildings and structures in Manhattan | Demolished buildings and structures | Destroyed landmarks | Former buildings and structures of New York City | History of New York City |
I assume Ungdomshuset could go as: Buildings and structures in Copenhagen | Demolished buildings and structures | Destroyed landmarks | Former buildings and structures of Copenhagen | History of Copenhagen | (if all of those cat's exist) G®iffen 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Demolition[edit]

Were they always going to demolish the house, or is this some perverse attempt to end the rioting? I thought the church wanted the building, it had a theatre, right?--Jaibe 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The church was apparently going to demolish the house. It's a bit odd since they're not in the best financial position and probably can't afford to build anything new there. But that's what you get with people on a mission from god, I suppose. It wasn't instigated by the cops, I think, but I guess it's possible that the riots accelerated the timeline for demolition, since the cops have had to lock down the street 24 hours a day for the last 5 days. Kellen T 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
And yes, it had a huge, beautiful theatre. And some nice big rooms downstairs that would were also suitable for shows. Kellen T 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
According to media reports in Denmark, the house was in a very poor condition.--Niels Ø (noe) 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard the same reports. I was recently inside the building; generally it was okay -- but much better than other squats I've been in. The rooms were just big and pretty much empty, so there wasn't much to maintain, I'd imagine. But it certainly wouldn't have been acceptable in its state to anyone but punks. It almost certainly will cost more to erect a new building than to renevate what was there. Kellen T 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The media reports talk about (AFAIK) water damage in the cellar, a bad leaking roof and tree rot in the structure. Do you have any idea if that is accurate? Mossig 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. I didn't get the full tour. I wouldn't be suprised about a leaking roof, though. Kellen T 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The bad thing is that if the structure of the house (ie. roof, walls, floor) is damaged, it is often more expensive to renovate than rebuild... Mossig 21:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing people often forget in this context is Denmark's comparatively high wages combined with rather tough (modern) building codes. Many public projects have gone way overbudget because decisionmakers believed it would be cheaper to simply renovate an existing building. Renovating a building can easily mean the discovery that it doesn't live up to a dozen new building codes, that the roof was made incorrectly, that the electric wiring is a potential fire hazard, that the building is full of asbestos, that the foundation has cracked, that water has soken into a wooden structure resulting in rot and colonies of hazardous fungi etc. Very often, the only cost-effective solution is to level a damaged building completely and start afresh. Valentinian T / C 19:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was probably always their intention to tear down the house. But an interesting fact to note, I think, is that right after the demolition (the house was completely removed by 23:00 CET on the 6th of March), a student from a University in Roskilde attended a sermon with Faderhuset, where Ruth Evensen made it clear (according to the student of course), that with the demolition of the house she had freed Nørrebro from the demons that were in that house, and she made it clear that she believed she had freed the users from Satan, as if she were doing some sort of exorcism. She also said that next they would turn their attention to the homosexuals, abortions and incest. According to them the house was not worth living in, but I think that they might be coloured by the fact that the house is not "pretty", so to speak. Furthermore, as far as I remember, the engineer who inspected the house was associated with the husband of one of the priests in Faderhuset. I'm going to start working on this article soon, I think, since it definantly needs some work (I'm native to Copenhagen, and very interested in the previous Ungdomshus). Dr. Marzipan 08:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
But still, both the citys own, albeit old, evaluation said it would be very expensive already in 97 to renowate the house. And the journalists who where in the house after the eviction also all reported that it was a very run-down building. Mossig 09:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a former Ungdomshuset activist. Whereas there was extensive moisture damage in the roof, accusations of mold and and other irrepairable damage in walls, floors etc. are straight-up lies. Because of NPOV I won't edit anything myself, but when Ruth(McJesusZombie-house leader) came on TV and said it was horribly dirty and infected with Dog-knows-what kind of parasites, she was lying through her teeth to support her crusade. PisspunkDK

"Spray painted Crane"[edit]

Where the article says "crane was spray-painted", dose that refer to it being spray-painted with graffitti? or was the logo/name of the company operating the crain painted over to avoid retrobution? Mike McGregor (Can) 12:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The logo was painted over, to avoid retribution. Smors 13:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fucked Up on Ungdomshuset[edit]

http://lookingforgold.blogspot.com/2007/03/its-rainy-day.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grue (talkcontribs) 09:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Trials after March 1 and Police[edit]

If I write an addition to this article, am I allowed to write something about the fact that the 197 people who are now in prison after the numerous demonstrations (out of the about 700 people who were arrested), have been convicted on very slim evidence (evidence consisting of a few minutes of footage from the 24 hour news channel TV2NEWS), and that the trials have been met with massive critique, by parents and other involved parties. Even the defence lawyers have stated openly that the judges and police have crossed a line in these cases. Furthermore, am I allowed to add information about the alleged police violence cases, and the fact that the police has broken several laws, among other things, searching a building without a court warrant etc. Or do these things mess up NPOV issues? Another thing, I'm relatively new to editing wikipedia, and if I were to add things about the above, am I allowed to quote eye witnesses in the article, and if so, should these be quoted on Danish, or translated to English? Thank you. Dr. Marzipan 08:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. Many people in Copenhagen feel that this is a massive defeat when it comes to acceptance and tolerance towards others that don't necessarily share the general opinion. Am I allowed to write about that? I can find sources of course (they're in Danish though, is that okay?). Dr. Marzipan 09:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As long as you cite your sources and specify who the criticisms come from, you'll be fine by NPOV. You can quote in English or both Danish and English, but doing Danish alone wouldn't be that hot. Kellen T 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The topic is controversial, so please keep this in mind :) But your suggestion sounds ok to me as long as you find good sources and cite them. Create links to the relevant webpages, and if the material comes from a newspaper or similar, please add enough information so others can locate the same article. What is important is that other editors must be able to verify your information should they chose to do so, so all information has to have been published somewhere before either in print or on the web. And if you have the choice between a Danish and an English-language source, please choose the English one. Valentinian T / C 11:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I allowed to translate the Danish to English myself? Or is that not credible? Dr. Marzipan 11:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Translating material is ok, but others have to be able to locate the original source, e.g. the original article. Valentinian T / C 11:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, translate it. Also, if you know danish well, translating the bit about Faderhuset Ruth's comments from yesterday would be great. Something about pushing the devil out, etc. Homos next! Kellen T 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

Vacancy (talk · contribs) put up NPOV, but didn't specify reasons. If they aren't stated here within a few hours, I'm removing the template. Kellen T 15:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

activists?[edit]

"Due to the ongoing conflict between the municipal government of Copenhagen and the activists occupying the premises" They sound more like plain old squatters to me. Is there citeable proof stating what ways are they active, other than maintaining a right to property that isn't theirs without paying rent? WookMuff 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This choice of words might be due to the influence of Danmarks Radio and TV2. Both consistently refer to these people as "aktivister". This has become a politically correct term which the media uses very leniently, e.g. it is used both about people taking part in demos as well as when rioters throw cobblestones after policeofficers. The media used the same word about the person that threw paint at the PM in this person's "you have blood on your hands" stunt (= this person didn't like Danish troops in Iraq). As I see it, the word "aktivist" has lost all of its original meaning in Danish. My first suggestion would still be "squatters". Valentinian T / C 16:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Plain old "squatters" isn't right, as they did run political events in addition to living in the building. But then "activists" isn't quite right either, but "leftist-political people running leftist-political and subcultural events in a (then-)squatted house which was previously legitimately operated" doesn't sound so good in the article. Kellen T 17:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fungus vs. mold[edit]

From the article:

In January 1996 Ungdomshuset was ravaged by a fire and discovered to be plagued by fungus and rot. (italics mine)

By "fungus", does someone mean "mold", as in black mold (Aspergillus niger)? (I assume this is what is meant; black mold has infected many damaged buildings in the wake of Katrina, & is an all-too-common health hazard in many parts of the US.) this Or is this a case where American English calls it mold (because it looks like bread mold), & British English refers to A. niger as a fungus? -- llywrch 22:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, the building was plagued by Serpula lacrymans (the article uses the Danish name: ægte hussvamp). I am no expert on the differences between American and British English, but I think the British English equivalent for "mold" is "mould", and that mold/mould describe the types of fungus that produce a sort of woolly or furry growth. Whether Serpula lacrymans is a mold or not, I don't know, but it is a type of fungus. Hemmingsen 18:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's a mould or not, but I do know, as a Scottish citizen and therefore a "native speaker" of Brittish English (;-) who also has much interest in the natural world, all your other assmptions are correct. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Aegte hussvamp" is what would be called "dry rot" in the UK.82.153.62.201 07:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pink Little Mermaid[edit]

During the riots on March 3, the statue of the Little Mermaid was painted pink. Also '69' and an anarchy symbol was painted on the rock on which the mermaid rests. A lot of newspapers and sources linked it to Ungdomshuset, but they all added that the link can't be made for sure. for example: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/05/content_5803644.htm

But seeing that it happened on the same day as the riots, and that the '69' is obviously referring to the address of the squat, it's pretty clear to me that this was an attempt to draw attention to the squat's trouble. Even if it was not done by someone of the squat, the hypothetical link was made by almost every news source (I read it in a couple of Dutch newspapers for example). My question: can I add something about the mermaid to the article (somewhere in the riots section)? I'll say something about how it drew attention to the situation. What do you think? Key to the city 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

go ahead and give a citation when you do so Mujinga 20:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Key to the city 10:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and "cult"[edit]

I will take out the word "cult" from the description of "faterhuset". It does not appear to be supported by anything. The actual wikipedia article on the group does not appear to make that assertion either. Refdoc 08:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got into the same lingustic proplem as described in this talk page under Faderhuset, sect or cult? So sect would be the correct word Zarutian 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How did the Norrebo ?commonwealth? come to possess the house that stood on Jagtvej 69? Zarutian 23:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

RTFA I should have Zarutian 00:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

POV again / please expand[edit]

I'm new to this article, and don't know what POV issues there were before, but as it is now, only mere facts are reported. That may be very NPOV, but it makes for a rather dry, and IMHO incomplete article.
What were the motivations for the occupants of the House?
What were the motivations for the seemingly extreme (from my outside perspective) reaction from the police?
What arguments were used for and against the clearing, the crackdown, and the demolition?
How were foreigners persuaded to join in the actions, on both sides of the conflict?
How did the Danish public and international media respond?
These are some things I would like to see addressed in this article.
Kimiko 10:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Building / Movement[edit]

Wouldn't it be appropriate to divide "Ungdomshuset" into two articles; one about the house/building and one about the movement? Sikkerhedshjelm 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Random Ramblings[edit]

Ah, good times. I happened to be working in Malmö at the time. When I saw then news, I immediately packed an emergency pack and headed to join the party.

Anyway, in the day after the demolition, I was wandering about the neighborhood visiting local businesses, drinking beer and chatting with people. I ended up spending some time with a photographer with nice gear and he actually took quite a few pictures with me in them. I asked if I could have copies and I gave him my email address. I never got any correspondence thou :( If you, the photographer, who remembers a Finnish long haired tourist there, please Ping me. It would still be cool to have those pics :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizzl (talkcontribs) 23:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Dortheavej 61 and K-Town hardcore punk fest[edit]

Would this article benefit from more information about the new Ungdomshuset at Dortheavej 61 http://www.ungdomshuset.dk/english-info.aspx

Also, is it worth mentioning the yearly K-Town punk hardcore festival which has taken place at old and new houses http://diypunkfest61.blogspot.co.uk/p/videos-and-photos-from-2012.html

Jonpatterns (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)