Talk:Squatting in the Netherlands

Moira
Charlie Foxtrot66 you again added Moira to the lead, this time with the edit summary "Restored Moira as an extant and active squat. ( Who is this "Mujinga" to decide wich squat deserves to be mentioned and wich not?)". I have removed Moira from the lead again and will explain why here, after first asking you to refrain from attacking me personally. The lead summarises what is in the article, and Moira is only mentioned in the text in the table (alongside 20+ other projects) and in the navbox, so I don't think it needs to be in the lead at all. You created the page for Moira and perhaps have a conflict of interest, if you do that's not necessarily a problem but you should declare it. By the way I replied to your question about references back in May and you haven't replied or added more references. I don't "decide wich squat deserves to be mentioned", reliable sources do. The Staatsarchief is a good guide to notability of historical projects and Moira is not mentioned once there. Mujinga (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * please discuss here before reverting again, thanks Mujinga (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I just added Moira because is one of the main squats in Utrecht, the purpose of Wikipedia is to give informations and that's what I added, maybe you have a conflict of interest instead of me? Why is it so important for you to delete it, can't you just leave it being my contribution, in the worst of cases, not harmful for the article quality? What you call "personal attack" seems a legitimate question to me: who are you to decide that ACU is more important than Moira and only ACU deserves to be mentioned? Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not the Staatsarchief, this sound an excuse to me. You also deleted the largest part of my work on the Moira Article, with the excuse of not enought references (you also deleted the moat, being well known that the Utrecht city center is surrounded by a moat and Moira stands right there). You behave as a moderator, and I still don't know wich autority do you have to do so, I keep on asking it but you ignore the question. If the references in my article are not good enough and Moira shouldn't be mentioned in the lead of your article, then let some moderator decide about it, all the info I added are correct, no lies, and you don't have the right to delete the other people work, if the informations are correct, same as I don't do so with yours... I add informations, you cancel them, this is the difference between you an me. Now I will restore the Moira article, will add some more reference, and if you will go on deleting my work, then I will go on restoring it until a moderator will take some decision. According to me, what you are doing is vandalism and I don't understand the reason of such a behaviour unless, as I said, you don't have some personal interest in it. I have no interest, I only wanna share informations while you're spending a lot of time and energy just to boycott Moira. Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, it was partly coherent at least. who are you to decide that ACU is more important than Moira I don't, the secondary sources do, as this source on the ACU page says: "The most renowned squat in Utrecht was ACU on Voorstraat". The Staatsarchief also has a lot on ACU, but yes that's just an excuse. And yes, Utrecht has a moat... The problem actually is what you suggest, the references over at Moira just aren't good enough. Mujinga (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

SPS and Indymedia
, I have been working on cleaning out undue contents in various articles that use known questionable sources and insource: search on "indymedia.nl" from the WP:RSP Independent Media Center brought me to this. I've been cleaning out a handful of articles using Indymedia.nl, Indymedia.org, indybay.org; etc. Squatting articles in general certainly appear to utilize that contraindicated source heavily. Perhaps it's the influence of now deprecated Anarchism sourcing essay. Normally I would just remove it, but I noticed GA review in process, so I am choosing to discuss it. That source is also being discussed at RSN again with no support for the source. Anyone can post whatever, whenever, as you can see at https://www.indymedia.nl/node/add/nieuws. I find the presence of http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2006/12/41302.shtml objectionable.

I'm also skeptical about https://wageningsebarricaden.wordpress.com/ and in EL, because it used for a topic, rather than about a person, or a company to talk WP:ABOUTSELF and it is a blog by someone other than a recognized expert which goes against #11 of WP:ELNO and I don't think it's quite up to snuff to be WP:ELMAYBE #4 as "knowledgeable" authority; as well as ELs to self published sources https://maps.squat.net/* per WP:NOTAGUIDE.

Graywalls (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . This is a very good point and will need to be addressed. I looked at the source and although I am not able to read it its format very much suggests to me it is more a forum than a reliable source. I see from the link that discussion has only just started (although it is heading in one direction) and you are well aware of the issues. I am happy to wait to see if that reaches any sort of conclusion if you really want to keep it here (it is used once and alongside another source). But I don't think I can pass it until this is resolved one way or the other. I will note that it is possible to use SPS sources under certain circumstances and with careful wording.
 * , I don't expect that discussion to really go anywhere. It's already classified WP:QUESTIONABLE/level 3, which is just a step short of being deprecated completely. Reliable Sources Perennial list says "The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source." Also, the presence of https://web.archive.org/web/20200610134210/https://romanrobroek.nl/photographing-huize-ivicke-in-wassenaar/ which is just some guy's website which is self published source I firmly believe in the part of the SPS guidelines that say "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources". Graywalls (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am a bit more lenient on external link reliability (although as a personal rule I favour less being better). They don't really fit under the GA criteria anyway. Again I am at a disadvantage as I can't read it, but I do notice that the page seems to be three years out of date so it may not be a suitable External Link from that perspective. Not bothered about the maps. AIRcorn (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SQUAT
There are over one billion squatters worldwide and the phenomenon is under-represented on Wikipedia. Join 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) 14:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)