Talk:Dutch squatting ban

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

Needs for Article[edit]

  • Check facts and edit for accuracy.
  • Extend it with details of current events (add sources, use 2 {, the world fact and 2 more } when you don't have them)
  • Share with others with this text to get them to document.

Right now the article primarily needs:

  • A good video like either bbc news or AT5
  • A more effective main picture like

(all content needs to be Creative Commons or another free license) Genjix (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Riots did not occur as could be deducted from the 2nd line. First there where protests an subsequently they ended in a riot. Alibobar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • The attack on the police station didn't come from the squatters, but from the Maluku community: they had announced that they would arrest the Prime Minister of Indonesia who was planning to visit Am*dam. The visit was canceled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.136.81 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

"The recently elected coalition government motioned a squatting ban on 1 June. The referendum was accepted by both houses of parliament with enforcement to commence 1 October."

Recently elected government coalition? 1 June? Bullshit. The squatting ban is a product of CDA-Labour-ChristianUnion coalition. It has nothing to with the new minority coalition whatsoever. There was no referendum either. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A government which took power on 14 October 2010 could hardly have passed a squatting ban which was passed into law on 1 October 2010 and had been agreed upon by both the Dutch House of Representatives on 15 October 2009 as well as the Dutch Senate on 1 June 2010. This article seems to have been created by squatters or proponents of squatting and thus has a severe NPOV issue. SpeakFree (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it was written by me. I am for squatting but lacking legal knowledge of the situation. I tried to keep the article NPOV, yet my POV peeks through. So if you want to run the Wiki process to bring it back in line, I have no objections as we're all here to build encyclopedia excellentia :) Another editor needs to pull it to the centre. Genjix (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I was also in error, in The Netherlands the government (cabinet) can't pass anything in to law, they can only propose laws. It's the parliament (house and senate) which has the power to make laws. SpeakFree (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dutch squatting ban. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 23:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch squatting ban. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

Hi Graywalls, thanks for the citation needed tag, I've found a better source, a Dutch mainstream newspaper. Regarding the sources you deleted:

  • https://n-1.cc/pg/blog/bocaextra/read/46599/anti-squatting-ban-demos-in-the-netherlands - absolutely worth removing
  • the squatnet link is a press release from the the squatters of the fire brigade HQ and therefore fine as a citation for the end of the occupation
  • regarding indymedia, you are really imposing your own opinion on a situation where there is no real consensus. the best debate i've found is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_275#Indymedia and that is inconclusive. i do not dispute it is a self-published source, but then it depends on context how it is used. here it is simply a statement that a banner protest was made, that doesn't seem very controversial to me. in any case, i'll search for a better source (we can agree i hope that indymedia is not the best reliable secondary source!) Mujinga (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found a better source, de Volkskrant so that's great! I'd like to keep the indymedia link since it's no making extraordinary claims, just giving more evidence of the banners. If you would prefer, it could be made an external link. Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dutch_squatting_ban&oldid=1201699928"