Talk:Ungdomshuset

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree. Serious NPOV issue. I've made some deletions. --Stigadk 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issues

message: 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: :]
:What the three parts of the addition mean is:
# It's illegal to publically wear headwear in a way meant to disguise your identity
# It's illegal to publically be in possesion of said headwear
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Illegal maskings and illegal demonstrations 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it myself: http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article259450.ece (in danish).Mossig 21:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial contract 

message: 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)
replies: text: ungdomshuset.dk? Kellen T 13:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ungdomshuset.info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tingluti 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Spray painted Crane" 

message: http://lookingforgold.blogspot.com/2007/03/its-rainy-day.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grue (talk • contribs) 09:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fucked Up]] on Ungdomshuset 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Am I allowed to translate the Danish to English myself? Or is that not credible? Dr. Marzipan 11:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Trials after March 1 and Police

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  activists? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fungus vs. mold 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pink Little Mermaid

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV and "cult"

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV again / please expand 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Building / Movement 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Ramblings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dortheavej 61 and  K-Town hardcore punk fest