![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In case any edit wars crop up around this template, I think we should note some inclusion criteria. I'm in favour of broad criteria, namely any radical bookshop/social centre that disseminates political literature, acts as a meeting space or library for radical groups. In other words, I don't think it would be produictive to insist on reliable sources explicitly calling the operation an "infoshop" (which would injudiciously exclude non-American operatinos, for example). the skomorokh 23:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi my problem with this list is that it gives a totally wrong impression of the number of social centres in existence. If you go here http://usurpa.squat.net/ And click on the PDF you get the events happening in Barcelona centres this week. As I’m writing this there are 60 centres listed as running events this week. This is more centres than this entire list has listed for the world in just one city. Athens Greece also has vast numbers of centres, Italy at least 2 in every city and many more in places such as Milan or Rome. My point is that to make this list encyclopaedic it would be gigantic. The list gives the impression that it is mainly a small northern European phenomenon whereas it’s actually more prevalent in Southern Europe. FrutiDurruti ( talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ungdomshuset in Denmark reopenned in a new location, should be moved to Current, and left in old? Jonpatterns ( talk) 12:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
[1] @ Mujinga, care to explain this re-revert? Through BRD, your addition has been contested, so the courtesy is to discuss rather than add it back yourself. czar 21:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
"a squatted autonomous centre, serving the local community as a bookshop, cafe, gig and rehearsal space, printing facility, office and meeting space"
1 OK i’m going to talk very slowly and long-winded this time round since you didn’t seem to get my point last time.
2 I asked you for your criteria on what is an autonomous social centre, since i am fine with the previously stated opinion that:
3 “I don't think it would be produictive to insist on reliable sources explicitly calling the operation an "infoshop" (which would injudiciously exclude non-American operatinos, for example)."
4 i am fine with this becuase we have to remember that english wikipedia covers the entire world not just USA. if ‘autonomous social centre’ is currently in vogue in the USA then great but we cannot expect all projects to explicitly identify themselves as such.
5 in my opinion Binz was obviously a social centre. this is why i added the reference from vice saying “The occupation housed 50 people and provided workspace for 100” since a project of that size will no doubt have a cafe and infoshop. you then reverted this edit, presumably becuase the reference was on the next sentence, not the one that explcitly said autonomous social centre.
6 i don’t think autonomous social centres need to be explicitly labelled as such.
7 if you do, i have supplied a link on the binz occupation talk page which in my opinion by calling the place a Kulturzentrum, talking about the cafe etc shows it to be a social centre. my reference to your pedantry is becuase i am assuming you objecting that the Binz is not explicitly referenced as a soical centre … even though we havent agreed that is necessary AND even though it actually does appear to be a social centre - something which it would be great to get a third opinion on
8 i have no idea why i need to tell you this when my edit said “please see talk”
9 my further point is that if you are insisting that autonomous social centres need to be explicitly labelled as such (which in my opinion, as previously stated in 4, is not necessary) then you should be judged on the same level. therefore the sentence “121 Centre was an occupied autonomous social centre in the Brixton district of South London between 1981 and 1999” would need to have a reference on it.
10 further, your reference, which you didn't supply above, seems to be this one from the anarchist cookbook. since the phrase "a squatted autonomous centre, serving the local community as a bookshop, cafe, gig and rehearsal space, printing facility, office and meeting space" is marked by quotation marks in the text and is unreferenced, im worried this is simpy lifted from the 121’s own publicity and thus no use as a source
11 by the way im more than happy to hear other opinions here, Scott you expressed an interest what do you think? Mujinga ( talk) 16:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to change the name of this template back to 'Infoshops and social centres.' Or a new name that fits the member pages better, to be discussed below.
Rationale: I don't think the phrase 'autonomous social centre' really can be applied to places like CIRA, Extrapool, Freedom Press, 491 Gallery, The Forest, whereas the looser phrase infoshop or social centre could be applied. I don't want to delete these places, rather give the template a better name. A lot of the USA projects seem more like bookshops, thus again the same problem.
Timescale: This is not an urgent discussion, so I'm happy to wait a few months for opinions before making any change. Mujinga ( talk) 10:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Mujinga ( talk) 20:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I fixed the cut and paste move. Also I think that the original title "Infoshops and social centers" was best, because as Infoshop says they "can form part of a larger radical bookshop, archive, autonomous social centre or community centre...". The relationship between those is strong enough to form the basis for this navbox. — Scott • talk 13:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In case any edit wars crop up around this template, I think we should note some inclusion criteria. I'm in favour of broad criteria, namely any radical bookshop/social centre that disseminates political literature, acts as a meeting space or library for radical groups. In other words, I don't think it would be produictive to insist on reliable sources explicitly calling the operation an "infoshop" (which would injudiciously exclude non-American operatinos, for example). the skomorokh 23:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi my problem with this list is that it gives a totally wrong impression of the number of social centres in existence. If you go here http://usurpa.squat.net/ And click on the PDF you get the events happening in Barcelona centres this week. As I’m writing this there are 60 centres listed as running events this week. This is more centres than this entire list has listed for the world in just one city. Athens Greece also has vast numbers of centres, Italy at least 2 in every city and many more in places such as Milan or Rome. My point is that to make this list encyclopaedic it would be gigantic. The list gives the impression that it is mainly a small northern European phenomenon whereas it’s actually more prevalent in Southern Europe. FrutiDurruti ( talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ungdomshuset in Denmark reopenned in a new location, should be moved to Current, and left in old? Jonpatterns ( talk) 12:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
[1] @ Mujinga, care to explain this re-revert? Through BRD, your addition has been contested, so the courtesy is to discuss rather than add it back yourself. czar 21:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
"a squatted autonomous centre, serving the local community as a bookshop, cafe, gig and rehearsal space, printing facility, office and meeting space"
1 OK i’m going to talk very slowly and long-winded this time round since you didn’t seem to get my point last time.
2 I asked you for your criteria on what is an autonomous social centre, since i am fine with the previously stated opinion that:
3 “I don't think it would be produictive to insist on reliable sources explicitly calling the operation an "infoshop" (which would injudiciously exclude non-American operatinos, for example)."
4 i am fine with this becuase we have to remember that english wikipedia covers the entire world not just USA. if ‘autonomous social centre’ is currently in vogue in the USA then great but we cannot expect all projects to explicitly identify themselves as such.
5 in my opinion Binz was obviously a social centre. this is why i added the reference from vice saying “The occupation housed 50 people and provided workspace for 100” since a project of that size will no doubt have a cafe and infoshop. you then reverted this edit, presumably becuase the reference was on the next sentence, not the one that explcitly said autonomous social centre.
6 i don’t think autonomous social centres need to be explicitly labelled as such.
7 if you do, i have supplied a link on the binz occupation talk page which in my opinion by calling the place a Kulturzentrum, talking about the cafe etc shows it to be a social centre. my reference to your pedantry is becuase i am assuming you objecting that the Binz is not explicitly referenced as a soical centre … even though we havent agreed that is necessary AND even though it actually does appear to be a social centre - something which it would be great to get a third opinion on
8 i have no idea why i need to tell you this when my edit said “please see talk”
9 my further point is that if you are insisting that autonomous social centres need to be explicitly labelled as such (which in my opinion, as previously stated in 4, is not necessary) then you should be judged on the same level. therefore the sentence “121 Centre was an occupied autonomous social centre in the Brixton district of South London between 1981 and 1999” would need to have a reference on it.
10 further, your reference, which you didn't supply above, seems to be this one from the anarchist cookbook. since the phrase "a squatted autonomous centre, serving the local community as a bookshop, cafe, gig and rehearsal space, printing facility, office and meeting space" is marked by quotation marks in the text and is unreferenced, im worried this is simpy lifted from the 121’s own publicity and thus no use as a source
11 by the way im more than happy to hear other opinions here, Scott you expressed an interest what do you think? Mujinga ( talk) 16:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to change the name of this template back to 'Infoshops and social centres.' Or a new name that fits the member pages better, to be discussed below.
Rationale: I don't think the phrase 'autonomous social centre' really can be applied to places like CIRA, Extrapool, Freedom Press, 491 Gallery, The Forest, whereas the looser phrase infoshop or social centre could be applied. I don't want to delete these places, rather give the template a better name. A lot of the USA projects seem more like bookshops, thus again the same problem.
Timescale: This is not an urgent discussion, so I'm happy to wait a few months for opinions before making any change. Mujinga ( talk) 10:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Mujinga ( talk) 20:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I fixed the cut and paste move. Also I think that the original title "Infoshops and social centers" was best, because as Infoshop says they "can form part of a larger radical bookshop, archive, autonomous social centre or community centre...". The relationship between those is strong enough to form the basis for this navbox. — Scott • talk 13:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)