Talk:Gellerup

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

Very deficient article

This article is framing Gellerup solely as an area of 'crime and migration'. Even in the (in my view) useless section about traffic, the article is concerned about assaults in busses and so on. I do not argue that the there's a reason for the Gellerup-image but I believe it is not adequately sourced nor sufficiently regarding a more reflective image about areas. I assume it meets not the standards of Wikipedia. (Why does it list all bus lines anyways???) :) --130.225.247.81 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Benedig[reply]

Answer

The above statements was based on a very meager version, that was up until a couple of weeks ago. They are no longer valid in my eyes.

BTW

Gellerup is an area of crime, danger, poverty and ethnic conflict. It is the bare truth and to neglect that would not be political correct, but deceitful and a provoking lie. At times there are a new story each week! Many problems aren't even reported any more, because its the same over and over and not many journalists care to go there. It is thought of as the most dangerous place in Denmark, I think I can even document with concrete numbers it if I took my time to dig up the reference. Anyway I believe this ghetto has a myriad of positive aspects, that needs to come out as well. Not just to better the image of the area, but to tell a story that is more in line with the truth, just as you are looking for. I think the version that is up now is rather good. I had provided a lot more information on Gellerup (and could probably write a book!), but it have been judged as too detailed and non-encyclopedic (which I can understand). Personally I see The Gellerup Plan as an uncut gem.

RhinoMind (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Housing project name[edit]

I don't see "Gellerup Planen" on the Danish Wikipedia page; I see da:Gellerupparken (it has a page of its own), and that's also in the first picture caption (and in white letters on the side of the building depicted there). I suspect "Gellerup plan" may refer to the plan that led to the construction of the development, but perhaps there has been a change of name? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

You have just discovered, that the Danish WP page on Gellerup is very poo/meagerr and in addition there is wrong information. I will correct it, when I find the time. I have decided to make the English version the most updated and elaborate version first, because it has the biggest audience. Also in Denmark. The Danish WP have too few contributors, to make it of much value (no offence intended).

About Gellerup Planen. Yes, it was the name of the construction plan for Gellerupparken and Toveshøj. But it is also the common communal name of the whole residential area. Unfortunately there isnt any photos to show it (yet), but the whole area is constructed as an architectural whole. If you visit the area in person, you will see. I had previously written about the confusion of names on the Wiki-page, but Drmies deleted it for no reason I know. The most popular names for Gellerup Planen is either just Gellerup or simply Gellerupparken as mentioned on the Wikipage. Even the Danish media is using these names, but it is nevertheless wrong. I have thought of changing the English translation of Gellerup Planen to "The Gellerup Project", since "project" in English at the same time would refer to the concrete high-rise buildings, but as you can see I havent done that.

Btw. I am Danish and lives in Aarhus (not Gellerup), so I know from first-hand.

RhinoMind

more on names and objectivity[edit]

exerpt from "Balance" (see below) about the name. Yngvadottir wrote:

It should not seek to make a point about what the place should be called unless that's what the good sources say (over time, neighbourhoods often change name or are thought of as having different boundaries.

Answer Well it is in fact in interesting discussion you have raised and something that applies to a lot of other subjects on WP. It could indeed be a problem if WP started adopting everyday language as the truth. And that holds true with names as well. If something have an official name, then WP should indeed reflect that as a first priority. When that is done WP can always mention that in everyday conversations it is commonly called ***. there is many many reasons for this approach, and it is not my personal invention to tackle naming this way - it is the objective and scientific way of doing it. Let my list a few of the many reasons why it will soon end in a mess, if a media like WP starts adopting everyday language and naming. It will happen because ...

  • everyday language changes and sometimes rapidly
  • everyday language is indeed something that can be influenced by certain factions of society to serve their personal needs and promotional urges.
  • because WP will loose its status as objective and encyclopedic.
  • because people look to WP to see what is really the truth and not just everyday habits.

A good example is anatomy. WP should indeed inform that the jaw bone is called the mandible. Right? Can you see my point.

As I have written three times now in different posts, I originally included a few lines explaining how places in the area was named in everyday language (and the media) and elaborated on the confusion it could cause. But it got deleted (I think it was Drmies). You are welcome to write a few new lines about it, I think it would indeed clarify a few misunderstandings. You have all my blessing! :-)

RhinoMind (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Categories[edit]

I am thinking about linking this page to the subjects of

  • ghetto and 'vulnerable residential areas'
  • Housing cooperatives in the Nordic Countries.

I dont know if such subjects exist currently or how to link, as I am new as WP-contributor. I just thought I would like to express how I see this page.

The Gellerup Plan is in the real world and in many ways, a node that connects a lot of issues and subjects of international importance on a global scale. Now I have started that journey, by providing a more realistic view and more elaborate and detailed info. Take part if you like dear reader! And let it be constructive :-)

RhinoMind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.84.40 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New articles linking to Gellerup[edit]

As said Gellerup is an important an interesting node for many reasons. To exemplify that I have ideas about starting articles on the following subjects:

  • Aarhus V rap
  • famous people from Gelleup (especially the Gellerup Plan)
  • more about the history and original visions behind The Gellerup Plan.
  • more about the social, ethnic, political and religeos issues.
  • life in the Gellerup Plan
  • upload of more interesting and descriptive photos to wikicommons.

If you (anyone reading) feel inspired, just go ahead! I will try to catch up later :-)


RhinoMind...just sharing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.84.40 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social activities section[edit]

I had added a section on Social Activities, but everything got deleted. I believe it was wrong.

When writing an article of an "especially vulnerable residential area" (ghetto) like this area, I feel it is important to infom that there are many public supported social activities going on. Why? Because the lack of social and leisure activities for especially young people, is recognized as a huge problem in many ghettos, and the act of introducing them as an important vehicle for progress. The fact that Gellerup have a lot of social activities makes it something special.

I had linked to many examples, but the whole section got deleted by Drmies. As I understands it, the reason was that the text claimed, that some of the activities were popular and the links did not document they were? Anyway, I feel the links should be mentioned as just examples of the social activities going on, and then just omit the claim that they are popular. Wouldn't that solve the problem, without deleting the whole section Drmies?

RhinoMind — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinoMind (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Exerpt from "Balance" (see below) about leisure-time offerings. Yngvadottir wrote:

So the question is really, has anyone written in either the press or an academic article about, for example, the leisure-time offerings in Gellerup as related to helping disadvantaged residents? If yes, a summary of what they wrote is good to include. If no, then it belongs in other, more general articles, or in articles about the housing complexes or neighbourhoods that were used as the main examples

Answer

I am not really sure what you mean by 'leisure-time offerings'. It can mean many many things. From a cinema to a political association and maybe even a criminal gang. Please define and exemplify what specific leisure time offerings in the article you are referring to.

That beeing said, yes it has indeed been raised as a very serious issue. I have even put in references. But everything got deleted. Twice. Now Im not going to write it a third time (at the moment), because I dont think any referencing will help in any way. It will get automatically deleted whatsoever. Because the article is edited by people who don't care about reading and understanding the references and they certainly don't care about the subject. I'm not mad (why waste energy on that), I am just talking from what I have experienced. Ok. If you want a source, go and read Helhedsplanen.dk homepage. They even explain it in English, that the residents are very engaged in social activities and most of them are in fact very happy to live there, even though it is a poor "ghetto-slum" (yeah, that was even the Brabrand Housing cooperative's own word...). That is pretty unusual for a ghettoslum! Ok, that is just one example. As said, when I even mentioned this (I didn't cite directly, as this could fill a whole section in itself) in the article, it got deleted almost promptly.

Btw. As other examples, you can read on the local social web-sites. In gellerup.nu, samvirket.dk or gellerup fællesråd. They explain more about the strategy of social activities.


RhinoMind (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balance[edit]

More information, such as notable people from Gellerup, and of course more pics, are always good. But the key to many of the issues, such as the social activities and whether it's generally thought of as the most dangerous area in Denmark, and also including the status of the Gellerup Planen name, is what the balance of information in the sources is. The article should not seek to present any thesis about what underprivileged settlements need ... unless Gellerup has been used prominently as an example in such arguments, and the article should then say just that. It should not seek to make a point about what the place should be called unless that's what the good sources say (over time, neighbourhoods often change name or are thought of as having different boundaries. (Red Hook, Brooklyn and South Brooklyn make an interesting comparison.) Things like the housing associations can either be a separate article or a clause or sentence of explanation (I think the latter works better, since there are similar things in many countries). But one of the beauties of an online encyclopaedia is that the reader can just click through to find relevant background in a linked article. The job of this article is to summarise what reliable sources have said about Gellerup. So yes, if it's been frequently presented as a particularly crime-ridden area, that should be said, with one or more citations, although statistics may not be necessary. The plan and use of modern high-rise architecture has clearly been much discussed - that needs to be said and cited. But if it's just mentioned, that source doesn't need to be used; and Wikipedia cannot be a complete directory of information (bus timetables, lists of classes, phone numbers ... ) and better serves the reader in any case by providing one or two external links that will eventually lead to such information in its most up-to-date form. So the question is really, has anyone written in either the press or an academic article about, for example, the leisure-time offerings in Gellerup as related to helping disadvantaged residents? If yes, a summary of what they wrote is good to include. If no, then it belongs in other, more general articles, or in articles about the housing complexes or neighbourhoods that were used as the main examples. It doesn't all have to be in this article and shouldn't be. (You can maybe tell I haven't yet had time to examine the points made in the expansion and the sources cited. Sorry to be so general in the meantime, but maybe others have more time and can help us get specific and use the material to make a tighter but more developed article.) Yngvadottir (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Hi.

I have copy-pasted issue about naming to its right place above and have given my answer there. Same for crime and social activities.


You raise a lot of seperate issues in this allright post Yngvadottir. I will try to seperate them, so a constructive discussion can be carried on for each of these issues. I hope you agree that this is a good idea?

Let me say that I am glad you take your time to write about and discuss your concerns! Many people her just erase what they dont immediately see fitting their narrow worldview. I am equally glad and hopeful that you learn more and more about this subject, because even though one knows about WP guidelines, it can be difficult to edit a subject that you have no knowledge about. Thanks for giving it a shot and not just destructively erase what you dont like or care for.

When I first wrote content for the article I knew I wasnt a professional WP writer, but I did it anyway, hoping that other more educated editors would pick out the relevant information and put it in its right place in a constructive way. Some did, but some didnt. The bus routes and what else you mention, was not my writings. It was there when I came. I didnt cared for it either. But you know what? I didnt erase it, I just gave the subject MY 5 cents. I stil l believe that is a healthy approch. If I see something that I know is downright wrong and I can document it, I will erase it too, but I am not so bold, that I dare mess with other peoples work without knowing anything about it.

About Balance in general. I believe WP should put thing right. That is the strength of WP isnt it? That way we can for example look to WP when we wants unbiased, well documented overviews of things we got stuck in . Isnt that the right approach?

RhinoMind (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About crime[edit]

Exerpt from "Balance" about crime. Yngvadottir wrote:

So yes, if it's been frequently presented as a particularly crime-ridden area, that should be said, with one or more citations, although statistics may not be necessary.

Answer

Anyway. Yes as I have explained in a post above in another discussion, yes the Gellerup Plan is indeed crime-riddin. But as you say, there are many claims and equally many are badly referenced. I have (again...:-) written a bit more about the crime and I believe I have more reliable references, but it got deleted. I might write more on that issue to get more balance, as you also calls for. But not now. Some source even claims, that right now the crimerate is on level with the rest of Aarhus, but again it is un-sourced info. Right now the English version on the subject is way better than the Danish one. I suspect it is because of the very very very (!!!) heated debate in Aarhus and Denmark about this place (I cannot emphasize enough how heated that debate is at times). And that have maybe made the Danish WP a battle-ground for radicals, erasing and changing the contents all the time. Can you see my point? But anyway I am just guessing. Ok enough of this. Gellerup Plan is a wild place and stuff happens everyday. Another incident I havent mentioned is greenlanders beeing stoned and kicked out of Gellerupparken by somali and arab groups. The municipality had to re-house them. It happened probably because Greenlanders like alcohol, and muslims hate alcohol. No one got sentenced, because no one dared to initiate a court case and they couldnt identify anyone anyway. So this is a story, that is very hard to document, see? There are numerous cases like this.

As you, I think the cases that are up now, is adequately documented and an ok example. We dont need to bring exhaustive lists. Thats not within WP guidelines.

RhinoMind (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


So..I have added two more documented and recent examples now. I would also like to add that some claims, that the crime-rate is falling and may even be as low as the rest of Aarhus, but because there are many young people in Gellerupplanen, we see a higher concentration there. I havent found a good source though, and I am afraid it might get deleted because someone thinks it is too detailed or something. I fancy statistics over examples personally.

RhinoMind (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gellerup. 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) 22:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gellerup. 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) 07:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gellerup. 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) 23:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gellerupparken vs. Gellerupplanen[edit]

Hello. Some of the new editors re-introduced some of the previous mess in this article. The Gellerup Plan is much larger than Gellerupparken alone. The original Gellerup Plan (Gellerupplanen) comprise four sectors, including nearby Søvangen and Holmstrup residential areas. I cleared up the mess a long time ago, so it is sad to see how the article has degraded recently. It appears tedious to go through it again, so hopefully other editors are willing to self-revert and clear things up by themselves? Cheers. RhinoMind (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the current http://www.helhedsplangellerup.dk/ web site for "Helhedsplan Gellerup"] mentions Gellerup and Toveshoj. Also in the edit log it was stated that Helhedsplanen is "not a municipal projet", but as far as the web site goes, it displays the logo of Aarhus kommune in the top left corner, that's a municipality. Also I think "Master Plan" is not a good translation from Danish to English, a better translation would be "Comprehensive plan". AadaamS (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the project comprise both Gellerupparken and Toveshøj and maybe that is how the confusion between Gellerupparken and Gellerupplanen arose? But as described, Gellerupplanen is much larger than these areas alone. Thanks for trying to clear things up once again. Comment: Usually Toveshøj is also regarded as part of Gellerupparken in daily parlance and Gellerupparken is also commonly referred to as simply "Gellerup" in everyday conversations, both adding to the overall confusion.
Anyway, dealing with the Helhedsplanen project; yes, it is presented by Aarhus Municipality, but it is part of a national agenda and agreement and most of the financing is also supplied by a nationwide fund. It is all described in detail in the refs.
About translating Helhedsplanen: The plan is officially called the Masterplan in all the English-language material on the subject.
Regards RhinoMind (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Relating to the headline of this thread, here is a link to the Danish wiki-page about The Gellerup Plan (Gellerupplanen) for interested readers: [1] RhinoMind (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Masterplan[edit]

RhinoMind if the Master Plan was launched in 2010 and millions have been spent, what was the result of all that spending? After the start of the plan in 2010-2012 time frame, six years have passed. What results has the organisers got to show for all those millions? This should be added to the article. AadaamS (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I took the liberty of opening a new thread for this discussion as it is unrelated to the thread above about area classification and geography. RhinoMind (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relating to the results of the Masterplan, first: it commenced as early as 2007. There is a timeline and overview of the project in the ref provided in the article (Helhedsplanen). Second: I think its a good question too. In the timeline you can see what has been constructed and removed year for year and how the future is thought to evolve. If you want to add some of that to the article, then please go ahead. Perhaps more interesting is what the consequence has been for the residents and how the Masterplan has solved the problem with "ghettofication" as it was set out to do. Good questions. Read the refs and maybe you can add to the article.
As I see it, the only socio-economic consequence has been to distribute poverty across town, while actually increasing other parts of the initial problem (creating animosity, removing affordable housing for poor people, etc). There are many parts of the plan that I don't like and think is outright stupid. RhinoMind (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic and religious issues[edit]

Hi. There have been some new editing of the "Places of worship" section recently, adding new info and more details on the Grimhøj mosque and all the controversies the people around this place has been involved in. All these issues are interesting, notable and several of them very important, even on an national level, some on an international level even. But... I don't think it is fair that the religious issues takes up so much space in this article about the whole neighbourhood of Gellerup. How can we solve this imbalance?

Can we elaborate on the religious issues in another article perhaps? I don't want to give the impression that this particular info should be suppressed, I am all about balance in relation to the overall subject which is the Gellerup neighbourhood and not religious issues. RhinoMind (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gellerup&oldid=1169876108"