Talk:No-go area/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Definition

The definition in the lede says: "No-go area" (or "no-go zone") is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or barred to certain individuals or groups.[1] It has also been used to refer to areas undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty. Many of the areas mentioned seem to better fit the part of the Collins English Dictionary definition that says "has a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there". Either we remove the areas that don't fit the definition or we change the definition, or we add a section discussing how the term is used in different contexts. Sjö (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I consider the first definition as far too narrow. I prefer if if we either use the Collins dictionary version, or add a section about different contexts. David A (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"has a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there" is way too broad. Most cities have a 'hood that many people aren't too comfy stepping into.VR _talk 05:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's what the sources say and that is apparently the criterion for inclusion in the article. I changed the definition in the lead, so that the definition is consistent with the areas mentioned. Sjö (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Henrik Höjer

Would anybody who disagrees with this article text, which was removed, mind suggesting a more accurate paraphrase? Whatever the problem with the disputed diff, I'm not seeing it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The diff says "Henrik Höjer [...] referred to such areas as "no go areas"". That is not found in source. Frederico1234 (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Frederico1234: The article describes an interview with a Swedish police officer and task force leader. A Google translation of the third paragraph reads as follows:

If we chase a car that can drive to certain addresses in Tensta where a lone police car can not follow - for then it will be stoned or riot. There are no-go-areas. We do not reach there, he continues.

This seems to make clear that the interview subject did indeed refer to the areas under discussion as "no-go areas". Could you describe or explain your concern in a little more detail? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The article falsely claimed that Höjer said something he did not say. We can't have false information in the article. Frederico1234 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What can you possibly mean? Höjer is the author of the article. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The removed text said "He [Henrik Höjer] referred to such areas as "no go areas". Did Henrik Höjer actually refer to such areas as "no go areas"? No, he didn't. The policeman Jacob Ekströms did, but not Henrik Höjer. Frederico1234 (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

So why didn't you make a two word edit to change the name? Factchecker_atyourservice 22:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think what one policeman says is notable. If an expert with Ph.D had said the same thing then it would be. Frederico1234 (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It is clear you are searching for a reason to object to this content. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

So a random person with no special credentials say something and you want to include it in the article? Sounds a bit WP:UNDUE. // Liftarn (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The police officer in charge of a serious-crime task force, interviewed for his expert view in a Swedish newspaper, has "no special credentials" to speak on the crime problems his officers face? That's silly. Factchecker_atyourservice 14:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No-Go areas in Germany

I have found some information sources. Some of them may be of interest to incorporate into the article:

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/nordrhein-westfalen-polizei-warnt-vor-rechtsfreien-raeumen-a-1045222.html

http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/problem/ghetto-report-deutschland-45300680.bild.html

http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/nicht-nur-duisburg-betroffen-no-go-areas-in-deutschland-in-diese-viertel-traut-sich-selbst-die-polizei-nicht_id_4895620.html

http://www.fnp.de/nachrichten/politik/No-go-Areas-und-Parallelgesellschaften;art673,1739112

http://www.bild.de/regional/berlin/organisiertes-verbrechen/so-beherrschen-berliner-araber-clans-die-unterwelt-42902572,var=a,view=conversionToLogin.bild.html

https://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/article134823100/Polizei-kapituliert-vor-kriminellen-Fluechtlingskindern.html

https://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchtet-sich-sogar-die-polizei-id4926287.html

David A (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on No-go area. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100721104229/http://www.museumoffreederry.org/history-motorman.html to http://www.museumoffreederry.org/history-motorman.html

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) 11:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Netherlands

My restoration of the Pete Hoekstra claim regarding no-go zones in the Netherlands (added by other editors) was reverted on the basis that "one misstatement by someone does not seem notable enough for this article." The initial justification for removal was because "Bullshit has no place on Wikipedia, no matter what politician spouted it." I don't see the rationale that supports including the United Kingdom section and excluding the Netherlands section. Brushing Hoekstra's allegations off as "one misstatement" ignores that (1) he is the U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands; (2) his claims touched off a minor international incident, forcing the State Department to weigh in; (3) the comments were widely reported in numerous reliable sources; and (4) Hoekstra's claim directly relates to the subject matter of this article and was added to a section that already contains disputed or incorrect claims. Dyrnych (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating a talk page discussion about this. To clarify, he said it several years before becoming the ambassador. But more importantly - just because it was covered in various publications does not mean that it's relevant to this article. The other sections in this article are about actual allegations; this one is just about a self-described verbal slip-up. As a thought experiment: what if, during his same comments, Hoekstra had listed ten other random countries that he thought also had no-go areas - should this article now have ten new sections? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I was clear either. His claim of no-go areas was stated years before; it caused a minor international incident when it was reported, which was after he became an ambassador. To answer your thought experiment, though, yes, if he made significant claims about no-go areas in various other countries that received the same response in those countries, it would be worth reporting in the article. From an organizational standpoint, ten separate sections probably wouldn't be the best way to present them; that doesn't mean they wouldn't merit presentation. In any event, in actuality we have one claim relating to one country, which slots neatly into the article's current organizational structure. Dyrnych (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I just don't see this is an actual allegation. What Hoekstra said was simply an error; it wasn't based on any facts, or even any real opinion; and he only said it one time. It makes sense to include this in the article about him (I see that it's already there), but for this article it seems too trivial to include. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Are all border zones also "No-go areas"

The only one listed here is Israel. If border zones are no-go areas, all border zones should be added, if not, that one should be removed. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The type of zone discussed in that section of the article (a border zone near a security fence) is different from what is described for any of the other cases. Probably every country in the world has some areas that unauthorized people are not allowed to enter for security reasons, safety reasons, etc. These areas aren't even necessarily all border areas, although some of them are. If we try to include all notable exclusion zones in this article, we would have a very long list. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Merkel's statement

Merkel's statement has been distorted in translation and representation. Merkel did not specify such areas exist in Germany, she said "such areas exist" and that authorities would have to move forcefully against them. Noteably, however, she did not mention where they exist and she used a very peculiar definition of no-go areas: She referred to them as areas where people are scared to go - not areas where public authority has collapsed. She then continued that the Minister of Interior had done a very good job. So if his job is, as she established, to prevent and/or clear up such areas, then they can hardly coincide with him having done a good job. Basically, the whole statement was politician waffle, allowing everyone to interpret into it whatever they want. --91.67.245.87 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

What's the problem with using the heading 'Criticism' instead of 'Alternative Views'. 1. Criticism is integrated throughout the article. 2. It's multiple sources rather than a singular source. Regards. EELagoon (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I see that EELagoon is a sock of a banned user, but I am changing the section back to "Criticism" nonetheless. "Alternative views" is grossly inadequate to the point of violating NPOV. I have looked at the CRITICISM essay, since it was cited to restore the "alternative views" name, and this seems to be the most appropriate of all the options described there. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The section isn't even just criticism .. it contains one critical POV and one non-critical POV. Creating sections dedicated to criticism is rarely a good way to structure an article per WP:CRIT. -- GreenC 19:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you're right on the mixed POV in the section, turns out I was looking at an older version of the article that didn't have the UKIP stuff. "Alternative views" is still a really weak title, though.... I know CRIT frowns on plain "Controversy" titles but that may be the best match for the material that's present, scant as it is. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Russia Today as a source

If the source is well written and relevant, what's the problem? --2001:8003:4023:D900:1C46:116B:BB59:19D7 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

RT.com is does not have the reputation for accuracy and fact-checking required of reliable sources. If this has been reported on by reliable sources, so be it, but do not rely on an online translation, and make sure sources are unambiguously about "no-go" areas. Using sources which discuss Malmo's crime problems in general, without this context about "no-go" would be WP:SYNTH, which is not permitted. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this your personal opinion or is this Wikipedia policy? If it is Wikipedian policy that specifically discriminates against Russia Today, show me where the edict is. --1.152.97.83 (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It is both my personal opinion, and the consensus of Wikipedia editors per WP:RSN and similar. WP:CONSENSUS is the policy by which most important things are determined on Wikipedia. Calling this "discrimination" seems a bit much, but Wikipedia does "discriminate" against unreliable outlets. As our article about RT (TV network) says: RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government[11][12][13] and its foreign policy.[11][13][14][15][16][17] RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation[17][18][19] by news reporters,[20][21] including some former RT reporters.[22][23][24] This clearly demonstrates a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Postal service suspension in 2017

"In 2017 the postal service limited or halted delivering mail to areas deemed "no go zones"."[1][2][3][4]. --2001:8003:4023:D900:1C46:116B:BB59:19D7 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Where in those sources are these areas described as "no-go"? How is this different from other vulnerable areas to the extent that it needs a specific mention here in this article? Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

They don't need to be mentioned in this article. I'll remove them. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The term "no-go zone" means a location that has no services because of security issues. The term "no-go zone" is in the English language, while the primary-source reporting has been in the Swedish and Danish languages. This is why it's not an issue if the primary sources do not use the precise term "no-go zone". --vuo (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The term "no-go zon" or similar is used in Swedish and even has an article on Swedish Wikipedia, so one would expect the sources to use that term if that is what they meant. Sjö (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. None of the sources are conforming to the definition this article makes. Also, Gatestone Institute was just added as a source, and they're very much not reliable. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The term no go needs to be used precisely in the source otherwise this article turns into original research. One can then openly apply the concept to any place off limits for any reason, making the term meaningless. A road closed for construction making it a "no go" zone. A military controls part of a contested city in an active war zone making it a "no go" zone. Such wildly broad and general usages dilute the meaning, and undermine it. Also this is the English-language Wikipedia it is appropriate to focus on English-language meanings and usages. -- GreenC 14:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

This is all very noble to think that there is one good definition, but a quick Google Scholar search shows the term is used very widely and in very different contexts, much of which has nothing to do with peace and conflict studies or military science. This is to be expected because it's essentially an informal term. The most precise meaning is the military meaning, i.e. a no-go zone is a zone where friendly forces cannot for one reason or other move into (reasons being legal, tactical, etc.). For example, the Korean Demilitarized Zone is a no-go zone for U.S. regular military. But it is also used in another meaning; so a zone can be no-go zone after the dark, or it can be a no-go zone for the police, or the postal service, etc. etc. This nebulousness is not unexpected because it's a term about conflict, and by the nature of conflict, there is a dispute, with even the definitions being disputed. Besides, the existence of this dispute (with all the attendant fake news etc.) is something that should be mentioned. --vuo (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

All of this would require reliable sources, however. Even if the term is informal, Wikipedia is not. We need to rely on reliable sources which use the term in a formal context. Citing different examples of usage of the term gets sloppy very quickly, but it's still understandable as a way to explain the term. Citing examples of underlying concepts without this term, however, would be totally unacceptable. The risk of WP:OR is just too high. Every entry should have a source which is unambiguously about "no-go areas" (or a very closely related term, such as "no-go zones"). Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Can't agree more about the use of reliable sources. But I think this is asking too much. The term is not a legal term, it is not even formal, so official sources won't use the term (except maybe in very limited military contexts). Governments or armies use terminology like "travel prohibited". Also, whether an area is a no-go zone can shift very quickly, even during a single day, even if it's an actual no-go zone and not just a political accusation. So, I think we should accept reliable journalistic sources backed up by official sources that do not use the term explicitly. --vuo (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There many types of restricted areas, for example Restricted Area and military exclusion zone. This is the English Wikipedia where no-go zone has a more narrow meaning, technically and culturally. It's not a sandbox to add any type of restricted area. -- GreenC 13:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and the thing is that usually no-go zones are not official military exclusion zones or restricted areas - these imply some sort of a legal basis, while no-go zones are purely tactical "non-entities". You could actually say that an official military exclusion zone is the opposite of a no-go zone: in a military exclusion zone the sovereign authority has complete control over movement, while a no-go zone is the opposite: the sovereign authority has lost control over the zone. But it's not that simple, because obviously they don't want to admit that, but will officially deny it, and will often attempt to reassert control. This is why I think you're trying to set an excessively strict standard for sources: if you only accept the official truth published in the "Official Journal of Ruritania", you'll never know about no-go zones. The existence of a dispute and the existence of a conflict are perfectly valid topics for an encyclopedia to document. --vuo (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, we should be strict on this. The FAQ at Talk:Human wave attack comes to mind: Why is [insert example here], a famous example of human wave attack, not included in the article? Certain examples are not included here because there are currently no reliable sources that explicitly labeled them as "human wave attacks". If an example is truly famous for being human wave attack, then there should be multiple reliable sources that support its "human wave attack" designation. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Soros as funding source for "controversy"

Not only is the addition of Soros as the major donor for Media Matters relevant, but knowing that fact and deliberately excluding his name in order to conceal his connection to information manipulation would be entirely disingenous. Including it is not POV, but rather pinpoints the source of the so-called controversy. No-go zones are an established fact, in multiple nations. Downplaying, minimizing or politicizing this fact is the job of professional obfuscators. If anything, the entire section should be excluded as disinformation. - JGabbard (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Leaving aside that none of the sources you added suggest that Soros is the major donor to MMFA, the premise that funding by Soros equals disinformation is extremely contentious and not likely to be resolved on this page. Including "Soros-funded" to imply unreliablilty is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Dyrnych (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What part of "The $1 million donation by Mr. Soros to Media Matters" in the NYT ref do you not understand? In the CNN ref, MM freely admits to being strongly biased toward the alt-left, regardless of the source(s) of their funding. The admission of that bias is the basis of their unreliability, and "Soros-funded" is consistent with that premise. It sounds more like the policy of WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies here. - JGabbard (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You are seriously misrepresenting those sources. The NYT source doesn't support that the donation was "the major" donation to the group. The CNN ref supports that MMFA is a liberal organization, but not that it is an unreliable source or that it has admitted a bias towards the "alt-left," whatever that is. You've been around here for a while, so you ought to know that reliability of a source isn't contingent on whether it reflects a particular POV. And, in any event, if your goal is to highlight MMFAs non-neutrality (which I don't think is particularly important in this context), why is referencing George Soros essential? Dyrnych (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, please don't edit your comments after someone has replied. Dyrnych (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A million dollars is a major donation to almost any organization, and would represent a controlling contribution by any standard. Soros puts his money where his mouth is, as well as his nefarious actions. The alt-left is simply the opposite of the alt-right. One cannot exist without the other. Both extremes should be considered unreliable by reasonably minded readers. Again, there is no controversy over the existence of no-go zones except within the propaganda of those who help to create them. Soros deserves to be called out wherever he tries to hide, and has no right to be "the man behind the curtain." And if I edit a comment, it is usually just an addition or a very minor change to wording, as in the instance above, not a redaction at all, and certainly nothing worth quibbling over. - JGabbard (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Dyrnych here. Mentioning Soros in that context is both SYNTH, OR and UNDUE. Sjö (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Heading name

The list of places under "Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas" are pretty much all either disputed or with out-of-date citations (Brazil), with the exceptions perhaps of Kenya and Israel/Palestine - not to mention the problematical terminology and reporting. I'd like to suggest one heading "Contemporary official no-go zones" and another "Contemporary alleged (or disputed?) no-go zones". Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sweden - timeline

The section seems to be chaotic. Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove political labeling.

Probably remove the label of the media publication as 'conservative'. All sources should then be described by their politics, and since this in itself would be biased, that should probably be left out. As long as the source is a verifiable source (as in stating the truth), labeling it is not necessary and introduces the author's own bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.233.118 (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. // Liftarn (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is being brigaded by users of wykop.pl portal

Wykop.pl is kind of a polish digg/reddit equivalent. Apart from normal users it has a very vocal group of hardcore right wing users. There were two threads about this article linked to wykop: they focused on the LBGT free zones in Poland.

First thread with over 3500 upvotes:

https://www.wykop.pl/link/5198225/wedlug-wikipedii-w-polsce-istnieja-no-go-zones/

Second thread with over 150 upvotes (at the time of linking):

https://www.wykop.pl/link/5199751/strefy-no-go-w-polsce-w-wikipedii-dalszy-ciag-walki/

Those threads encourage wykop users to come and brigade the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambr5 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cambr5: Are you saying that over 3500 upvotes have been a result of activity of "hardcore right wing users" or maybe people there have been just shocked by the fact that there is Wikipedia article about polish enormous (almost 1/5 of country) no-go zones? Will my opinion about hardcore left wing users that are at least as strong as right wing users be as valid as your opinion? Is such opinions in any mean that important, that shoud be preached here?

Just for my credibility(?)... All earlier edits from 31.60.1.128 and 31.60.39.240 are mine. I have already offered "wykop.pl" link in reply to Sjö question.--BthereDthat (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Given the plethora of red-linked brand new SPA accounts that have shown up here, I'd say there's some brigading going on on both sides. Volunteer Marek 14:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Got sources for that claim? // Liftarn (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The "source" is all the brand new SPI red linked accounts which have appeared here all of sudden. Volunteer Marek 16:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2019

Please remove the section about Poland. 1. It has nothing to do with no-go zones 2. It is completely untrue, fake news. 91.223.64.248 (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for this change before making this edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The article header defines no-go area as "is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or an area barred to certain individuals or groups" and whole paragraph about Poland seems to reference to some stickers. We either should extend the definition of "no-go area" or provide actual source indicating any kind of force being used to barr anyone as mentioned in definition. Srokap (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The whole "LGTB free zone" areas was just a political stunt pulled up by some foolish Polish politicians hoping to gain popularity among the conservative rural population. Nobody is taking this seriously, and quite frankly, no one is talking about it anymore in Poland. The LGBT community isn't in any way banned from entering the south Eastern Poland (lol!) or anything even close to that. This is ridiculous to have the entire section dedicated to that nonsense in our article as it is now. Maybe if we extended the definition of "no-go area" and rewrite the Poland section to describe the circumstances accurately.. but honestly, I don't think it's even worth it. I can't find any sources except the media buzz from back then.GizzyCatBella🍁 03:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No it says "A force".Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

semi the talk page

It would probably be a good idea to semi protect the talk page as there seem to be all kinds of hijinks and shenanigans going in here, to the point where regular discussion is obstructed. Volunteer Marek 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done We very rarely protect talk pages - usually only in the case of severe vandalism. In this case, since the article itself is full-protected, it is important that people have a place to discuss the situation - and hopefully try to resolve the issue or meet some kind of compromise or consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

I'm sure I'm not the right person to do it, so... If anyone would like me to refrain, or if somebody may do it better - please do not hasitate. I guess, no answer will be an answer too.
I would like to ask for concise and unambiguous answers if possible. Answer sould be marked '[ANS]'. Answer bellow right section. Asking a single question at the same time might limit unnecessary discussion. Proposals of question to ask should to be marked '[QP]' accordingly.--BthereDthat (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the initiative, but you might want to consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment which is a process for discussion about changes to articles (among other things). Also, I think that the best way to begin is to get consensus about the definition in the lede on two points: what is the definition of a no-go area and if the definition is also the inclusion criteria, such that the article includes only areas where the description as a no-go area (per the definition) is unchallenged. Sjö (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think I'm not the best person to do it, but... -- B'there D'that (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Definition and inclusion criteria

As @Sjö: suggests...

Please treat this as a local discussion in WP:RFCBEFORE meaning and with the possible option of the following WP:DRN and WP:RFC.-- B'there D'that (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

What should the definition be?

-- B'there D'that (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

What should be the inclusion criteria?

-- B'there D'that (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

=== Way of meeting a consensus === [Q]: How to meet consensus here?
Suggested answers: '[unanimously]'/'[majority of votes]'.--BthereDthat (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

=== Consensus on the requirement to meet the definition === The content of the article suggests that there is no such requirement, but I'm not sure whether it was because of such a consensus or because things got out of control. The lack of consensus on this issue suggests no requirement to meet the definition. Thus...

[Q]Is it possible to add/keep areas to/in the article without sources confirming the no-go area definition?
Suggested answers: '[Y]'/'[N]'.--BthereDthat (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

=== Suggestions for Questions / Discussion === If possible, please do not specify further questions / sections before reaching consensus on previous ones. If possible, propose more questions here, after obtaining a consensus on previous ones. Selection of question to add another section (prior to this one) might/should also be discussed in this section...--BthereDthat (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

==== Way of meeting a consensus (disscusion) ==== --BthereDthat (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

==== Consensus on the requirement to meet the definition (disscusion) ==== --BthereDthat (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

LGBT-free zone

Content on LGBT-free zone has been removed. Our article presently contains information on alleged "no-go zones" due to Muslim immigrants. In the LGBT-free zones - this is an actual resolution by an elected body. Furthermore, besides comparisons to Nazi-era measures (e.g. by Mateusz Goździkowski) the liberal Razem party has expressly compared this measure to no-go zones: "Remember how the right [were scared] of the so-called [Muslim] no-go zones? Thanks to the same right, we have our own no-go zones. Disgusting" (Polish: "Pamiętacie, jak prawica straszyła tzw. no-go zones?" - zapytano. "Dzięki tej samej prawicy doczekaliśmy się własnych stref no-go. Obrzydliwe"). Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This is absurd. The content is completely unrelated to the scope of this article which is about "A no-go area, a region where the ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce the rule of law" [5]. These "resolutions" are just statement from shitty politicians saying shitty things. Or wait. Maybe this falls within "Undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty"??? Or maybe these LGBT Zones are "Areas where fishing is made illegal due to overfishing"???

Just stop being ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh - do quote the rest of the lead - " or an area barred to certain individuals or groups". Sources have made the connection here. Our article currently covers "no-go zones" induced by Muslim immigration (plastered all over the article) - the LGBT-gree zones are much more significant. Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Has anything happened to gay people who have entered one of these zones, or is this designation just symbolic? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Mixed. Symbolic in a sense, but per Telegraph it is dangerous to be openly gay in rural Poland. Dozens of pride marchers (1st march) were injured when beset on by a mob of thousands in "LGBT-free zone" of Białystok. Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Beatings at a gay pride march, though unfortunate, sound like political violence and not an attempt to keep people from entering a certain area. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again, let's not WP:COATRACK this article by misrepresenting what the sources say and what the governments actually decreed. Doesn't belong in this article by any stretch of the imagination. Elizium23 (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

That is nonsense. The article says it is about "areas that have been described as no-go areas" and the LGBT no-go zones of Poland qualifies. // Liftarn (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

So... which of your sources described them with those words "no-go zones"? (Answer: none) Thanks, but no thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, this and this perhaps. // Liftarn (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Liftarn here, that the Polish zones (whatever you want to call them) should be mentioned in the article. As I understand the consensus of the discussion about Muslim no-go zones in Europe it doesn't really matter if the allegations are correct or if they meet the definition in the beginning of the article. What matters is if reliable sources have called them "no-go zones". Personally, I think that inclusion criterion is too broad, but there we are. Sjö (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Quote - "A "no-go area" (or "no-go zone") is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary”. So no, this is not what the LGTB free area in Poland are.GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The article covers "areas that have been described as no-go areas" and as they have been described as that they can go into the article. // Liftarn (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, not one of the European countries listed in the article has any areas that fit the definition that you reference (and maybe that goes for other countries as well). They're still included in the article, and if you want to remove the LGTB-free zones because they don't fit the definition, then you should remove the rest that don't meet the definition. Sjö (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Unquestionably no consensus to include. You restoring the material added initially by the now-banned user. WP:ONUS then is on you to explain and gain consensus on why this utterly unrelated to the scope of this article, blown out of proportion, irrelevant material should be on our article. I am entirely unconvinced why this particular material is of any specific relevance.GizzyCatBella🍁 02:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Are somebody here aware that LGBT-free zones are just political scrambling between LGBT movement and conservatives/christians? For example - how it is possible to allow to build 20 rainbow benches in one of biggest cities in "LGBT-free" zone?!? LGBT-free zones lays damn far from no-go zones. Isn't putting it here just pure vandalism?

   A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or an area barred to certain individuals or groups. The term has also been used to refer to areas:
   Undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty[1];
   That have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there[2] ;
   That are inhabited by a parallel society that have their own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors have been described as "no-go zones".[3]

All three above conditions aren't fulfilled!
- Ruling authorities working normally and enforce sovereignty on country standard levels.
- Crime and violence levels are below average!
- There is no parallel society which control this areas.

Look at police statistics:
- Robbery, robbery, extortion / Rozbój, kradzież rozbójnicza, wymuszenie.
- Fight and battery / Bójka i pobicie.
- Damage to health / Uszczerbek na zdrowiu.
- Sexual / Seksualne]
Merged maps for above...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.60.1.128 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC) 

Out of curiosity, why do so many registered and unregistered editors edit the article right now? Has it been in the Polish news or on the Polish WP Village pump? 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Your guess is right... --31.60.39.240 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

I concur with the recent deletions and I think those who are edit-warring to keep it in are on very thin ice! You have no rationale for shoe-horning such a ridiculous concept into this article! Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

There's already similar content to this in the Germany and UK subsections: "A sociology paper published in 2009 said that right-wing extremists had been discussing the creation of no-go areas in Western Europe since the 1980s", "an investigation for Today has found disturbing evidence that Asian youths in parts of Oldham are trying to create no go areas for white people". François Robere (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I take offense at your accusation of edit-warring. If you get so emotional about a subject that you can't keep a cool head and discuss without resorting to personal attacks you should consider not editing articles about those subjects. This is the link where you report edit warring: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, please go there if you believe that you have a case. If you don't, I would expect you to strike your accusation and apologize to the involved editors. Sjö (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The sections says it's about (and I quote) "areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years". Like I said above, there is a consensus to include areas that have been called no-go zones. That means that it includes areas that are nowhere near barricaded off or where authorities don't go. As a Swede, I think that it is ridiculous to call the areas in Sweden no-go zones because they don't fit the criteria unless in in some news media reporting. Poland is now in the situation that Sweden and several other countries have been in for years, where this article lists so-called no-go zones that really aren't. I would be happy to see a new consensus that include only areas barricaded off or undergoing insurgency, but that would remove a lot of the areas that are currently listed here. Until that happens, the solution is not to remove the Polish areas because you don't like it, or because someones original research says that they can't be no-go zones. Such arguments carry no weight here. If they did, I could have listed police stations in alleged no-go zones but I don't. Like in every other article in Wikipedia, we go by what the sources say. Sjö (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sjö: if you feel that you are edit-warring then perhaps it is a personal attack. Please take special note: I named nobody in my "accusation" of edit-warring, and therefore only those who are actually edit-warring will feel attacked.

That being said, those who are demanding for inclusion of this information are committing WP:SYNTH as well, because they long for the situation in Poland to be more violent or more foreboding than it actually is (merely political rhetoric.) We can see the SYNTH in the original article as well, with the specious inclusion of a category it does not belong in. It would seem that this over-inflated hype must stop at some point. Is @Icewhiz: not banned by now? Elizium23 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way @Sjö: I have reported the page to WP:RFPP which is where we report instances of edit-warring by more than 2-3 parties. Hopefully an RFPP admin will full-protect this article and force you and others to discuss, rather than edit-war as you have been. Thanks for the suggestion! Elizium23 (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sjö: Are you saying that if you have a definition and you have allowed to add some information that isn't compatible with this definition, you should allow to put more discordant information?!? Haven't you rather correct definition or correct/remove improper information? Are you aware that Polish LGBT-free zones are created by administrative decissions?--31.60.39.240 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

:::: This is of obvious relevance and meets all criteria of a no-go zone. Sources treat this as a no-go zone. Far-right canvassing here only makes inclusion obvious. twitter. AstuteRed (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@AstuteRed: If we are still talking about:

  Undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty[1];
  That have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there[2];
  That are inhabited by a parallel society that have their own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors have been described as "no-go zones".[3]

your statement make me speechless. I guess, that you are sure that sources are correct, but are you sure that sources are correct? 31.60.1.128 edits are mine (dynamic IP)... How are you explain official under-average crime ratings police statistics for that area?!? Are any official authorities statements will be enough for you?!?--31.60.39.240 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess that I have started to understand what's the source of problems here...

"LGBT-free zone" name are abysmal, but it isn't even near what the name suggests. "LGBT-free zone" is administrative formation which means that this specific administration which create it is free from LGBT movement influence. Yep, I know polish politics are terrible.

Of course there are LGBT-free zones in Poland and this is what sources here confirms. But LGBT-free zones are not no-go zones!

Will referencing here original administrative acts which creates LGBT zones and translating them will be enough to solve this situation here?
--31.60.39.240 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

LGBT are people too. LGBT-free zones are no-go areas for LGBT. LGBT are threatened and intimidated in zones that are declared "free" of "LGBT ideology". Just like apartheid white areas were no-go to blacks in South Africa. Numerous newspapers and human right advocates state this, amply sourced.Catogato (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Catogato: Would you kindly point me out any source claiming that polish "LGBT-free zones" are no-go zones for lesbiasn, gays, bisexuals, transvestites or LGBT people?--31.60.39.240 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please keep mind that the "LGTB free zone" as "no go zone" in Poland was introduced originally by the indefinitely banned user. WP:ONUS then is on those who wish to add this highly irrational, blown out of the proportion section. I'll repeat, I am totally unconvinced why this particular ridiculous political statement, proclaims by politicians in Eastern Poland, is of any specific relevance to real "no go areas.” GizzyCatBella🍁 01:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You all use as a source liberal media, usually German owned with long history of Anti-Polish articles. If you go to the source for Polish "LGBT free zones" - FE: https://lublin.onet.pl/sejmik-przyjmie-stanowisko-ws-ideologii-lgbt-radny-pis-to-niezwykle-grozna-ideologia/m64g65s - they're only about not pushing any sexual propaganda in schools, public organizations on government. That's all. And they're only statements, not any law. They're statements not against LGBT, LGBT are free to walk and kiss in all public places in Poland just as any other people are. You're not free to tell kids that LGBT is the way to go using goverment money. The only bad thing in it now, is the fact that Church is using goverment money to tell kids that Christianity is the way to go and if you guys want to foght against something - fight against Polish goverement promoting Christianity for public money (I'm atheist and Polish and I don't like it). THERE ARE NO ANY NO GO ZONES IN POLAND. ALL LGBT PEOPLE IN POLAND ARE EQUAL TO ALL NON LGBT PEOPLE, THERE IS NO ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT.82.3.126.207 (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

One problem I see here is that this map it's pretty misleading as it suggest that there are actually more threats for lgbt people on east side of Poland, but in reality there are no differences and I would even say that over last few years more accidents happen on west side Gdansk, Wroclaw, Poznan, Gorczyn 155.145.195.134 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The map shows where the no-go zone is. // Liftarn (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: Yes, the no-go declared zones but in reality it changes nothing, even more threats in many places outside of them 155.145.195.134 (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Same with the alleged no-go zones in Sweden. // Liftarn (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: Map shows "LGBT-free zones" not no-go zones. Would you kindly show me any source claiming that LGBT-free zones are no-go zones?--BthereDthat (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's in the article. // Liftarn (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: References in article confirms LGBT-free zones existence not the identity/equality of LGBT-free zones and no-go zones. Would you like to be more specific?--BthereDthat (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

As it says at the header it enough that it is an alleged no-go zone so it's enough that it is reported by a reliable source that it has been called that. For Poland it is [6] ("Left-wing party Razem said: ‘Remember how the right [were scared] of the so-called [Muslim] no-go zones? Thanks to the same right, we have our own no-go zones. Disgusting.’") and [7]. So we have a source saying it's called no-go zones. It is not required that they are de facto no-go zones. // Liftarn (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn:Header is enough?!? Are you sayng that Gay Star News header "Polish newspaper is handing out 'LGBT-free zone' stickers" is enough to claim that "LGBT-free zone" is no-go zone? How are you deduced it?!?

From article: 'Pamiętacie, jak prawica straszyła tzw. no-go zones? Dzięki tej samej prawicy doczekaliśmy się własnych stref no-go. Obrzydliwe." - following link leads to Tweet containing: '#StrefaWolnaOdLGBT #naklejka #LGBT wkrótce wraz z „Gazetą Polską' #GazetaPolska" text! Isn't that inaccuracy/error? Shouldn't that be corrected?--BthereDthat (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Not the headline. In this article (here on Wikipedia) it says "The following are areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years, though in some cases the characterization has been disputed.". The Polish LGBT no-go zones have been described as such and the homophobic far right don't like it. // Liftarn (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: says that we don't have a chance of removing the Poland section from this article because there are "twelve reliable sources". It seems that information may be included in any article as long as there are enough sources to support its WP:TRUTH, irregardless of its relevance. Elizium23 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This is essentially the equivalent of adding Andre the Giant Has a Posse to List of totalitarian regimes because there are lots of reliable sources for both of them. Elizium23 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be if List of totalitarian regimes included alleged totalitarian regimes and some reliable source have stated that Andre the Giant Has a Posse have been called a totalitarian regime. // Liftarn (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody trying to include stuff here is overly worried about the definition of a "no-go area" as laid out in this article. The point is that whether we have a bunch of skaters distributing stickers of a wrestler, someone photoshopping Mary to put on a rainbow, or some other sticker campaign, this is more a case of "artistic differences" than what actuall falls under the topic of this article. Elizium23 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Err.... No. This is local politicians declaring their area to be off-limits for LGBT (persons or "ideology" really don't matter) and it has been described as a no-go zone. It's not that different from all the other allged no-go zones apart from that this is supported by the ruling regime. // Liftarn (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not that different from all the other allged no-go zones Wait. So you're saying that this non-binding declaration by a few idiot politicians is "no different" than ... "In Kenya, the ongoing conflict in Somalia, where the terrorist organization al-Shabaab controls territory, has severely affected the security situation even on the Kenyan side of the border. ". Or wait. Maybe it's "no different" than ... "Between 1969 and 1972, Irish nationalist/republican neighborhoods in Belfast and Derry were sealed off with barricades by residents. The areas were policed by vigilantes and both Official and Provisional factions of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) operated openly". Or maybe it's "no different" than "The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) maintains a border zone on the Gaza strip and declares "no-go zones", where they may use lethal force to enforce the security exclusion zone".

Dude. It's *completely* different. And it's completely out of scope of this article. Is it:

1) An area "Undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty"? NO.

2) An area "That has a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there"? NO.

3) An area "That is inhabited by a parallel society that has its own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors have been described as "no-go zones"? NO.

4) Is it a " military exclusion zones, border zones, or other declared exclusion zones"? NO.

It is none of these things, these "areas" are just local electoral district which happen to have some particularly stupid and obnoxious politicians who made some homophobic and disgusting proclamations. Like, oh, I don't know, some politicians do everywhere. This whole thing is just one big troll (both the proclamations by local politicians as well inclusions of this info in this article). The fact that this is completely different from rest of the article is blatantly obvious.

And if there are other parts of the article (and a quick look gives the impression that that may well be the case) which are also out of scope, then remove that stuff too. Volunteer Marek 14:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice the word "alleged", not "de facto". We're talking about the ones listed underNo-go area#Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas. So the inclusion of Poland, Sweden, France et.c. are about the same. The difference is that usually it's some far right tinfoil hat that claims a suburb is a no-go area because there are people with darker skin living there, but in the case of Poland it's a) officially declared by the local authorities, b) not about skin colour. // Liftarn (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, actually it really is not that different from other alleged contemporary no-go zones in Europe, which is what I think Liftarn refers to. AFAIK there's not one of the European areas in the section Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas that meets the criteria that you list. My advice would be to either accept that this article has a definition of no-go zone that you don't agree with, or to change the consensus about what areas to include. I personally think that many of the alleged no-go zones don't belong in the article, but such is not the consensus and i try to support the consensus from pick-and-choose editing, even when I would prefer more stringent inclusion criteria. Sjö (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

really is not that different from other alleged contemporary no-go zones in Europe. That's not true. It's different than Northern Ireland. It's different than Molenbeek in Belgium. It's different than the neighborhoods in France (if we take the description at face value). Maybe it's kind of similar - but not really - to the part on Germany. But that just means that part should also be removed. It's different than the areas described for Sweden. It's different than the areas described for UK. Pretty much all of these, except Germany, fit 2) or 3). The Poland part fits none of the criteria.

So actually, the comparison with the other sections on Europe clearly illustrates the point that this does not belong here.

Look. We have two choices here: 1) rewrite the entire lede to accommodate this particular phenomenon. But that would be changing the scope of the article and would require an RfC. Or 2) remove this stuff. What needs to be accepted is that this just is out of scope. Volunteer Marek 14:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not different in any meaningful way. The difference (apart from that the no-go zones in Poland is backed by the government) is that in the case of Poland it's liberal/left that says it's a no-go zone and in the case of the rest of Europe it's righ/far-right that says it's a no-go zone. But the political leanings shouldn't matter as Wikipedia should be neutral. // Liftarn (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's completely different! In the case of Northern Ireland you have an armed organization (the IRA) preventing certain people from going in. In Belgium you have "government has no control over the situation" and "terrorist links" (whether this should be included is a separate question). In France these are supposed to be areas controlled by gangs (whether that is true or not is a separate question) and "lawless". In Sweden these areas where (again, allegedly) criminal gangs have taken over. All of these qualify under areas "That have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there" or areas "inhabited by a parallel society that has its own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors" (again, allegedly).

NOTHING like that is true of these "areas" in Poland. These are just electoral districts where some politicians said some shitty things. Nobody, regardless of their sexual orientation, is actually prevented from going, living or being there. The same rights apply to everyone. There is no "armed gangs" or "insurgent groups" or "terrorist links" or anything like that. There is no "backed by the government". What exactly does the "government" (sic) do here? Politicians on local councils made unenforceable, empty, declarations. It's stupid and dumb, but it's not a "no go zone".

Completely different. Volunteer Marek 16:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In Poland the government declared themself to be no-go zone for LGBT and there are certainly violent gangs that beat up people who they suspect of being gay. In for instance France and Sweden they are ordinary suburbs with more people who arent entierly white and a slight elevation in crime. There is no "armed gangs" or "insurgent groups" or "terrorist links" or anything like that in either case. So (with some slight variations) it's about the same. Not a de facto or de jure no-go zone, but they have been described as such. // Liftarn (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

And both (yes, there is only two, not "twelve") sources which refer to these as "no-go zones" are actually talking about... stickers handed out by a Polish newspaper. Which isn't even mentioned in this article!!! And the sources are being misrepresented too. Neither of them says "described these areas as "no-go zones" for LGBT people". There's nothing in either about the voivodeships or other municipalities. It's all about the stickers. This, on top of everything else, is WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 16:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: Sources compare these zones to Judenfrei Nazi zones. Say they are no-go zones for LGBT. In Białystok LGBT marchers were beaten up by violent mobs.AstuteRed (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC) (sock puppet of banned user) - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

No they actually don’t. A single organization made that hyperbolic comparison. These empty declarations are nothing like rest of what’s in article, which involve control of territory by armed groups. Why you writing in broken sentences brand new account? Volunteer Marek 15:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I hope you're not intentionally misspresent what this article says. The section in question Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas is full of the same type of hyperbole. There is nothing special about Poland in that regard. // Liftarn (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

is full of the same type of hyperbole Can you be specific? Can you give examples of parts of the section which are "full of the same type of hyperbole"? Volunteer Marek 16:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

For instance the entire section about Sweden. There are no no-go zones in Sweden so the entire section is just the ordinary rumour mills and fake news. It's still included as we have reliable sources saying that some people claim there are no-go zones in Sweden. // Liftarn (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You're right, that section should be removed as well. I tried. Of course I was quickly reverted by another red-linked account with few edits which has never shown an interest in Sweden. Volunteer Marek 14:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Is WP:FAPO still valid?--BthereDthat (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Look, the point is, official non-binding declarations that are not enforceable by law or even paramilitary agencies are not relevant here. Look at the lead of this. This is not a military exclusion zones, border zones, or other declared exclusion zones, or a zone controlled by paramilitaries. Nobody is controlling who enters or leaves, there are no penalties. A no-go zone needs more than an unenforceable declaration. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet we have had many such "unofficial" zone in the article for months before this was an issue. No two wrongs do not make a right, but neither is a right a wrong just because of the target.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Official administrative acts concerning LGBT-free zones

Sejmik Województwa Małopolskiego [Regional Council of the Lesser Poland Voivodeship]

2019-04-19 Declaration No. 1/19 of the Lesser Poland Regional Assembly of 29 April 2019 on opposition to the introduction of the "LGBT" ideology in local government communities
https://bip.malopolska.pl/umwm,a,1594074,deklaracja-nr-119-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-malopolskiego-z-dnia-29-kwietnia-2019-r-w-sprawie-sprzeciwu-wo.html pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by BthereDthat (talk • contribs)

Sejmik Województwa Lubelskiego [Regional Council of the Lublin Voivodeship]

2019-04-25 The position of the Regional Council of the Lublin Voivodeship regarding the introduction of the "LGBT" ideology in local government communities
https://umwl.bip.lubelskie.pl/index.php?id=57&p1=szczegoly&p2=1382854 pdf --BthereDthat (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sejmik Województwa Podkarpackiego [Regional Council of the Podkarpackie Voivodeship]

2019-05-27 Resolution on adopting the position of the Sejmik of the Podkarpackie Voivodship objecting to the promotion and affirmation of the ideology of the so-called LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) movements.
http://www.bip.podkarpackie.pl/index.php/uchwaly-sejmiku/4617-viii-sesja-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-podkarpackiego-vi-kadencja-z-dnia-27-maja-2019-r pdf --BthereDthat (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sejmik Województwa Świętokrzyskiego [Regional Council of the Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship]

2019-07-18 The position of the Sejmik of the Świętokrzyskie Voivodship regarding opposition to attempts to introduce the "LGBT" ideology into local government communities and to promote this ideology in public life.
https://bip.sejmik.kielce.pl/826-oswiadczenia-stanowiska-i-apele-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-swietokrzyskiego-vi-kadencji-lata-2018-2023/7457-stanowisko-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-swietokrzyskiego-dotyczace-sprzeciwu-wobec-prob-wprowadzenia-ideologii-lgbt-do-wspolnot-samorzadowych-oraz-promocji-tej-ideologii-w-zyciu-publicznym.html pdf--BthereDthat (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Starostwo Powiatowe w Świdniku [District Authority Office of Świdnik]

2019-04-02 Stand No. 1/2019 regarding the suppression of the LGBT ideology by the local government community. pdf--BthereDthat (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Starostwo Powiatowe w Rykach [District Authority Office of Ryki]

2019-04-30 Resolution of the District Council of Ryki - Position of the District Council of Ryki on stopping gender ideology and "LGBT". pdf--BthereDthat (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Starostwo Powiatowe w Zamościu [District Authority Office of Zamość]

2019-06-27 Resolution No. VIII / 90/2019 of the Poviat Council in Zamość of 26 June 2019 on the adoption of the Poviat Council Position in Zamość on stopping the promotion of the "LGBT" ideology doc--BthereDthat (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Summary

Some authorities declared cutting themselves off from what they called LGBT movement ideology/affirmation/promotion. Some people (from both sides) began to call these administrative areas LGBT-free zones and snowball have started rolling down a hill... And now "there are" no-go zones in Poland.--BthereDthat (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Yes, they hate gays. I think that is established by now. // Liftarn (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: Nope. That your opinion. Facts are that they are against LGBT movement ideology and LGBT movement affirmation. They are not against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals...--BthereDthat (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it's suported by reliable sources.[8][9][10][11][12] That they in their own propaganda claims to be against the "ideology" is really not relevant. Please read up on WP:V and so on. // Liftarn (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: You have some administrative acts claiming being against LGBT movement ideology/affirmation/promotion and you have some commentary about this acts claiming that administration is against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals... Yep. You are right--BthereDthat (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources make a difference. // Liftarn (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: I couldn't agree with you more.--BthereDthat (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Good. Please go find some before continuing. // Liftarn (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn:Your wish is my command. Been there, done that.--BthereDthat (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Good. Could you please post them here. So far I've only seen primary sources. // Liftarn (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You are right as always. Primary sources that are officiat administrative acts can't be good in any mean.

So they say somthing like "The Regional Assembly of the Malopolska Voivodship expresses its strong opposition to the public-oriented activities appearing in the public sphere promoting the ideology of LGBT movements". And what new information does that provide? // Liftarn (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That would indeed be an accurate and precise way to describe it but it also shows that it's stuff which doesn't belong in THIS particular article (though it does probably belong in others). Volunteer Marek 16:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't parrot government propaganda as that would violate WP:PRIMARY as well as WP:RSSELF. // Liftarn (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you kindly explain me why you you call official administrative acts a "parrot government propaganda" WP:NPOV? Please note also that there are no "LGBT-free zones" in official administrative documents. "LGBT-free zones" only shows up in political commentary.--BthereDthat (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing this any further. "LGBTQ free zones" don't belong here because it doesn't fit the scope of this article and it should be removed. If some people still believe that this is useful information to have, then maybe a separate article of its own is an answer?GizzyCatBella🍁 09:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm agree. Just for explanation... I'm aware that this sources are off topic here, but they just present necessary background.--BthereDthat (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It fits under "areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years" that is indeed covered by the article. Either all areas that are not de facto or de jure no-go areas should be removed or included. You can't just select to remove one of them without any valid reason. // Liftarn (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Im slightly disagree. They fits under: "areas that have been wrongly described as no-go areas in recent years".--BthereDthat (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

We make no judgement on that, but most of the other areas in the section are more or less wrongly described as no-go areas. // Liftarn (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'm aware this. That was just mental shortcut. Let me expand it: "areas that haven't meet no-go area definition and was described as no-go areas in recent years". And then we will go through the same as now again...--BthereDthat (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

* In scope, obviously. Sources compare LGBT-free zones to no-go zones. Sources state LGBT-free zones are like Judenfrei zones by Nazis in WWII. Perhaps straight cisgender people are able to go about freely in LGBT-free zones. LGBT people are excluded from the zones. Are threatened with violence. AstuteRed (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC) (sock puppet of banned user) - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This is false. No one is excluded from anything. Your wording is strange brand new account. Volunteer Marek 14:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Official police statistics of crime ratings

• 
  LGBT-free zones in Poland

Official police statistics from 2019-01 to 2019-09, scaled per 10 000 inhabitants
Damage to health Fight and battery Robbery, theft and extortion, extortion Sexual--BthereDthat (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

"present inclusion criteria" (sic)

Re [13] I'm sorry I don't see where it's established or written in stone that the "present inclusion criteria" are " it is enough that areas have been described as no-go zones" (putting aside that some of the included cases aren't actually described as such in sources). This might be an inclusion criteria some editors *want* but they are NOT the inclusion criteria that presently exist. The present inclusion criteria are that no-go-zones are areas that are:

• Undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty
• That have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there
• That are inhabited by a parallel society that have their own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors

The fact that various editors have included off-topic WP:COATRACK material in the article (like the section on Sweden) doesn't change the fact that the problem is with the text precisely because it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria.

Wikipedia's "inclusion criteria" are NOT "well, somebody managed to get it into the article so now we must keep it forever and ever". Volunteer Marek 19:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC) :: Can you be more tendentious? You quoted "also been used". The first sentence preceding is: "A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or an area barred to certain individuals or groups". LGBT-free zones meet the definition of "an area barred to certain individuals or groups" as the government outlawed "LGBT ideology" in the zone. AstuteRed (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As a brand new account, you sure are familiar with Wikipedia-speak. Are there any other accounts, previous or current, you should disclose before participating in discussions on controversial topics? Volunteer Marek 17:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is outlawed (sigh) Please read the earlier comments. Can you produce instances of anybody standing charged for "promoting LGTBQ ideology" in those "zones" .. or let it be in Poland? GizzyCatBella🍁 06:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

:::: Government and church organized the beating up of LGBT in Bialystok: [14]. Enforcement here is violent. AstuteRed (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

AstuteRed, are you stating this source[15] says - "Government and church organized the beating up of LGBT in Białystok”? Misrepresentation of sources is a pretty big deal, you know.GizzyCatBella🍁 06:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"That have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there;" it fits that description.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

But it doesn’t. These areas (several counties) DON’T have “reputation for violence and crime” (in fact they’re probably some of the safest in Europe”. There was a LGBT march in one town which was attacked by a bunch of assholes. Does that make, say, Portland Oregon a “no go area” because of the clashes between leftist and rightist groups? No. This is pure WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I understand some people really *want* this to be within the scope of this article, so they’re willing to throw both common sense and Wikipedia policies out the window, but it’s simply not. Come on Steven, you know better. Volunteer Marek 17:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

No, no more then say Oldham was a no go area, the fact is the article has long had sections about areas perceived as no go areas, if if there is no official enforcement. So why now is this suddenly an issue? But [[16]], [[17]], [[18]] so yes there is real fear of violence.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry Slater, I don't get the reference to Oldham. Your sources are about the violence at the LGBT march. That violence and the attacks on the march were despicable, but the same sources do not refer to these as "no go zones", so that's classic WP:SYNTH, and this is similar to violence between left and right in Portland Oregon... yet we do not include Portland as a "no go area". The material you reference does need to be included but in the proper article: LGBT rights in Poland, not here where the topic of this article is completely different. Volunteer Marek 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean by Oldham and I think that while that's a little bit closer to the topic of this article, it's still UNDUE and also should be removed. Volunteer Marek 17:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible Violations of Wikipedia Policies

"Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas" tittle

"Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas" tittle do not differentiate alleged from acknowledged areas. WP:UNDUE WP:BALANCE WP:GEVAL --BthereDthat (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Lack of differenciation of areas basing on given no-go area definition

Having sources that confirms the definition is not a criterion for distinguishing areas in the article. WP:UNDUE WP:BALANCE WP:GEVAL --BthereDthat (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom section

I restored the UK section (someone else's contribution), which was promptly reverted with a pontification of WP:ONUS as the excuse. That policy applies only to "disputed content," yet there has been little if any discussion about this content, which had been arbitrarily deleted earlier. It is also very well-referenced material, and fits the general topic. In a systematic discussion of European nations, it is not undue to include the UK; what is undue is tendentiously omitting it. Looking for some support and voices of reason here please, to override what I perceive as minimalism and obstructionism. - JGabbard (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually I have disputed its inclusion on the grounds its a relevant as the stuff about Poland. As I suggested above we should stop removing content until we decide what the scope of the article is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

FAKE NEWS - No-go areas in Poland

Free zones from gays and lesbians? Lawyers: Local government resolutions against LGBT persons are illegal

https://oko.press/prawnicy-uchwaly-samorzadowcow-przeciwko-osobom-lgbt-nielegalne/

Local and territorial units opposing LGBT ideology.

Map of communes, poviats and voivodships in which anti-LGBT resolutions have been adopted or are being worked on

Supposed "no-go zones" not exist in Poland, invention of Russian agents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FxJ (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC) : The illegality of the actions by local authorities does not change their effect. If you are illegally excluded by the regional government, you are still excluded. AstuteRed (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Sock puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There’s no “illegal exclusion” here by any government, regional or otherwise. Volunteer Marek 14:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

So you say it's legal? Got sources for that? // Liftarn (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Noooo, what I'm saying is that there is no "exclusion". Please, don't twist my words. Unlike some of the sketchy accounts around here, I assume and believe that even though we disagree you're acting in good faith and genuinely want to improve the article and resolve this dispute. If you start with this whole "so you're saying that <insert strawman here>" then I won't be able to maintain that assumption. Volunteer Marek 15:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:Unlike some of the sketchy accounts around here If may i ask... Are you (or any other person here) evaluating my actions here as sketchy activity too? I guess that my edits here were "a bit" chaotic and I'm sorry for that. Please be rather honest than nice.

And if may I ask one other thing... References here have a relationship rather with "LGBT-free zones" than with "'LGBT-free zones' being no-go zones". May/should I do something about it and how to make it following good practises? Or it will be better when I shut up already?--BthereDthat (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

since March, 31 right-leaning local governments (and counting) have declared their counties and cities “LGBTQ-free.”[19] ‘Remember how the right [were scared] of the so-called [Muslim] no-go zones? Thanks to the same right, we have our own no-go zones. Disgusting.’[20] // Liftarn (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not what RS says, that's what one organization said. That can be mentioned in the other article (LGBT-free zone) but it's not enough to merit inclusion here and the info here is still out of scope. Volunteer Marek 15:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

We have reliable sources that says the organisations said that so it fits the inclusion criteria for this article.Now if you want to discuss changing the scope of the article it's an entierly different discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between "a reliable source says X is Y" and "a reliable source reports that someone said that X is Y". Except, as it turns out, we now don't even have the latter (see below), as the organization issued a statement saying they were purposefully using the term "no-go zones" in a hyperbolic way as a way of provoking Polish right wingers. Volunteer Marek 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The whole thing is a fringe matter overblown like hell by Western and LGBT media. There is no exclusion at all, no matter how some mainstream media outlets try to paint it. It doesn't matter what some local politicians proclaimed. Gay people can go to those towns, and yeah, they even live there. The notion of a no-go zone is completely false here.--Darwinek (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Same as with the alleged no-go zones in for instance Sweden and France then. So there is nothing odd about including Poland as well. // Liftarn (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No, not "Same as the alleged no-go zones in for instance Sweden.."Refer to people's comments throughout this page, please. It was explained to you repeatedly by several people why Poland's "LGTB free zones" do not belong to this particular article.GizzyCatBella🍁 08:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the same except that some Poles don't like it. However WP:DONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Apart from that there have only been a lot of strawman attacks and (intentional or not) missunderstanding about the scope of the article. // Liftarn (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you - as a person who use 'parrot government propaganda' sentence to describe official administrative acts that are WP:PRIMARY - really feel that is right to play WP:DONTLIKEIT card and present your opinion about Poles at the same time? Isn't WP:FAPO, WP:RS more important than WP:DONTLIKEIT? Isn't sources here referencing 'LGBT-areas being no-go zones' flooded by sources referencing 'LGBT-areas'? Isn't all or vast majority of that sources is WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:RSSELF and WP:CIRCULAR? Isn't the whole situation 'Earth' vs 'flat Earth' class situation? --BthereDthat (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a fact (backed up by reliable sources) that the areas have been described as no-go zones and as such they are within the scope of this article. // Liftarn (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Flat earth have also been described by many reliable sources. --BthereDthat (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, and we have articles such as Flat Earth. Compare with the UK section where we say that the group Falmouth Hates Students have declared the town of Falmouth, Cornwall a no-go zone for students. // Liftarn (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

With that little difference that nobody declared no-go zones in Poland (no WP:PRIMARY). There are sources (WP:PRIMARY) that declares rejection of LGBT movement influence in govermental administration and there are of course sources (WP:SECONDARY, WP:TERTIARY) that declares that administrative areas 'LGBT-free zones' and sources (WP:SECONDARY, WP:TERTIARY) that declare that areas as no-go zones. Is it correct? --BthereDthat (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

And primary sources should be avoided. // Liftarn (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Is WP:FAPO not enough to override WP:PRIMARY policy? What about 'Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."'? Is statement "government administration declares rejection of LGBT movement influence" a interpretation? --BthereDthat (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't that applies here. It is better to have an independent party report on the issue rather than an involved party presenting their own view as facts. Also WP:FAPO is an essay while WP:PRIMARY is policy. // Liftarn (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You haven't answered for 2 other arguments. Isn't WP:FAPO - as its definition states - a complement to WP:NPOV and isn't WP:NPOV - as its definition states - a fundamental principle of Wikipedia? Are you really trying to use WP:PRIMARY policy to exclude WP:PRIMARY sources while policy starts with 'Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them'?!? I strongly disagree here - its EOT for me. --BthereDthat (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what you are talking about. Please check again. We report what reliable souurces say and avoid primary sources. If you have problem understanding how that works I suggest you take that discussion elsewhere as this is not the right place for it. // Liftarn (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thats your opinion. My opinion is that your statements/actions here hinder to put WP:NPOV in this topic. However I'm strongly agree with 'take that discussion elsewhere as this is not the right place for it.' part. --BthereDthat (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

That is Wikipedia policy, but please do tell me in what way the article isn't NPOV and how it can be improved. // Liftarn (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

:I think that explanation has been provided multiple times - several sections in this article do not fit the scope of this article and are poorly sourced. Volunteer Marek 19:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

N Hoax created by Paria Razem and their supporters for purpose of heating up political debate. A.J. (talk)

• in their origial tweet they in trolling-like way refer to righ-wing "islamic no go zones in Sweden" propaganda. You took trolling for facts, dear Wikipedians. A.J. (talk)
• There were LGBT-free_zone controversy started by Gazeta Polska and some (more symbolic than with any legal meaning) resolutions by some local authorities, but no one seriously stated that these stickers create a "no go area" as defined by this article. Deliberate trolling against right wing (Partia Razem as a modern "internet" party often resort to trolling an memes in political debate) which echoed in foreign media was the sole reason of "Polish no-go zones" appearing in this article. I hope it ends soon. 194.181.36.210 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Presumably there are reliable sources that say exactly what you are saying, no actual no-go areas, and it was a fake news story/trolling of the right. This POV is itself notable for inclusion in an article about No-go areas. Wikipedia allows for multiple even contradictory POVs, so long as they are well sources. But deleting the entire section because one disagrees with a POV is not how Wikipedia works. -- GreenC 18:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Presumably there are no "reputable sources" treating "No go zones" in Poland as a fact, because no one seriously talks about idea that is so stupid? As in old Polish joke: when someone says you're a camel, how can you prove you're not! A.J. (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

But the point is that there is NO sources which refer to these as "no-go areas", aside from a couple reports in minor sources about one particular organization making that claim. The sections are NOT being deleted because someone "disagrees with a POV". They are being deleted because the text is out of scope of this article (and actually, POV material IS suppose to be removed). Volunteer Marek 18:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." Earth vs flat Earth class problem. --BthereDthat (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Until we have a clear cut idea of what the scope of this article is can we please not remove any material.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's actually the opposite, per WP:ONUS. Until we have a clear idea of what the scope of the article is, we shouldn't keep restoring contentious material. Volunteer Marek 18:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone read any of municipalities acts declaring "LGBT-free zone?" Please quote at least one paragraph that denies anyone public rights.A.J. (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Then any such material should be removed, irrespective of country..Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Volunteer Marek 17:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

So lets start by removing less contentious material, then many of the arguments about retaining this might go away.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If you're gonna cut a cat's tail off it's better to do it all at once rather than piece by piece. Also, the other way we're likely to get bogged down in tiresome arguments about irrelevant things or get worn out by all the SPI brand new accounts that pop up. BTW, there is an article Białystok equality march, which is 100% notable, and where the things you mention/link to, should go. Volunteer Marek 21:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My last words and conclusion: someone asked about reputable sources dealing with LGBT "no-go zones" in Poland, so here you are: [21]

Nasze nawiązanie do terminu "no-go zones" było prowokacją i wytknięciem prawicy jej hipokryzji. (en: Our reference to "no-go zones" term were provocation and calling out right wing's hypocrisy) says Dorota Olko, speaker of Partia Razem (emphasis mine). Wikipedia is not a tube for someone's provocations and political activism, but deals with facts. "LBGT free" stickers were facts, "anti-LGBT-ideology" statements were facts, but "No go zones" for LGBT in Poland are NOT a fact; even most left-wing and pro-LGBT party Razem admits it, comparing it to "islamic no-go-zones" in Sweden which according to them are only in right-wing propaganda. A.J. (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That kind of puts the nail in the coffin of the argument that there are sources which would support the inclusion of this stuff here. At this point it'd basically be... well, WP:POINT violation. Volunteer Marek 21:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Definition of no go area

A lot of the issue about the Polish "no go areas" can be equally said about (for example) those in the UK section. So what do WE mean by no go area?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

In the section Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas where it is listed the definition given is "areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years, though in some cases the characterization has been disputed". // Liftarn (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Then that needs to be move to the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"areas that have been described" is NOT a "definition". It's a circular statement. The present lede gives a definition (the three bullet points). And yeah, lots of stuff in the article doesn't fit that definition, but that's the problem with the text, not with the present definition itself. Volunteer Marek 16:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

OK so should we change the lede to say "and areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No, because that's circular as mentioned above. The current lede is fine. It's the rest of the article which has had a bunch of junk WP:COATRACK'd into it for POV reasons that needs to go. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A very good point. We need a good definition first. What do academic sources say? Can anyone find a reliable definition in a scholarly source for this concept? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, so can we stop adding or subtracting material from the article until we have consensus on what the article is about?Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Scope of the article

Note in all cases must be supported by at least two RS, and over a period of at least two months.

Areas that are declared free zones of some kind

I think thats all.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Article organization

I suggest that this article might better be organized around "Types" of "no go" exclusions. If we want to have one based on specific locales, that could be part of a "History" section. I think that would address some of the issues at this 2nd AFD discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

We used to have two types, actual and fictional. // Liftarn (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to see more discussion about the historiography of Muslim no-go "zones" as this is a recently coined term by right-wing propagandists. These supposed zones make up a large portion of the article, and is the source of so much controversy and dispute in the article. -- GreenC 17:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Areas dangerous due to crime (gangs), DMZs, radioactive zones, etc.

I see French Sensitive urban zone. Then why aren't American ghettos included? Not much difference. In general, I am unsure if high crime areas should be mentioned here. After all, there's a difference between military no-go zones and areas where there is just rampant crime. This article is mixing a lot of different concepts. Many Demilitarized zone are also no-go areas and may warrant mentions here, through it does vary from case to case. What about Chernobyl Exclusion Zone? Also not mentioned here. Neither are dozen+ relevant places from Category:Radioactively contaminated areas... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

If they are described as no go areas they should be.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

By who? The relevant authorities or some random blog? // Liftarn (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

France?

Okay, so I read the whole paragraph about France and I'm totally shocked. There NEVER WAS ANY No-go zones in France, and especially the airport...sorry it's nothing more than a racist fake thing that racist people wants to hear and read. I'm a French woman proud to be able to go wherever I want, whenever I want, in every clothes that I want to wear etc.. I know it's only "alleged".. but hm... On Wikipedia? Like seriously? Did you know that this website has an impact for people who read it? Also, alleged by who except people who never lived there? So yeah, ALLEGED BY A FRENCH GIRL SINCE HER BIRTH : THERE NEVER WAS, NEVER EVER! If it's only alleged, then write it in the conditional, or don't write anything, because, whatever, that's false

I might be more convinced if out article said there was a no go are at an airport.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Bellingcat is a RS per the RS noticeboard

Also, both far-right politicians/pundits and some ostensibly "non-far-right" conservative politicians push the no-go zone falsehood. "Far-right" should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Who are the far-right politicians and pundits? I didn't see any mentioned in the sources you cited. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You didn't get the memo? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

What, every Republican in the U.S. is far right? Good to know. You've got your work cut out for you now - time to update a bunch of Wikipedia articles. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

« What, every Republican in the U.S. is far right? » → No, there are some Republican In Name Only. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing

The editor Korny O'Near changed clear RS-supported language that "no-go zones" are a falsehood/conspiracy theory into proponents of no-go zones "have faced press scrutiny for their allegations". The notion of a "no-go zone" in the context that anti-immigration far-right people use is clearly false and should be described as such. Korny O'Near's change is his own warped original research on the topic, and it's completely unacceptable that his whitewashed language is in the lead. We should stick to what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The editor has also removed a bunch of RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for starting this talk page discussion. I don't believe there are any reliable sources saying that the whole concept of "no-go zones" is a falsehood or conspiracy theory. There are certainly sources disputing specific statements made by Steven Emerson, Pete Hoekstra, Bobby Jindal and others on the matter. I think part of the problem with your original wording is that it made it seem like every statement about the existence of no-go zones controlled by Muslim immigrants, or maybe every statement about no-go zones as a whole, was provably false. That's not true - for example, as noted in the article, in 2012 the mayor of Amiens himself said that parts of the city were no-go zones. So my wording, I mean my "warped original research", was trying to make that clearer and more unbiased.

As for removing citations - I don't think a single statement by Steve Emerson, for example, requires three footnotes. I only removed duplicate citations; I don't think I removed anything essential. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Since when is the major of Amiens a Reliable Source? The sources that you deleted clearly describe the notions of no-go zones as falsehoods and myths. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

He's not a reliable source per se, which is why the article says "According to the mayor of Amiens", or words to that effect. The point is, I don't think anyone is saying that Muslim-controlled no-go zones simply do not exist. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

« for example, as noted in the article, in 2012 the mayor of Amiens himself said that parts of the city were no-go zones. » →‎ The source currently used in the article does not include the phrase « no-go zones ». The source does not support what you are claiming. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

That's true - he didn't literally say "no-go zones", although I think what he said was equivalent. I probably could have picked a better example. But I think my overall point still stands. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

« That's true - he didn't literally say "no-go zones", although I think what he said was equivalent. » → As a French, I can testify that the mayor of Amiens did not use an equivalent. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

« But I think my overall point still stands. » → I think that it does not. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

He said that Amiens is "une zone de non-droit". The English Wiktionary says that this translates to "no-go zone". Whether it does or not, I think the meaning is close enough. And my larger point is that there are no reliable sources saying that there are no no-go zones. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

« The English Wiktionary says that this translates to "no-go zone". » It does not anymore. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

« my larger point is that there are no reliable sources saying that there are no no-go zones. » But can you point one of those islamic no-go zones, forbidden to non-muslims and ruled by sharia? Can you give a list? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Your description is quite a bit more extreme than the standard definition of "no-go zones". Korny O'Near (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, English is not my mother tongue, and in 2015 the only one who explained what they mean by « no-go zones » where Robert Spencer and Soeren Kern. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

2020-03 Renseignements Generaux

The article currently said that « In 2005 France's domestic intelligence network, the Renseignements Generaux, identified 150 "no-go zones" around the country where police would not enter without reinforcements. » The Christopher Dickey article used as source do not give its sources, and I after a quick search, I didn't find anything in French about that. Same for Christopher Dickey's claim that then-French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said « No-go zones would not be allowed ». Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I foud this 2006-10-26 article by AFP, AP and lefigaro.fr, claiming that Dominique de Villepin said « Nous refusons toute zone de non droit dans notre pays ». Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be good to find a reference that states whether "zone de non droit" can be considered a translation of "no-go zone" or not. My sense is that it can be. They have the same sense of an area where even the police are afraid to enter. By the way, if you don't think so, how would you translate "no-go zone" into French? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

« how would you translate "no-go zone" into French? » → It depend of what you mean in English:

• If it is a area when nobody can go, then it is a forbidden zone => « zone interdite », muslim no-go zone => « zone interdite aux non-musulmans » ;
• If it is a area when people can go (includind police), but the cops do not make/apply misdemeanors, courts do not apply punishments, people and companies do not pay taxes, then it is a lawless area => « zone de non-droit »;

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

High crime areas

The Collins Dictionary source provides two definitions of "no-go area":

1. If you refer to a place as a no-go area, you mean that it has a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there.

The subway's reputation for violence makes it a no-go area for many natives of the city.

2. A no-go area is a place which is controlled by a group of people who use force to prevent other people from entering it

The area of the President's residence is a no-go area after six p.m.

The security forces entered the group's no-go areas.

A wikipedia article typically covers a single topic or definition; this article is clearly about #2, and we shouldn't include #1 just because it uses the same name. We're clearly not talking about subways or neighborhoods where people are afraid to walk at night. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article can cover a topic with multiple definitions and meanings including multiple POVs. It can even go so far as some people think the topic doesn't exist at all. We report on all these things, we report what the sources say. -- GreenC 20:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Under certain conditions, as outlined at WP:BCA. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

2020-03 split the article

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-go area (2nd nomination) some contributors (me included) suggested to split the article and transform No-go area into a redirect to No-go zone, which is a disambiguation page. Thought? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the concept of "no-go zone" is totally different from the other uses of "no-go areas". The former is primarily a feverish right-wing conspiracy that racists and anti-immigrant individuals bandy about, and should be described as such. A separate article would clarify the distinction. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree with this also. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

While this article is in need of improvement I am not sure that splitting the article is necessarily going to help. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not sure the split is the best idea either. I think the article could use some work but not a split. Lightburst (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with User:Spy-cicle. I'd rather see one article with the freedom of multiple POVs, even if some POVs are stronger than others. This could be an interesting article detailing the history of the term, and areas/zones in fact and myth. Splitting would preclude that and probably make the situation even worse. -- GreenC 04:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, Wikipedia articles are not focused on 1 term, but on 1 concept. For example Doctor (title) and Doctor (medicine). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support I'm not sure exactly what the proposed split would look like, but each article should be about a single concept, not multiple things covered by the same term. Intermingling multiple ideas within the same article confuses the reader and creates the WP:SYN issue of conflating disparate topics. There are several topics at play here, and some could potentially be merged into already-existing articles:

• "Free" or "liberated" zones such as Free Derry and Free Zone (Western Sahara) which are/were barricaded and defended by militarized groups
• Ghettos or neighborhoods that are considered dangerous due to high crime rates, which police and/or civilians choose to avoid for safety reasons
• A conspiracy theory that Muslims have implemented Sharia law in certain areas –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see these definitions as all that different from one another - they all involve areas (real or alleged) where the government does not have complete control. Whether or not some alternate government is in place (such as a quasi-sharia one) is just an additional detail. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That's just your WP:OR/opinion though. There is no reliable source that discusses all of these different types of areas in one work. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's my opinion. That's what we're sharing here - opinions. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Oppose Does anyone have a draft made of what the split articles would look like? I think its fine to just keep it all in one area. Dream Focus 19:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

    "Split" means redirecting this article, No-go area, to No-go zone, which is already a disambiguation page, and then adding to that dab page new articles about whatever types of no-go areas people wanted to make articles about. For example, No-go zone (crime), Muslim no-go zone myth, etc. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not convinced a split idea is a good approach.GizzyCatBella🍁 19:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Restore content on false no-go zone claims in the US

The editor GizzyCatBella removed the RS content about the falsehoods about no-go zones in the US. The editor said nothing in the edit summary besides "no". The content should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Normally I'm on the side of keeping this kind of information. However, I'm not sure about the case of the United States section. The deleted content (whose deletion I agree should have had a better edit summary) contains some pretty weak citations. I count five: #1 talks about a single statement made by Roy Moore, #2 talks about a Sharia law tribunal, which is not the same as no-go zones, #3 talks about a statement made by Jim Newberger, #4 mentions a statement by Tony Perkins, and #5 mentions allegations by unnamed people. So really it's just three people - and while they're all notable, the remarks themselves seem to be offhand, and, in the case of Newberger and Perkins, half-hearted enough that they didn't even merit an entire news article (the article about Newberger mostly covers his statements about future no-go zones). Just some casual allegations by a few people, which I'm not sure the speakers themselves even took seriously. So I guess I can see the argument both ways on this one. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Shocker. After fighting to include any and all poorly sourced rubbish that makes reference to something approaching "no-go zones", even if it's original research, you now fight to exclude actual RS content for the sole reason that it debunks this feverish far-right conspiracy theory. BS innuendo from bad sources belongs in the Wikipedia article but actual RS content does not? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not fighting at all to exclude the "United States" section. But the commentary about no-go zones in, for example, France and Sweden, is totally different in both quantity and nature from the random comments that have been made about, say, Dearborn, Michigan. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans - Precisely what Korny O'Near wrote. I think if you checked the sources you wouldn't have to comment on that. So again - the United States, a big "NO".GizzyCatBella🍁 20:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

And once I'm here Snooganssnoogans. This line - "have falsely been called no-go zones" is an OR. It was either labelled as a "no-go zone" or not. Adding the word "falsely" is OR.GizzyCatBella🍁 20:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The RS in question are explicit about the fact that the claims are false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

..and others simply report on the situation in disturbed areas, such as an Australian ABC. Word "falsely" should be eliminated because the areas have been labelled as "no go zones". Instead, it should read: "Some urban areas in ........ have been labelled as no-go zones. According to ....... the allegations are false"." GizzyCatBella🍁 20:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please cite me the "Australian ABC" report that talks about no-go zones existing in the US. If no such content exist, then you should restore the content that you baselessly removed just because you personally disagreed with what the RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

User:GizzyCatBella, do you intend to provide a source to substantiate your claims that there is RS content on no-go zones existing in the US or are you gonna restore the content that you deleted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

France, 2019

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-french-city-zones-where-police-rarely-escape-unscathed Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Germany, 2019

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/mensch-metropole/islamwissenschaftler-ralph-ghadban-wenn-die-frauen-rebellieren-zerfallen-die-clans-li.35622 The author link ethnic Clans with no-go areas. "Wenn Polizisten einen Verdächtigen kontrollieren wollen, sind sie plötzlich umkreist, werden geschubst, beschimpft, bedroht. So sind No-go-Areas entstanden."Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

UK, 2018

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/23/firefighters-have-become-targets-vicious-mob-attacks/ Xx236 (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 April 2020

Change "Some politicians and commentators have claimed the existence of no-go zones in areas with large populations of Muslims and immigrants" to "Some politicians and commentators have falsely claimed the existence of no-go zones in areas with large populations of Muslims and immigrants" to make it clear that the claim is a myth —as all the mentioned sources clarify. Nestive (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Are there no no-go zones in Europe?

This wording has been controversial. Should this article definitively state that there are no no-go zones in Europe (or the United States)? Maybe it's true, but I don't see any evidence for making this comprehensive claim. On the other side, people who have claimed that there are no-go zones, whether that's in Perpignan, Rinkeby, Malmö, or elsewhere, are various mainstream journalists, police officers, and politicians, including Angela Merkel. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

RS overwhelmingly describe claims of no-go zones as falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and should thus be described as such. Conservative politicians are not RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

There certainly are reliable sources that name individual claims of no-go zones (such as in Paris) as falsehoods, but are there any that name all claims as falsehoods? If so, could you point to them? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I linked to some sources during the last AfD (second keep vote, 3rd indent). I suggest the Masters Thesis, regardless of its viability as RS (it might be not sure), it is informative. -- GreenC 19:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

See also https://www.hollykoch.com/paris-ngzs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-7YVftON84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTtzMlZ6eGM Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It's mostly that there are no literal no-go zones, but there are areas like the Swedish vulnerable suburbs where the police has difficulties fulfilling their mission without extra precautions, yet they can go there so it's not literally a no-go zone. The Snopes fact check only says that "Muslim no-go zones (operating under Sharia Law) where local laws are not applicable" is false. Whether these concepts are mixed on on purpose or on accident is another matter. The article should always keep this distinction clear and not do WP:SYNTH inappropriately. --Pudeo (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a propos of anything specific, but it's interesting to note that this Snopes debunking of "Sharia Law Muslim ‘No-Go’ Zones", currently cited several times in this article, contains the following quote from the website "Geographic Travels", about France's sensitive urban zones:

“ A few [Zones Urbaines Sensibles] are truly no-go zones, while most are just areas where the government is focusing more development and police require special procedures to operate. A few (NOT ALL of the 751 ZUS, as falsely reported in “anti-jihadist blogs”) of these zones, primarily around Paris, are under control of radical Islamists. ”

I don't know what "Geographic Travels" is, or whether it's a reliable source - the site seems to be a blog, and is currently "under construction". But Snopes clearly think it's reliable, and they quote it as saying that, yes, there are indeed Muslim-controlled no-go zones in France. Which is quite an admission to make, in a piece arguing that there are no sharia law no-go zones. Of course, Muslim-controlled does not mean sharia law, but I wish the Snopes people had expanded on this apparent contradiction. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

geographictravels.com is a blog powered by blogger.com. I see not talk in en.wikipedia.org concluding that it is RS (contrary to fr:Conspiracy Watch for example) and it do not seem used as RS by MSM (contrary to fr:Conspiracy Watch for example), so it is not RS. In this article, the blog use dailymail.co.uk as source. In http://www.geographictravels.com/2006/11/no-go-areas-of-france-and-rest-of.html the author do no give any source or evidence, and do not claim to have been in France. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

And do not mention/name/list any area that would be a no-go zone. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Good grief. You repeatedly edit-war all this anti-Muslim/immigrant propaganda into the article, scrub reliable sources from the article, and then you trawl through all the sources that explicitly and very clearly debunk that no-go zones are a thing and dredge up this one snippet from something called "Geographic Travels" to justify repeatedly edit-warring these poorly sourced and feverish rightwing conspiracies into the article? When will this tendentious editing stop? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

« Should this article definitively state that there are no no-go zones in Europe? » →‎ No if I understand WP:SYNTH correctly, but look at WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Every time somebody claimed no-go-zones in Europe and pointed specific locations, people went there and showed it was not a Muslim-only no-go zone. «There have been false claims that no-go zones exist in various European countries» and «There have been false claims that Muslim-only no-go zones exist in various European countries.» looks good to me. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, a lot to go over here:

• Yes, geographictravels.com seems to be just one person's blog. Still, it was quoted by Snopes. I'm not saying that makes its information reliable, but it's interesting nonetheless. My guess is that the Snopes author did a web search to find someone to quote about SUZ/ZUSs, found this post, and included it - not fully aware that (a) it's a blog and (b) it somewhat undercuts the point of the Snopes piece.
• Snooganssnoogans - the only reliable sources I "scrubbed" were duplicate citations. Do we really need three footnotes to show that a guy named Steve Emerson once said something dumb on TV?
• Snooganssnoogans - it doesn't seem like anyone here agrees with you that there are "sources that explicitly and very clearly debunk that no-go zones are a thing". Maybe you should do a better job of identifying these sources.
• Visite fortuitement prolongée - the problem with a phrase like "There have been false claims that no-go zones exist in various European countries" is that it's ambiguous - it's not clear whether the sentence means that some of these claims are false, or all of the claims are false. Either way, the wording could be better. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, as I understand it they say "there is an accusation but no real evidence".Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo in Sweden, it isn't protected and armed police who are unable to go into these zones. It is unarmed ambulances and fire engines who can't go there witohut police protection. See this example. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

another example where ambulance waits for police. Also, while police can enter these areas they don't go in with a single vehicle but multiple units. That is, police enter these areas escorted by other police. Which, in effect, means that a lone policeman cannot go into these areas. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

But to call that a no-go zone would be WP:OR. // Liftarn (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ambulances, police, fire trucks, etc can enter these areas alone, the reason they don't is that their employers have policies that prohibit it. By this logic my entire town is a "no-go zone" because the President of the United States is not allowed to enter without a large Secret Service presence. –dlthewave ☎ 00:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)