Jump to content

Talk:No-go area/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

(Untitled)

Shanty-towns in developing countries and certain neighbourhoods in developed countries (with a heavy concentration of minority groups) have sometimes been described as no-go areas, a controversial label in the latter case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.42.6.66 (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Update and clarification

Some Native American reservations are no-go areas or zones but the government of the United States still has different types of controls at its disposal. Leper colonies were also no go zones or areas and in such, religious authority was often the law. Western countries knowledge of the phrase and assimilation into the popular vernacular in the Western Hemisphere begins with the Charlie Hebdo terror incident. The phrase no go area is now linked in the collective consciousness with Islamic extremism, with Paris and France, and with Charlie Hebdo. This current event has driven an evolution in semantic definition as events sometimes will drive the grassroots. The change in status of this phrase warrants update and clarification. The entry now is not informative enough for students. Paul Escudero (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are intended to be based on material verifiable in published reliable sources. If you are proposing a change to the article, please provide references, and be more specific about your proposed changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy is the existence of Native American reservations created by treaty, protected tribal preserves in the Amazon and the historical existence of leper colonies and their administration by religious orders not common enough knowledge as to constitute facts? I can provide citations for native treaties, leper colonies and the like but they are extraneous to the real change which is that there are different types of rules for different types of no go zones. I notice that the article provides no documentation when it claims wrongly that no go areas represent the complete loss of the authorities ability to exert sovereignty. I propose that definition of No-go be amended for better understanding sociologically and politically as well as semantically to include the following...... There are different types of no-go zones or no-go areas. The definition has evolved through military, political, geographic, and sociological definitions. Currently its most broadly used definition would be a state within a state. The ultimate expression of an ethnic ghetto, a neighborhood so insular that persons from the state within which it is located either can not or choose not to enter. A no-go area implies some or complete autonomy. Police from the state within which it is located do not patrol or have limited ability to enforce the laws of the larger state. In Europe and France the historical example is the Casbah or Kasbah and is sometimes a walled fortress or keep. Police functions are handled internally by those in control of the community and laws are set by them within the zone. A longstanding example of this in the US would be the reservations of the Native American Nations. US treaties recognize them as sovereign and allow Native American tribes most legislative rights. Indigenous people in the Amazon river basin inhabit no go zones of a different type. Leper colonies are well documented throughout history and usually subject to legal administration by religious orders. The Charlie Hebdo terror incident brought the existence of multiple Islamic controlled no-go areas in France into the Western collective consciousness.... A header for France and discussion of no go zones in France. I observed these live reports all day from French citizens on BBC FRENCH 24 CNN FOX MSNBC and other live streams all day. Is a factual description of concerns I witnessed voiced on these outlets by real people not credible as source? So my fine point is the wrong definition provides no citation. I'm happy to provide citation for native treaties, historical authenticity of leper colonies, and protected areas for indigenous tribes if we agree that changes are warranted to no-go zone and no-go area. Paul Escudero (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Please place new posts at the bottom of the page, with a blank line between - the page needs to be kept in chronological order.
As for your comments, no, 'common knowledge' is not acceptable. The article has far too much unsourced material already (I am currently trying to rectify that, without a great deal of success), and adding more isn't going to improve things. Particularly when your supposed 'common knowledge' seems to consist of a cobbled-together collection of disparate subjects. As far as I'm aware, Native American Reservations have never been referred to as 'no-go areas', and neither have leper colonies. And as for France, if there is material on this, cite it. There is no way whatsoever that we are going to include material on such a sensitive subject without proper sourcing. Though frankly, given the problems I'm having trying to find sources for what we have already, I may well propose the article for deletion - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and unless a single source can be found to draw the existing content together, it may have to be deleted as synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The topic is too important to be deleted. It's an important topic and the questioned examples clearly illustrate that not all no go zones are places where the authorities have "lost control" The definition is evolving and has codified surrounding the French situation. There is no evidence that no go zones existence in France means that French authorities have lost control in those areas and are unable to enforce their sovereignty. The phrase was used often over the last 72 hours by media outlets in relation to Paris and France. This up to the minute usage shows that no go area should be interpreted more broadly by its factual existence. Rewrite in progress Paul Escudero (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Your personal opinion as to what your 'examples' illustrate or what 'up to the minute usage' may mean is of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

France

This topic has essentially been a battle of Political Correctness, but the sad reality is that Europe has a problem with unassimilated immigrants and terrorism, which leads to the undeniable fact that there are de facto enclaves in various cities where it would be unwise to go. Even after too many terrorist events to recite, some are in denial about this and this is at the heart of this entire "Talk" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.238.77 (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Surprised to see no mention of the no go zones in France.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/12/paris-attacks-prompt-fears-france-muslim-no-go-zones-incubating-jihad/ http://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps because the reports are greatly exaggerated: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp .Sjö (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It is awful to see this article censored, and reliable sources being called fringe on my talk page. If an editor disagrees with a source verifying content, remove the source and give an explanation in a talk page, don't threaten that I'll "get in trouble". Explain civilly why there is a disagreement with certain sources on the article's talk page, and leave the content if there are still sources that verify the content.
Multiple reliable sources, including Frontpage Mag, Washington Times, and The Guardian, have been removed from this article. There are other sources from The Telegraph, Fox News, The independent, The Independent Journal Review, CBN News, etc.. If there are sources that contradict this, than provide WP:BALANCE, by providing sources that oppose this view. Better having both views, than censoring one that an editor may disagree with.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not yet checked all your sources, but neither FrontPage Magazine nor Christian Broadcasting Network are good sources. The Guardian only reported on claims by Nigel Farage, a British fringe right-winger. The Guardian did not adopt the position, so it was misused as a source. Ditto for The Independent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Why not then attribute the source? There are enough claims that these areas exist. To out right remove it, removes verified content from a very small article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
One way to do it is say W, X and Y say A, and Z says B. It can be presented neutrally, and not in Wikipedia voice.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, looking at your "pro" sources, they all go back to one guy, Soeren Kern, at a rather notoriously biased think tank. So there is very little weight behind these claims, and, in my opinion, no reason to include them. Certainly not in a way that falsely suggests three independent sources for the fringe side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec)The content was not 'verified'. To the contrary, the sources largely either failed to support the claim made (that " "no-go" areas, created by Islamic extremist [sic]" exist in France), or in at least one case actually contradicted it: Multi-Ethnic France: Immigration, Politics, Culture and Society, supposedly cited for these 'Islamic extremist' no-go areas actually describes "multi ethnic" gangs, with members who "know virtually nothing of Islam", and who's assertion of territorial control is largely limited to graffiti, slang and rap music: "The transnational cultural codes on which these gangs draw most heavily originate in the Black Atlantic, a cultural archipelago stretching from Sub-Saharan Africa through the Caribbean and into the black ghettos of the United States." This (as also described in other sources cited) is a gang culture, prone to elements of criminality, as found often elsewhere in the poorer parts of cities - it has next to nothing to do with Islamic extremism. Misrepresenting credible sources in this way to bolster the inflammatory claims of partisan sources like Frontpage Magazine has no place in a responsible encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Public discussion of the phrases "no-go zone" and "no-go area" entered the evening news here in the U.S. last night with MSNBC 1/16/2015 reporting that they can find no evidence of Islamic no go areas existing in France and in fact played video from French mainstream television mocking the idea. The phrases are in a new era of public awareness and being discussed largely in relation to France and Charlie Hebdo. We reiterate that simply by their creation they invite field spectrum interpretation with people easily arriving at definitions and related examples relative to their academic specialty. Synthesis or not we are perplexed that the wiki is publicly contemplating deletion of this entry at the moment when it has become most tangible, and is on the most lips being discussed. Curious.Paul Escudero (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Escudero: - MSNBC may explain the problem. See [1] There's a reason people stopped watching. Also, read the Oxford Journal entry I posted below that describes a 21st Century use of the term, although it is not exclusive to non-Muslim no-go areas, but those areas should be included nonetheless. Atsme☯Consult 20:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The Oxford Journals Journal of Islamic Studies does indeed describe a 21st-Century use of the term - to describe, amongst other things, how British Muslims regard the area around some pubs in the Birmingham suburbs a town in northern England as 'no-go areas' - see this quotation [2] I posted below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have tagged the section as unbalanced. There are multiple reliable sources that verify the view that there are no-go areas in France, more than just Fox News. Wikipedia is not here to say one side is correct and another side is not. I understand the usage of the word "allegetion" as not all sources agree, however, the way it is written, it is non-neutral and does so in a way that discredits Fox News and Bobby Jindal, and thus has BLP issues written all over it as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What 'reliable sources' are those? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Gatestone Institute, http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones , which others have written off.
William Kilpatrick (2012). Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. Ignatius Press. pp. 77–78. ISBN 978-1-58617-696-9.
Amikam Nachmani (January 2010). Europe and Its Muslim Minorities: Aspects of Conflict, Attempts at Accord. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-1-84519-400-0.
Steven L. Jacobs (1 January 2009). Maven in Blue Jeans: A Festschrift in Honor of Zev Garber. Purdue University Press. pp. 357–358. ISBN 978-1-55753-521-4.
Glenn Beck (20 November 2007). An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World's Biggest Problems. Simon and Schuster. p. 44. ISBN 978-1-4165-8004-1.
These are but a few. As editors we do not have to agree with the sources, even if we see them as having a political or opinionated point of view. We are to give them due weight, and present them in a neutral manor. If we want, we can also include opposing viewpoints as is what the significant amount of current content is already in this article per WP:BALANCE.
The usage of the term no-go in regards to France is something that precedes the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. Therefore, these sources, may provide context.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
See also
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The first requirement of sources is that they be reliable for the subject matter concerned. Which clearly excludes Glenn Beck's clueless drivel about the "Frenchy-French". And no, we aren't going to cite the Gatestone Institute for anything. They are a partisan propaganda outfit. If there are serious academic sources discussing 'no-go areas' and actually explaining in detail what they mean, we can of course discuss inclusion, but I see no reason whatsoever why WP:WEIGHT should apply to the repetitive uninformed propaganda of Islamophobic U.S.-based rabble-rousers. They are not experts on France. They are not experts on 'no-go areas'. Their uninformed opinion on Europe is clearly driven by their own ideological hangups rather than on any verifiable evidence. When asked to provide actual evidence for their claims, it is rarely forthcoming. A few (notably Danial Pipes, who I see you are still citing) have had the common decency to admit that their claims were false. WP:NPOV policy requires proportional coverage of "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It does not require inclusion of politically-motivated partisan propaganda from people who's 'expertise' consists of making shit up on the other side of the Atlantic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Why not cite Glenn Beck? Cause some editor says no? Attribute it and so it's not in Wikipedia voice, but don't censor it cause it doesn't agree with a POV which an editor does or does not share. We have met WP:BURDEN. To exclude this content, at least in some form violates WP:NOTCENSOR & WP:NEU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest the following: far-right activist, fear monguer, conspiracy theorist, anti-France racist Glenn Beck wrote in a 2007 book that there are no-go zones in France, without location and without evidence.
Becks opinions, while objectionable to some should not be censored, IMHO. That being said, -sarcasm- love how reliable sources here are just ignored. -/sarcarsm- Books published by Purdue University Press & Sussex Academic Press are ignored.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Becks opinions are of no relevance to this topic. This is an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: Please notice that some of the text added yesterday is very inspired and near copy-pasted from this Gatestone article, which was added and deleted a few hours before. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: what is your opinion about my wording "Far-right activist, fear monguer, conspiracy theorist, anti-France racist Glenn Beck wrote in a 2007 book that there are no-go zones in France, without location and without evidence" ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please see WP:LABEL & WP:BLP. All inappropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Then we can not mention Glenn Beck with the needed WP:ATTRIBUTE. Unfortunate. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
NO. This article need not be have an attack statement on a living person. For attribution, just state "Glenn Beck wrote in 2007...". There is no need to add quantify who Beck is, there is an article for that. We need not make the readers judgement about Beck for them, that's what all those labels would do.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sweden

Just in case somebody googles for sources and comes across reports of Swedish no-go areas: those reports are false, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 November 30 (which has a link to a WP:RS saying it's false). Sjö (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

      • No. Not without a translation. If only because Google translate suggests that the first source cited explicitly contradicts the material in our article: 'The police do not use the term "no go" zones.' [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The post was made in the context of the discussion about Muslim no-go areas and the fact that Sweden was originally added to the article as an example of Muslim no-go areas. I could have made it clearer that it was in that context. As for whether the areas in the report are no-go areas or not, by the current definition of the article they aren't and I only found one reliable Swedish source calling them "no-go areas" and that's the editorial that AndyTheGrump linked. Sjö (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you confirm what Google translate seems to indicate - that the source also states that the police don't refer to the areas in question as 'no-go zones'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That's correct. Sjö (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that what the police calls them is relevant. They have political interests in not calling a spade a spade. Regardless of the term, the areas are no-go areas for individual patrols: police cars will be vandalized, policemen attacked and residents turn to mafia law for order-keeping. There are gradations in the term; areas that are accessible to police or military only in heavy convoy are no-go zones, regardless of whether private individuals can access them. And, the question is pretty old, it wasn't invented yesterday by Fox News. For instance a metro ticket inspection was reported to require 20 officers with an immigration officer to assist; usually they work in pairs. --vuo (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Could you explain what political interests the police would have for downplaying a problem where lack of long-term resources is seen by the respondents as a contributing factor?
The report states that there have been instances of police cars being vandalised and policemen attack, but also says that in most areas police can patrol on foot without fear of being atteacked. Nowhere does it say anything about convoys. I live in one of the areas mentioned in the report, and I can assure you that I have seen police on foot patrol. The report describes areas that are troubled with criminality, but not to the extent that you describe. Unlike you, I think that it's important to note that the report doesn't call the areas no-go areas or anything similar, nor does it say that the areas can't be patrolled by police. (And to be clear, even if you didn't mention it, it never even mentions Islam or Muslims.)
I haven't seen any news report about a ticket control requiring 20 officers, and if there was such a report I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with the alleged no-go areas. Sjö (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, per Sjö we have one "one reliable Swedish source calling them "no-go areas" (referring to the 55 areas) and we have the polisen.se report of the 55 areas, with detailed maps of each one. Seems to me there is no reason to restore the Sweden 55-no go areas entry that was deleted under the false argument that it had anything to do with Muslims, which the entry never did, and only racists would impute to the words that which was never said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs) 22:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I can see no evidence of any consensus for restoring anything. What I can see is clear evidence that the deleted material misrepresented the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
So, are you disputing that
(1) we have one "one reliable Swedish source calling them "no-go areas"" (referring to the 55 areas), as Sjö said
(2) or are you disputing that we have the polisen.se report of the 55 areas, with detailed maps of each one, as documented on the government site?
because if you are not disputing either, it is not clear what your objection is, other than obfuscating the issue. XavierItzm (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not 'obfuscating' anything. I'm pointing out that the material in our article appears to have misrepresented at least one of the sources. If you are claiming that the police report refers to 'no-go areas', can you quote the relevant passage so we can check the translation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
We have, to quote Sjö,
""one reliable Swedish source calling them "no-go areas" (referring to the 55 areas)".
This RS is sufficient to restore the entry that was deleted under the false pretences that it had anything to do with Muslims, which the entry never claimed, and yet was used as the pretext to delete it.
In addition, we have the 55-areas+maps report straight from the government site, which, as has been noted before (03:57, 23 January 2015), does not mention the specific term. Not clear why the question keeps being repeated, other than an effort to obfuscate.
However, since the RS mentions the report, there is no reason not to link to the report to which the RS makes reference. XavierItzm (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is about 'no-go areas'. If a source doesn't refer to 'no-go areas', there is no reason to cite it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
We have, to quote Sjö,
"one reliable Swedish source calling them "no-go areas" " (referring to the 55 areas).
Seems to me one RS is good enough. The entry should never have been removed. XavierItzm (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Material that misrepresents sources should certainly be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The source you refer to is an editorial, which are usually not considered reliable sources for statements of fact. It is a reliable source for the opinion of that editor, but then we have to consider WP:UNDUE and it would IMO be undue to include them as no-go areas based on one editorial when the report itself doesn't call the areas that. Sjö (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What about this report where an official from Swedish police, on camera, describes some areas as: "police officers and also fire brigade, ambulance services, when they are coming to these areas they are attacked, the kids are throwing stones at them ... Let's say there are are more or less riots so that police have been attacked by youngsters (or so). Of course, there is a lot of firearms, handguns especially." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXMkcZBvq7U — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.86.125 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No. There are reliable sources that contradict the claim that there are no-go zones. The Christian Broadcasting Network is a questionable source per discussions at WP:RSN. The report mentioned in the video is the same one that prompted the discussion above and at the Reference Desk, so the video adds nothing new. Chief Inspector Lars Öjelind was interviewed when the report was released and he didn't say anything much different than he did in the video. The report itself gives no support to the idea that there are no-go zones. So, no.Sjö (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

LIike I said above, the police don't call the areas no-go zones, so it's misleading to imply that they did. Also in my recent edit, the Expressen ref "Mannen skrattar när han kastar sten" doesn't support the statement, and the areas in Tino Sanandaji's report aren't no-go areas or crime-infested areas but areas with high unemployment, low school results or low election turnout. In short, the statements I removed aren't supported by relevant sources.Sjö (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It's WP:SYNTH and thus against Wikipedia policy to imply that Sandinaji's areas are no-go zones. The NRK source as well as Sandaji's report [7] show that these areas aren't no-go zones even in the watered-down sense of this article. Sjö (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@User2534:: There is no policy that says that sourced material mustn't be removed. On the contrary, per e.g. WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH it must be removed when it gives a misleading or unbalanced representation of the topic. Like in this case. Mentioning Sandaji's areas in the context of no-go areas is misleading, since they have nothing to do with the 55 areas in the 2014 police report, and since they are not mentioned as no-go areas by any reliable source that I can find. It doesn't help that you call the 55 areas "exclusion areas", a term that none of the sources use for them, but that could reasonably be used for Sandaji's report.
User2534, if you mean that the 168 areas are no-go zones, please provide a reliable source that support that statement. As of now, the only link between the purported no-go zones and Sandaji's 186 areas is the NRK source, that first mentions Sandaji's 186 areas and then says that 55 of these 186 areas are listed by the police as particularly vulnerable neighborhoods. Note that the source doesn't say that they are no-go areas, so unless there is some other connection to the article Sandaji's report just doesn't belong in the section. I might add that the NRK source is factually incorrect on that point, since some of the areas in the police report aren't mentioned in Sandaji's report. (I only checked a couple of cities, but in Uppsala Gränby, Stenhagen, Eriksberg and Nåntuna are in the police report but not in Sandaji's and in Gothenburg the same is true for Backa and Majorna.) Sjö (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The term "exclusion areas" is a translation of the commonly used Swedish term utanförskapsområden. You may be correct however that these are used in Sanandaji's survey in a broader sense as poor employment/school areas. The 55 police areas are however listed as particularly dangerous exclusion areas were criminal gangs have a major influence, and as the NRK-source says are commonly dubbed "no-go zones" (although the term of course is not officially used). I've rewritten the paragraph a bit in an attempt to better address these issues. User2534 (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Since it's clear even from the source that the 186 areas are not no-go zones, I've removed them. Leaving them gives the impression that the areas are related. I know that the NRK source connects them, but like I said they're wrong in stating that all the areas in the police report are a subset of those in Sandaji's report. It's sloppy journalism and I'd go as far as saying that the NRK source isn't a reliable source for that statement. Sjö (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I also think that the phrase "55 particularly dangerous 'exclusion areas' " is misleading, mostly because the police report shows that not all of the areas are exclusion areas ("utsatta områden präglade av utanförskap"), see page 8 of the report that only says "several". The two sets of areas overlap, but there is also a significant number of areas that only belong to one set. Sjö (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Birmingham

The statement by the UK Prime Minister isn't meant to establish whether Birmingham is or is not in fact a no-go area. It's to indicate that use of this term was of international note. I think it does belong in the article. Perhaps this belongs in an "erroneously claimed" section?? — Brianhe (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that Steven Emerson has clearly and unambiguously retracted his ill-informed comments about Birmingham, [8] we now have no source whatsoever asserting that Birmingham is any sort of no-go area. A section with no sources is clearly undue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of RS sources all over the internet we can cite. Emerson made his stupid comment in a television interview, not in a written article. He apologized, and admitted he made a mistake. I agree with Brianhe in that it should be mentioned just like it was before you reverted it. The France comment belongs in here, too, and I'll add sources that dispute what Farage said about France having no-go areas. Atsme☯Consult 02:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Brianhe self-reverted. And I have seen no reliable source now claiming that Birmingham is any sort of no-go area. [9] As for France, please find some proper sources which actually discuss the subject in depth - basing sections on sound-bites by partisan foreign politicians is entirely inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Atsme☯Consult 02:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. I self-reverted so we could discuss instead of edit warring. The PM made the statement; it was printed in The Guardian, a reliable source. It is now noteworthy, whether or not factual. The PM of any country rebutting a claim that a part of his country is a "no-go area" is a notable use of the term and could be included in the article, IMHO. — Brianhe (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The PM made a statement that nobody apparently disagrees with - that Birmingham isn't (by any definition offered) a no-go area. Why do we need to include non-no-go areas in an article on no-go areas? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Why do we have an article on Phlogiston theory? Because misconceptions are a part of the historical record which is reported in an encyclopedia. And a misconception refuted by a head of state, about his state, is especially notable. — Brianhe (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Phlogiston theory was widely accepted amongst the scientific community, and its replacement by later explanations involving oxidisation is a significant part of the history of scientific advance. 'Man claiming to be expert says something stupid' is run of the mill news-filler, and of zero long-term historical or encyclopaedic significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Even if it rises to the PM's note? Now a probable US presidential candidate is using the term too [10]. Are you going to lobby against every notable person using the term? — Brianhe (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because the nomination is clearly being made in violation of WP:POINT. The nominator has wasted much time on a specious attempt to restrict the subject matter to a particular subset of sourced material, based on nothing but WP:OR. Having failed, the nominator has resorted to a disruptive nomination of a 9-year-old article. There clearly are issues with it - but speedy deletion isn't the way to go while we are actively discussing the matter. --AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And note that I have (since I am not the article creator, and accordingly permitted to do so) removed the specious speedy deletion template. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your removal of the template was tendentious and disruptive, especially considering the multiple reasons you gave above in support of deletion including:
  • I may well propose the article for deletion - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and unless a single source can be found to draw the existing content together, it may have to be deleted as synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Your personal opinion as to what your 'examples' illustrate or what 'up to the minute usage' may mean is of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The definition given in the lede ("A no-go area or no-go zone is a region where the ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce their sovereignty") is entirely unsourced.
  • Given that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that we cannot impose our own definition on a phrase, I have to seriously question the merits of retaining this article, if it is to become a dumping-ground for political soundbites.
  • Accordingly, I would have to suggest that unless a single reliable source can be found which gathers the disparate meanings of the phrase, and gives some sort of clear and unambiguous core definition, the article will need deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added a request for deletion, and consult you to stop the disruptive behavior and tendentious editing. Atsme☯Consult 14:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump isn't acting disruptively, but you are coming close. You have asked for speedy deletion with the explanation "no context" when this article very clearly is nowhere near that criterion, see WP:A1. There is absolutely nothing on WP:SPEEDY that says that an editor who isn't the article creator can't remove the speedy tag if he or she disagrees with the deletion request. Please note that while AndyTheGrump said that he considered proposing the article for deletion, that is a different process and doesn't justify placing a speedy tag on the page.
You also replaced a prod tag, citing as your reason a page that says the exact opposite of what you claimed. In the future, please don't refer to Wikipedia namespace pages before reading and understanding them. Sjö (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Andy used so many different reasons for deletion which I included above, that it became a little confusing as to which ones to include, so you can pin some of that confusion on him. I requested a speedy delete because the article has gone 8 years without any resolution of the issues Andy mentioned above. I would think as an admin you would find it rather odd that Andy has consistently been a proponent of deletion, and then suddenly became an opponent after I provided the RS he requested, all of which validated ubiquity of the term in relation to how it used today. Sorry if that doesn't meet with your approval, but WP is an encyclopedia, and there are going to be articles we personally don't approve of and/or disagree with on the basis of being "politically correct". Bottomline - an 8 year old article that has not satisfied any of the inline templates or the issues Andy himself has posed certainly warrants deletion according to advice I sought from other editors. I regret that you consider my actions as bordering on disruptive because that was never my intention. In fact, the discussions demonstrates my attempts to accommodate Andy's requests while his behavior demonstrates quite the opposite, including WP:OWN, and WP:DONTGETIT. Please direct further comments to the RfD. Atsme☯Consult 19:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-go area has been created on your behalf. If you intend to continue with the AfD, please add your rationale for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I already did. Thank you. Atsme☯Consult 19:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Fox News on no-go areas in Europe

Quote:

“Over the course of this last week we have made some regrettable errors on air, regarding the Muslim population in Europe, particularly with regard to England and France.
“This applies especially to discussions of so-called no-go zones, areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in, and police supposedly won’t go.
“To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country, and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.
“There are, certainly, areas of high crime in Europe, as there are in the United States and other countries, where police and visitors enter with caution.
“We deeply regret the errors and apologise to any and all who may have taken offence, including the people of France and England.”

[11] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I used to agree with what AndyTheGrump said in the Birmingham section, that we this article doesn't need to cover non-no-go areas. I light of the recent news reports I'm beginning to change my mind. Maybe there could be a section about the erroneous claims of Muslim-controlled no-go areas, and how they're based on misrepresenting official reports or entirely made up. Still, we have to consider WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. What do you think? There is a section about France now, where probably many of the sources could be useful. Sjö (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
We'd have to be wary of synthesis if doing that. We can report the specific claims, the reaction to these specific claims, and the retraction - but anything more than that becomes problematic, especially given the lack of any clear definition of what a 'no-go area' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, good because as soon as I finish another project I've been working on, I was planning to include a section highlighting Muzammil Quraishi, PhD study. Atsme☯Consult 07:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The one describing how areas around pubs in the Birmingham suburbs a town in northern England are seen as 'no-go areas' by local British Muslims, you mean? I'm not sure that per WP:WEIGHT it would be merited, but I'm glad to see you've dropped your insistence that the prime topic of this article should be 'areas that are off-limits to non-Muslims'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Has Sean Hannity acknowledged on air that he and Robert Spencer said insanities (pun intended) about France? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

We can't keep adding things to articles every time we get riled over what idiot pundits say on partisan based opinion programs. If we do, WP may need to change to a tabloid format. See WP:NPOV - Balancing aspects - An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Atsme☯Consult 01:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I have added previous allegations by public figures and government reports into no-go areas (almost only in Birmingham!) to the article, with appropriate opinions against such allegations. This encyclopedia should tell the reader that the history of such allegations against Birmingham did not start in 2015, and were by figures one would trust more than Fox News (police chief, government report) even though they are not proven true. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Surprising that nobody had mentioned the 2001 Oldham riots in Manchester before. Now added in section, with a couple of the many citations found at the other article. — Brianhe (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Number of refs in Footnote #4

Suggest trimming footnote number 4 and moving the remainder to the talk page. It looks like they were added as part of the AfD strategy to establish notability. No problem good strategy. But now it looks like NOTNEWS as they are all covering the same fairly rapid event which is now over. It's also not recommended to have super-footnotes with multiple refs so if they are to be kept they should be broken into separate refs. But I think 3 or 4 refs would cover the whole thing. And leave a comment to see the talk page for additional coverage. -- GreenC 22:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking more and more like a WP:COATRACK filled with criticisms rather than important information. Sad. Atsme☯Consult 01:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Green Cardamon. Sjö (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fox news sources

Per the emerging consensus above, the "super footnote" containing dozens of sources is trimmed down and moved to the talk page for reference. Note that super footnotes are not recommended and refs should be added individually, preferably using the cite template. Also secondary sources are preferred over primary, so when reporting on the Fox news it should be from a reliable source other than Fox News such as the Washington Post or New York Times, if possible. -- GreenC 14:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


NPOV tag

This article reflects a fundamentally racist POV and does not meet Wikipedia standards. Even though Fox News has apologized for making false claims regarding no-go zones (see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/world/europe/fox-news-apologizes-for-false-claims-of-muslim-only-areas-in-england-and-france.html ), this article is mostly a regurgitation of the false claims made by Fox News. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't suppose it's possible to mention anything on this topic by Fox News without a complaint. Considering all of the Fox News mentions are fully countered with alternative POVs (which clearly show Fox News to be full of shit), and the Fox News stuff takes up less then 1/4 of the article, it's difficult to understand the above complaint which seems like a general protest over the inclusion of the Fox News material in the article. I guess we'll have to live with POV tags because there is not way to make editors happy short of negation and removal of Fox News entirely (which is the worse kind of POV). -- GreenC 15:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Gouncbeatduke, if you think that a section is POV, then please use Template:POV-section, not Template:POV. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I have replaced the template. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Several editors added many references to the use of the term "no-go zone" by RS such as the BBC and the government of the UK across a long period. Unless people are now accusing the BBC of being racist, it is not clear why
(a) Every single entry by RS was deleted or hidden
(b) Why the excuse was WP:CHERRY/WP:UNDUE. If anything, by deleting/hiding the sections, bias is being introduced by focusing on CNN's/Fox's foibles, and ignoring well over a decade of BBC headlines about "no-go zones" in the UK, i.e., the WP:CHERRY is deleting a decade of RS citations and providing a soapbox for laser-focusing on CNN and Fox. XavierItzm (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Fow news controversy has gained much more attention than those "BBC headlines", which are not university or scholar sources. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
So you are saying that "not university or scholar sources" such as the BBC referring for well over a decade to the no-go zones in the UK need be deleted from this article,
but a "Fox controversy" with "much more attention" needs to be the focus of this article?
What highly encyclopaedic criteria are being advocated here! XavierItzm (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No. I am saying that the "BBC headlines" need be deleted. Feel free to delete the "Fox controversy" and the other crap about France. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
And to this date the BBC "no go zones" articles spanning a decade remain censored out of this article. XavierItzm (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the BBC sources I've seen don't state that there have been 'no-go zones' in the UK (excepting of course the NI examples from the 1970's). What they say is that areas have been described as no-go areas by someone or other. Which is basically the case for all the European 'no-go zones' that sources have come up with. This is unsurprising, given that 'no-go' is a vague concept, defined as meaning whatever the person using the description wants it to mean. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
"'no-go' is a vague concept, defined as meaning whatever the person using the description wants it to mean" - Agree. This is why an article on no go zones should cite relevant RS of all such types. Why do we ban actual BBC refs writing about "No Go Zones" rather than ref them and let the reader interpret? Why must the Wiki be an arbiter of meaning of the term "No Go Zones"? XavierItzm (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Jindal sorting

The § about Jindal statements is currently sorted in the France sub-section of the Allegations about Europe section. However, the only areas currently mentionned by this § are "Western countries" and "England", not France. One way to solve this sissue would be deleting the France and United Kingdom sub-sectionning of the Allegations about Europe section. Do you see other ways? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is patently absurd to have the Jindal comments under "France." As the source says, he spoke from London, England. XavierItzm (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it now. Zezen (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Bias and wrong information on the UK section

The note about United Kingdom cites a Daily Mail article from 2015. First, the article itself (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html) says it was published on January 18th, 2014. Second, the Wikipedia article makes mention only of the title of the article, "Murders and rapes going unreported in no-go zones for police as minority communities launch own justice systems", ignoring that the article clearly mentions that "‘It’s not that the police are afraid to go into these areas or don’t want to go into those areas,’ he said. ‘But if the police don’t get calls for help then, of course, they won’t know what’s going on.’", meaning it would not qualify as a No-Go zone by the definition provided by the Wikipedia article itself. Insipido (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup - though given that 'no-go zone' evidently means whatever anyone intends it to mean at the time they said it, this article shouldn't be asserting that there is such an actual thing as a no-go zone at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
This change [25] needs to be discussed. First of all it was not a clean deletion, which would have showed up in the edit logs as a significant change (instead of an addition as it now appears). Second, it removes several sources which have not been properly challenged, including the Ritchie Report. Brianhe (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
So, the article as it currently stands devotes five lines to a speech given by a US governor in London, which he defends by citing the Daily Mail article "Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html", and yet the very reference to the Daily Mail article has been edited/hidden out of view.
How is this encyclopaedic? XavierItzm (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with above. Also should the single speech by Governor Jindal be given significant weight? Perhaps more weight should be given to the Daily Mail article which the Governor was speaking of, which is directly about the subject, rather than a politicians comment about the [removed] source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have copied the Daily Mail ref. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, proponents of racist conspiracy theories should leave this talk page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
See WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, & Shooting the messenger.
This article should give due weight to verified content from reliable sources. There maybe a debate on what weight should be given to what, then we can civilly discuss this, but name calling does not help anyone, or help advance this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you feel targeted? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

2015-01 translation from french language

Brianhe added a mention of a 99 pages french-language paper. If i assume good faith, then Brianhe understand french language. He translated the title "«Les zones de non-droit» dans la République Française, mythe ou realite ?" into ""No-go areas" in France, myth or reality?" If Brianhe understand french language (still assuming good faith), then he know that "zones de non-droit" does not translate into "no-go areas". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And in this revert' comment, he write "If you are right, the title of the linked French Wikipedia article is wrong." Which "linked French Wikipedia article" is he talking about? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It used to link to fr:Zone de non-droit but you removed the Wikidata link at 22:29 today [26]. Brianhe (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed the link at 22:29 UTC. You made your comment at 22:35 UTC. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Is "vandalized wikidata link" a Wikipedia:Personal attack? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

However, maybe "lawless areas" is a better translation than "out-of-law areas". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This research shows, I think, that zone de non-droit and "no-go areas" are perfectly interchangeable. Several French language newspapers, television stations, and Internet news outlets rendered "no-go zone" as zone de non-droit. Le Monde used zones de non-droit in the headline, « no-go zones » interdites aux non-musulmans in the summary, and zones de non-droit interdites aux non-musulmans in the article body. — Brianhe (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for showing that "no-go areas" translate into "zones de non-droit interdites aux non-musulmans". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome, I guess? — Brianhe (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources offered

Rather than play back-and-forth in the article maybe we can discus using these sources here first. I've selected instances in many countries that establish the use of the term.

The New York Times

Hopefully this source won't be challenged as being partisan.

  • JIM YARDLEY (September 23, 2014), "Europe's Anti-Semitism Comes Out of the Shadows", The New York Times, An increasing number of Jews, if still relatively modest in total, are now migrating to Israel. Others describe "no go" zones in Muslim districts of many European cities where Jews dare not travel.
  • KAREEM FAHIM; MERNA THOMAS (October 29, 2014), "Egypt Flattens Neighborhoods to Create a Buffer With Gaza", The New York Times, The militants have operated mainly in Sinai, turning a stretch of towns in the north into a no-go zone for the authorities and even setting up their own checkpoints.
  • Greg Myre (December 29, 2005), "Israel calls northern Gaza area no-go zone", The New York Times, Israel declared the northernmost part of the Gaza Strip on Wednesday a no-go zone for Palestinians and bombarded it with artillery shells in an attempt to halt Palestinian rocket fire from the area.
Other American press

Some of these sources have a political point of view.

American press on Michigan no-go zones
Academic paper(s)


The last paper you cite above is interesting in that it gives yet another example of the varied meanings attached to the term ' no-go areas' - "arbitrary exclusion from the precincts of civic commercial complexes" of individuals (i.e. homeless people) seen as undesirable by the owners. Clearly the lede of our article needs expansion to include such a definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree but I'm feeling kind of "thumped" on introducing new stuff in the article itself. We are actually missing two definitions of state->individual control, I think: one is civil like this one, and one is military. The US and allied militaries used "no-go zone" a lot in Vietnam to refer both to civilians not entering operational areas (example), and to the US servicemembers themselves not being allowed in certain establishments or areas that were considered unsafe (or, according to a relative of mine, for political reasons when Jane Fonda visited Tokyo). — Brianhe (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The Vietnam example tallies with the Rhodesia one already included in the article, and to a certain extent with the Northern Ireland one - it seems to me that the term appears first to have been a military concept, and has since been broadened and/or reduced to a near-metaphor in contemporary usage, to the extent that (as I've already pointed out above) it has been used to indicate nothing more than an area where a particular individual may feel insecure. There is no shortage of sources for the latter (e.g. from the BBC series 'No go Britain?'), but I'm wary of making the article a dumping-ground for anything and everything that someone has at one time or another described as a 'no-go area' - we really need some sort of sourced definition for the concept in general (if there is one), as otherwise, this article is going to have endemic POV problems. In particular, the article is going to be prone to systematic bias in that few sources are going to state that 'X is not a no-go area' - firstly, because unless someone has already suggested that it is, there is no reason to, and secondly because since there is no agreed definition, a categorical negative is impossible anyway. And to be honest, I can't see a way around that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Your last point is dead on – there's going to be friction between editors here as long as we don't even understand what is being written about. Is the article about a linguistic term that may or not have real-world referents? Is it the term as it has been applied by notable people in 2015? Is it about documenting real-world no-go areas? Obviously some kind of analysis is called for, so a random quotefarm isn't going to cut it. When approaching this, I think we should remain mindful of what Wikipedia readers will expect here and why they're visiting this article hundreds or thousands of times a day now, versus less than 100 every day of December: balanced but realistic treatment, honoring published sources even if they reveal some speakers' inaccurate or biased remarks. WP:NOTTRUTH suggests that this is the right course. — Brianhe (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the pre-2015 France information relevant?

Should the "Allegations about Europe" section contain background information on the use of the term "no-go zones" and/or "zone de non-droit" in 2002, 2005 and 2012, as removed by this edit? — Brianhe (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Revert removal, content removed met verified by at least one reliable source, and was neutrally worded. Wikipedia is not censored, nor is it a place to a soup box to advance an agenda. There is a debate for whether such statements are given undue weight, but the content wasn't extremely lengthy, in and of their individual sentences, nor did it not in a neutral style accurately state was written in the source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Revert is my recommendation in accordance with the above. If there's no more input on this, the edit will be reverted per consensus. — Brianhe (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. An RfC is expected to run for around a month, and should then be closed by an uninvolved person. Not two days, followed by closure by the person starting it. And frankly, waiting for a few weeks before making drastic changes would do this article a whole lot of good - there has been far too much hurry to spin it to suit immediate political perspectives, and little regard for long-term encyclopaedic content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No revert - The RfC is worded such that a restoration of this material will be very hard to trim etc.. due to subsequent claims of "consensus". I could see see some of it restored but it's fairly lengthy and unclear what the point of listing every time someone uses the term. I don't support a "revert". But I might support adding some of it using normal editing procedures. It shouldn't be all locked out. -- GreenC 03:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No revert Summoned by bot - Passing mentions of the term "no-go area" for political reasons does not warrant a mention in the article. If there is material supported by multiple sources, it could be restored. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Revert removal, content comes from RS and it is not clear to me how anyone can justify censoring content they just happen to not like, as it is being done here. XavierItzm (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • comment: The "zone de non-droit" are out-of-scope of this Wikipedia article. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Revert removal, content removed met verified by at least one reliable source, and was neutrally worded. Wikipedia is not censored, nor is it a place to a soup box to advance an agenda. There is a debate for whether such statements are given undue weight, but the content wasn't extremely lengthy, in and of their individual sentences, nor did it not in a neutral style accurately state was written in the source. It is absurd to pretend at this late stage that "zone de non-droit" are out-of-scope, when there was consensus in earlier Talk that the French "zone de non-droit" means no-go zone in this context. XavierItzm (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    There is no such consensus currently. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Section on criticism of use of the term

Section "Criticism of use of the term" created; four sources that say it is a myth or wrong; two that defend it either strongly or somewhat. This is, I hope, a balanced treatment of both sides, and we can discuss it here instead of another wholesale reversion. — Brianhe (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: The Commentary source doesn't support the statement "stating that the use of the term stemmed from a 2007 New York Times Magazine article". The referenced article must be this one. There's a link to the New York Times article, but it doesn't use the term "no-go" anything. The Commentary article doesn't say that NYT used the term, so as long as we're discussing the term and not the existence or non-existence of no-go areas I don't see how it belongs here.Sjö (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll wait to see how others evaluate that. Meantime, here is a NYT 1/19 piece with some more explicit discussion of the first use of the term: [27]. According to this, it goes back to a 2006 Daniel Pipes blog post. Brianhe (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
See also Theodore Dalrymple, The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris, City journal, Autumn 2002. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, here we go again. Can you explain why you did this [28]? Your edit summary doesn't parse. — Brianhe (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Why did you link this and not that? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
See also [29] [30] [31]. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The term has been used for a very long time in a military and paramilitary context, and it wouldn't surprise me to find examples of favelas called no-go areas in the 1990s. Dictionary.com says about "no-go" that the sense sense "where it is forbidden to go," is from 1971. Sjö (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, according to media coverage, scientific litterature, WP:NPoV, WP:UNDUE, Template:Globalize/US, #Fox news sources, [32], I think that "four sources that say it is a myth or wrong; two that defend it either strongly or somewhat" is not balanced. forty sources that say it is a myth or wrong; two that defend it either strongly or somewhat, would be better. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Never have seen someone propose a 20:1 favoring of sources on one side of a debate before in an WP:NPOV discussion. Is this to be taken seriously? — Brianhe (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I am very serious. Several "conservative" (and far-right by France standard) US peoples and US organizations made the claim many time last 10 years, a few mainstream US medias made the claim several time en passant, and the rest of the world, including governements and scholars, don't care about this crap, until January 2015 when dozens of French medias mocked the claim, some French officials denied it, and Fox News apologized. WP:UNDUE say currently

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. [...] Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

So yes, a 20:1 ratio would be better. And as I wrote previously, I think that proponents of racist conspiracy theories should leave this talk page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's the problem with your citation of WP:UNDUE policy. How can anyone establish the weight in the sources when you are deleting all the sources on one side of the argument? You say you're interested in following policies, but in fact the opposite is happening on several counts. Let me describe some real cherry picking for you. It's taking a point of view that you prefer, single-handedly labeling challenging views on this page as "racist" and all opposing points of view in the media as "fringe" or "far right"[33][34] and then using your own determination as a justification to repeatedly delete what you deem as such, while consensus has not been reached.[35][36][37][38] You have not only deleted the references (both pro and con, including Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities), but even a mere mention that other references exist, reducing one sentence to "Governor Jindal's office issued on January 20 a press release."[39] It is not neutral; this is naked censorship of the mere existence of an issue.
The nearly identical pattern of deleting contrary points of view as "unreliable" or "out of scope", if you bother to leave any explanation at all, at related topics like Former Muslims United, Charlie Hebdo shooting, Islam in France, Eurabia, and Counterjihad is troubling. [40][41][42][43][44][45] This gives every appearance of WP:ADVOCACY, WP:OWN and WP:SPA behavior across the board, which is unacceptable.
Even if VFP doesn't agree to get along here, but I do hope that other editors see this behavior for what it is, and respond appropriately. — Brianhe (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Brianhe and support his position in this. VFP is violating NPOV by trying to keep out valid secondary sources. Let's have some real balance in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
"real balance"??? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Balance is indeed what is missing. I've travelled extensively in Europe and much less in the USA. The only time I've ever been warned off a "no-go area" was when on a visit to the States. See [46], [47], [48]. Tourist literature has lots of warnings about them in cities in the \USA, but presumably that doesn't count as WP:RS. See NY. I'm not saying that all the examples I've just given are well-founded, but the article's current focus on Europe is very wrong and reflects bias on the part of the editors who are keeping it that way. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You are empowered to correct under-reporting. I will add a couple of suggestions from a quick search on the U.S. to my "sources offered" above. — Brianhe (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

2015-02 unreliable source

The article by Soeren Kern, "European 'No-Go' Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 1: France", 2015-01-20, Gatestone Institute, is an unreliable source. It is field research Internet research, cherry picking, mistranslation, misattribution. It is from the same author alleging [49] [50] [51] that the 751 Sensitive urban zone are officially no-go zones, "over which the French state has lost control", "governed by Islamic Sharia law". And of course, no in-field reliable source support or praise it (as far as I know, Bobby Jindal and Robert Spencer are not scholar working on France urban areas). Please do not quote, plagiarise or link it in the Wikipedia article anymore. Thank you. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 February 2015

How does what you say above justify massive deletion of reliable sources once again[52], including Le Figaro, Europe1, Radio Télévision Suisse, and L'Obs? You are displaying a flagrant disregard for the WP process of collaboration, especially considering your awareness of the ongoing discussion here. Also, the term "plagiarize" is pretty serious, you should know what it means before using it wrt other editors. — Brianhe (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Please. It is not L'Obs, but Rue89. How many time should I write that Soeren Kern's articles are not reliable? Do NOT trust them. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The Gatestone Institute appears to be an unreliable source. It has been discussed on WP:RSN, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_142#Quality_of_sources. I stumbled on an article describing Sweden as being close to becoming a failed state written by two persons that started Dispatch International, a web magazine described by Expo (magazine) as racist and a part of the counterjihad movement. This suggest a that they go for far-fetched interpretations and that they have a strong anti-muslim bias. I wouldn't use it as a source on Islam or Europe, except as a source for its own opinions, but even then we would have to consider WP:DUE. Sjö (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as a small note, Rue89 is owned by, and co-branded with, L'Obs, so I wouldn't call that a major error. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
A few comments:
  • It is still an error.
  • Such confusing Courrier International ("owned by, and co-branded with") and Le Monde.
  • I corrected the article on 2015-02-01 at 20:00 UTC, Brianhe wrote his comment above on 2015-02-03 at 03:09 UTC, more than 1 day after.
  • Soeren Kern made the error.
  • You made the error when you plagiarised copy-pasted added the mention in the Wikipedia article.
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the version I just reverted includes exactly the same sources that appear in a few paragraphs of Kerns Gatestone article, with very similar wording and with only minor changes in the order. This is close to WP:COPYVIO, but what is more, Kern uses these sources selectively, translates them tendentiously, and places them in a misleading context. We should not follow his errors. Seriously: How many editors who support this this segment even know enough French to verify the claims made? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a textbook case of guilt by association. In theory, it shouldn't matter if a reference was discovered by, I don't know, a three-toed sloth wearing a swastika. If the reference is valid and helps the article, it should stay in. As for the French (and other sources in German) - references from other languages are hardly unique to this article, and there are a variety of pretty good translation tools online to make them legible to those who can't speak the languages. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
In theory, theory and practice should agree. My French is marginal. I used Google Translate to check out some of the sources (BTW, one is a video - good luck with online translators there), and as far as I can tell this is a typical case of dragnetting a few unrelated incidents to create a misleading assumption of a common theme. The articles don't use the term "no-go zones", they don't claim the various cases are at all related to any religion, and they don't even claim its a systematic phenomenon. Of course a country like France has some darker corners where crime is higher than desirable, and of course the press will report on them. But a bad area in France is still safer on average than a middling area in Miami, at least according to my admittedly anecdotal experience. Kern has a narrative to sell and he syntheses it from a few press snippets. That is not atypical for a think tank which tries to please its audience, but its not something we should follow. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That's fine that those sources aren't trying to claim that it's a systematic phenomenon - neither is this article. The title of the article is "no-go area", and, to summarize, it's about areas that are considered off-limits to either certain citizens, or law enforcement, or both. These (notable) sources make the claim - in so many words - that certain areas in Europe fit that description. Therefore it seems very relevant to this article to include them. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Korny is right. If Gatestone concatenated several factoids into one report, it doesn't prohibit us from reporting the same factoids. E.g. "mayor of Amiens said ..." is in the Gatestone institute piece, is also in Europe1 Television. Even if you don't like Gatestone or its writer as a source, Europe1 is fairly impeccable so there's no reason to be prejudiced against it. At least, nobody has enunciated such as reason. Ditto for Radio Télévision Suisse and the others that were deleted. As for the claim "they don't use the term 'no-go zones'" I've addressed this above where Le Monde has given us strong reasons to treat zone de non-droit as equivalent in this context. Finally I'm completely at a loss as to how to respond to your anecdote about Miami. Let's stick to the sources. — Brianhe (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
One more point regarding the latest removal of the same sources, now with the objection of SYN having been committed. Please read WP:SYNNOT and especially the sentence "If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH." Before removing these sources, please show how original research is being committed by using them. I fail to see this in straight-up reporting of what newspapers and television stations say local leaders/law enforcment are saying about their own areas, for example this: "This echoed a description of Roubaix by French magazine Rue89, which wrote that the police no longer attempted to stop violence there." I just don't see OR or any editorial coloring at all. — Brianhe (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (emphasis mine). The Wikipedia text was (in all likelihood) copied from Kern's article at Gatestone here, which was published on January 20th. The first time that material came into our article was here, on February 1st, partially just copying stuff from Kern, and also adding him as a reference directly. So User: Korny O'Near definitely knew of the Gatestone article when (s)he added these sources, and I find it very implausible to assume that (s)he assembled, by accident, the same sources in nearly the same words by independent research. Indeed, (s)he at least seem to suggest that (s)he only looked at the original sources through Google Translate (or similar), if at all. What we have is Kern, an unreliable and biased source, assembling a set of unrelated articles into his narrative - clear OR. Of course Kern is allowed to do the OR for his "think tank" political rationalisation. But there is general consensus that Kern is unreliable (or at least nobody so far has argued otherwise). So the whole reason to consider these largely unrelated tales of different urban problem zones part of one narrative breaks away. Letting it standing is substituting Kern's OR with our own. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The article section is not implying anything. It lists some notable cases of people describing areas within Europe as "no-go areas". In your opinion, would an article called "No-go area" be improved if it had fewer listings of people referring to no-go areas? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
You fail to answer Stephan Schulz arguments. And no, the deleted material (exept Kern's) do not "lists some notable cases of people describing areas within Europe as "no-go areas"". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I feel like I already answered them, but, in short: information that's notable and relevant is notable and relevant, regardless of any context. As to whether these descriptions match the definition of a "no-go area", that's the sort of argument-on-the-merits that should have taken place from the beginning, instead of all this pointless stuff about think tanks. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The characterization of Korny's contribution as "copying" is bogus. I'd be happy to post an analysis of the Gatestone piece and his contribution, but I think it suffices to say at worst he condensed a 391 word passage to 134 words, selecting a couple of the same salient statements from first-hand observers. Accusing good-faith editors of copying or plagiarism does not belong here, and he deserves an apology for this language. You are setting a double standard: first, contributors are criticized for talking about what overseas observers are saying. Second, you have asked for introduction of on-point sources about the topic of this article, which is loss of civil control over an area or territory: in a direct quote from the deleted material, where "the authority of the state is completely absent". Now when contributors bring forth these sources, they get harangued. The dismissive edit summary "not notable", that you used when deleting them, is completely unsubstantiated and flies in the face of the very fact that we're debating secondary sources that are talking about these issues. — Brianhe (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

term translation

« As for the claim "they don't use the term 'no-go zones'" I've addressed this above where Le Monde has given us strong reasons to treat zone de non-droit as equivalent in this context. » →‎ No you have not. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

« it's about areas that are considered off-limits to either certain citizens, or law enforcement » →‎ It is about areas that are off-limits to non-muslims. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

original research

«  I fail to see this in straight-up reporting of what newspapers and television stations say local leaders/law enforcment are saying about their own areas, for example this: "This echoed a description of Roubaix by French magazine Rue89, which wrote that the police no longer attempted to stop violence there." I just don't see OR or any editorial coloring at all. » →‎ Tips: do you see "no-go area" in "This echoed a description of Roubaix by French magazine Rue89, which wrote that the police no longer attempted to stop violence there." ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I do, yes. It fits the definition offered in the first sentence of this article: an area "barricaded off to civil authorities". I assume everyone would agree that the "barricades" here can be figurative, as opposed to literal. Perhaps the introduction should be clearer with the definition, though, and should offer more citations. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
"figurative" can mean anything, like policmen who are "barricaded" from founding the driver guilty of a car accident because he left without evidence, or the french policemen "barricaded" from entering the Paris ambassadies. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with that, but if you think so, then probably it's best to modify the introduction; it's hard to have a discussion about no-go areas when there's no clear definition of what they are. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how modifying the introduction of the "No-go area" Wikipedia article would change my understanding of "figurative". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's your understanding of "barricaded" that's off - it's not a synonym for "prevented". Anyway, the definition in the introduction could be quite a bit more precise. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

precedence

« Your edit summary, if I understood it correctly, said the deleted material copied Gatestone ("copied from the unreliable Gatestone report"), but in fact they were published earlier. » & « The deleted sources were published in 2010, 2012 and 2014, predating Gatestone. » →‎ Those materials were added, copied, plagiarised, copy-pasted, inspired by, very similar, or whatever word you want to use, by 643860529 and 645068115, after 2015-01-20. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil. Would you refer to all research as plagiarism, or just the kind you disagree with? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand those 2 sentences. What do you mean and what are you talking about? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that you shouldn't have included "plagiarised" or "copy-pasted" in there, because it means that you're pointlessly accusing me and someone else of those things. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, this sentence make more sens. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Are the editors who would like to include more material here, trying to make a general point about anything that could be summarized? For example: "Many so-called no-go areas were mentioned by various leaders, writers and academics in Europe during the period 2010-2015 including but not limited to example 1 and example 2." Then if there is something to say regarding the historical context and/or analysis of these statements there is room to speak of them as a group and phenomenon. Which is more relevant than saying "So and so used the word no-go in 2010" which comes across as POV (weight, sourcing, etc). -- GreenC 15:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that there are plenty of sources using the term 'no-go areas', but precious few even defining it as a term, never mind providing a context or historical analysis. Probably because the majority of recent sources are using it to project a particular POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not against shortening the France- and Germany-related content, although it's not really that long to start with, especially given that this is in fact the subject of this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me there are some prerequisite questions that must have consensus answers before moving foward constructively. 1) Are 21st century European no-go zones a fringe theory? 2) Should they be discussed at all? 3) Is there a correct ratio of sources claiming or refuting their existence? 4) What are the characteristics of sources that should be allowed or excluded? Once these are settled maybe we can work on a new lede and article outline on a subpage. — Brianhe (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
" this is in fact the subject of this article"? No it isn't. Not if we are to give proper encyclopaedic coverage of the topic as a whole - which includes much more significant events than the latest round of ill-informed propagandising. In Northern Ireland for instance there were long-lived no-go areas, complete with barricades and armed patrols, recognised (de facto if not de jure) by the British state as beyond their control. Not even the most rabid pusher of the current claims about Europe has suggested that anything remotely on that scale has been occurring.
As for whether this is a 'fringe theory', I'd say no - because there is no theory at all to speak of, just vague assertions about usually unnamed areas being somehow or other under somebody other's control or influence to some extent or other. In the context of the current claims, 'no-go area' is little more than a term of abuse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Would you consider the mayor of Amiens, France calling part of his city a no-go zone to be "a term of abuse"? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I would not consider this as "a term of abuse". Of course, since the mayor of Amiens did not call part of his city a no-go zone, then it is a thought experiment only. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"Many so-called no-go areas were mentioned by various leaders, writers and academics in Europe during the period 2010-2015 including but not limited to example 1 and example 2." →‎ Mentionned about what? Open a new store? Eat a porridge? Broke a window? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Mentioned about existing, presumably. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you mate. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
GreenC, why should it be added in the article that many areas that have been called "no-go zones" by some people "were mentioned by various leaders, writers and academics in Europe during the period 2010-2015"? Should it be added that Javel, Bercy and Paddington Waterside areas "were mentioned by various leaders, writers and academics in Europe during the period 2010-2015"? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It is absurd how the RS are being censored on this article. A certain user has repeatedly deleted RS from Le Figaro, Europe 1, and Radio Télévision Suisse. Pathetic. XavierItzm (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you talking about
  1. this source
  2. this source
  3. this source
? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

New 2015-02-06 source

Exerpt from Douglas Murray, More On "No-Go Zones": Displacing What Is Disagreeable, 2015-02-06, Gatestone Institute:

None of these areas is a place where non-Muslims are "forbidden" to go.

I guess that the quotation mark mean that the author refer to both literal and figurative meaninig of "forbidden". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Section rename request

The section titled "Further reading" should be "See also". It consists of internal wikilinks, not formatted external references. Also, the link to a disambiguation page should be deleted per WP:SEEALSO. — Brianhe (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Brianhe: Partly done: That would have created two "See also" sections, one each side of the "References" section; so I've moved one entry to the existing "See also" section, and removed the remainder. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"An early usage of the term"

Can I suggest that people actually take the time to read articles before contributing to them? We have an assertion about "An early usage of the term" no-go area in Europe dating to 2002. The section above explicitly describes no-go areas in Northern Ireland in the 1970's. And as far as I'm aware, the disputes behind The Troubles don't extend to whether the six counties are in Europe or not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It should probably say "continental Europe". Brianhe (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The issue here is that there have been massive deletions of all the early mentions of the term "no-go zone" by the BBC and others, such as:
* "no-go areas" (BBC, 25 April, 2001), [1]
* "More than 400 'no-go' areas for Scottish ambulance staff", (BBC, 9 May 2012)[2]
* "no-go areas for people of a different faith or race" (BBC, 6 January 2008).[3]
* "'no-go-areas'" (The Ritchie Report, December 2001), [4]
* ""no go" zones" (The Birmingham Mail, 29 Feb 2012)[5]
Incredibly, all of these and many more were censored out by one single user several times, resulting in the general confusion and lack of sources now present in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1296007.stm
  2. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-18003891
  3. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7173599.stm
  4. ^ http://resources.cohesioninstitute.org.uk/Publications/Documents/Document/Default.aspx?recordId=97
  5. ^ http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/storm-as-un-chief-says-birmingham-180028
If you wish to propose specific text, based on particular sources, do so - in a new thread. Repeatedly spamming this talk page with complaints about 'censorship' is entirely unhelpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The specific text proposed is to cite the various RS under "UK No Go Zones", the way it was before these were censored out. XavierItzm (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit request

I think we have consensus for the following change, then Xavier's additional changes can be discussed? Request inserting the word "continental" at No-go area#Alleged modern no-go areas thus: "An early usage of the term regarding continental Europe was in a 2002 opinion piece..." Brianhe (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I have yet to see a source that states that this is 'early usage', and frankly doubt that one will be found. It is a simple fact that it was in common usage in relation to Northern Ireland long before, and why would anyone be interested in making specific assertions regarding its usage in relation to 'continental Europe' anyway? If the article is correct, and usage in reference to Rhodesia pre-dates the Northern Ireland example, whether it was first used in relation to say France in 2002 or whatever is even less significant.
And as for XavierItzm's attempts to drag this thread off-topic, I see no reason why we should even discuss the matter until we are at least provided with a diff of the disputed text - preferably in a thread where we aren't discussing something else entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright. I'll simply restore the content that was deleted before, so AndyTheGrump can see what it was (since apparently some can't be bothered to look at the citations, or to follow the history of the article), and we'll see if these get censored out again. XavierItzm (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Heh. I guess it'll have to be once the article gets unfrozen from its currently distorted form! Although it does say "indefinite," so maybe people do want to keep it that way. Whatever. XavierItzm (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

6 months later

Please change the ampersand in the section heading "France & United Kingdom" to the word "and". Thank you. Huw Powell (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection

This article was protected on 2015 02 07, and since then there has only been one edit two days later.

Surely by now it could at least be dropped to semi-protected?

I find it rather interesting that the article on "no-go area" is itself a no-go area. Huw Powell (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, it's done! Thus ends six months of pointless protection. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian favelas

These are classic unambiguous no-go areas. Police are regularly shot and killed when attempting to enter neighborhoods which are off limits to authorities. Should be no problem finding lots of sources calling favelas no-go areas. -- GreenC 15:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of this article is bogus. Delete or revise

I propose that there be two tests for the validity of a source document that says there is a no-go zone. First, there must be actual evidence presented that local police, firemen, or ambulances will not enter the area at night. Second, the location must be described exactly. Not "a part of the city", but a region bounded by specific streets. If the source is not willing to specify the area, it probably does not exist. I urge a rewrite of this page using this tighter definition. Be especially skeptical of assertions of no-go areas in France, the UK, Denmark, and the US. User: GoodExplainer

Yeah so most of this article is completely inaccurate. A lot of unreliable sources are being used, and some of the sources used does not back up the article at all. For instance, there is absolutely nothing in the sources used for the Denmark section that backs up the article; First of all, the no go zones mentioned in the sources are zones imposed on the public by the Police, NOT the other way around. Second, what this article calls ethnic cleansing is actually just burglaries. That's a major stretch.

The article is littered with stuff like this. The Sweden part is also highly inaccurate, and probably all of the other sections as well.

I call for deletion or a full, thorough cleanup.

Espenhs (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's funny. Every time no-go areas are in the news, this article becomes a battle ground for a couple weeks then dies down again. It has been edited by 100s of different people, yet there always suspicion that the article is the result of a couple biased editors and yes, I will be the one who sets things straight! -- GreenC 17:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
There are some good elements in this article. For example, FATA in Pakistan has been decreed - by Pakistani law, and possibly constitution - to be outside the jurisdiction in many matters. So that's an interesting thing for us to talk about.
But the part about Stephen Emerson being an "idiot", that's really more a statement on him than the idea of "no-go" zone.VR talk 07:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
A comment. The sovereign authority of the state of Pakistan *formally* applied to FATA, whereas in practice it did not. The legal status of an area has absolutely no bearing on whether it's a no-go zone or not. It's by definition illegal, or outside the force of law. A no-go zone is a *tactical* concept, which makes it by definition fleeting and subject to change at any moment. There can't be a formal list of no-go zones for the simple reason that very few governments would admit to losing control of their own claimed territory. Even a front line in a war is better defined than a no-go zone, which the imaginary area defined by the reluctance of a commander to commit resources to it. --vuo (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Denmark

User Brianhe has reversed changes with the following reason: "racism out there, where we find that more and more Danes are chased out of the area". This author argues that the sources are misintepreted and assume that this is not in bad faith. As this section stands, it misrepresents the current situation.

Problem 1. Currently the article reads: "According to Funen police, the burglaries committed in the Vollsmose disctrict follow patterns of ethnic cleansing against native Danes." In the cited source (http://www.bt.dk/krimi/danskere-udsaettes-for-indbruds-hetz-i-vollsmose) the Funen Police do not use the term "ethnic cleansing". While the use of this term may be argued following the definition "Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous. The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as mass murder and genocidal rape." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing) Discrimination in victims of theft is not included. Further, what the Funen police argue is not that ethnic cleansing is taking place, but offenders discriminating in choice of victims. As the article currently stands it misrepresents the statements made by an official authority.

Problem 2: The article currently reads: "Danes from other parts of the country are stabbed just for walking into the ghetto zone." (http://www.b.dk/nationalt/politiet-dropper-zoneforbud-i-ghettoer). This is not correct. The "Zoneforbud" roughly translates to "forbidden zone". However, this is a policy intended to mitigate fear of crime by banning offenders from certain zones (e.g. dealers from squares where drugs are dealt). The article does not mention stabbing discriminated stabbings. As the article stands, the citation is not only a misrepresentation but easily falsifiable by reading the article in question.

Earlier in the article no-go zones are defined as such: "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 been used to refer to regions or places that are off-limits to everyone but a particular group, or which some people feel at risk visiting,[citation needed] for whatever reason. It has also been used to refer to areas undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty.[2]"

In the cited sources there is perhaps evidence of discrimination in victims of crime by offender, but this is not backed up by any scientific sources (e.g. controlling for different ethnicities or even the ratio thereof). In the sources there are no references to paramilitary forces or loss of sovereignty. Therefore, based on the above, there is no grounds for including Denmark in the article unless the sources can justify these.

Arhmayn (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Arhmayn with respect I think your statements above aren't persuasive. For problem 1, it seems like you are arguing against the use of "ethnic cleansing"; fine, what should it say? We don't just strike entire sourced sections for problems with word choice. For problem 2, you're asking for scientific controlled studies? This is highly unusual on Wikipedia for topics outside of medicine (WP:MEDRS). Recitation of well-sourced facts from reliable sources is appropriate and allowed in this case. The problem would be if they were given undue weight which isn't the case here. - Brianhe (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


Brianhe, thank you for discussing this with me.
The sentence "According to Funen police, the burglaries committed in the Vollsmose disctrict follow patterns of ethnic cleansing against native Danes." is incorrect. The Funen police do not use the term ethnic cleansing in the cited source. Burglaries may be overwhelmingly targeting ethnic danes, but in the source "ethnic cleansing" is not mentioned. The sentence therefore misrepresents the statements made by the Funen police as if the situation is one of ongoing ethnic cleansing. It could be rephrased as such: "According to Funen police, the burglaries committed in the Vollsmose disctrict predominantly target native Danes."
As argued earlier, the sentence "Danes from other parts of the country are stabbed just for walking into the ghetto zone." is also incorrect. The source for this claim is an article in which this is not expressed. In fact, the article is on an entirely different subject.
Neither of the cited sources support the claim that Vollsmose or any other area in Denmark is a No-go zone and the section should either be revised with new sources or removed.

Arhmayn (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_de_non-droit --Japarthur (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Added it to the interwiki links. I had to merge two items in Wikidata to do it. Sjö (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
And it was removed because the French article is only about the "lawless area" meaning. Sjö (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Insertion of video clip

I have removed an IP editor's re-insertion of links to Horowitz's YouTube video. I'm not sure if this should be presented at all, but if we do include it we certainly cannot present it uncritically and devoid of context, i.e.:

--Neutralitytalk 05:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought YouTube videos are not considered WP:RS. // Liftarn (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Not true - this is a clip from the Fox Business channel, from the official Fox Business account on YouTube. It is completely reliable.
Also, note that the current sentence in the article is not really about Horowitz's documentary - it is just about his claim that, while while working on his documentary, he was assaulted in Rinkeby. I don't think anyone is disputing that particular claim. Perhaps, though, the section about Horowitz should be expanded, given that his documentary (and a subsequent botched reference to it by Donald Trump) have ignited the latest salvo in the "no-go zones" debate. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Considering he is not a very trustworthy person I would say that anything he claims should need independent verification. // Liftarn (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
That's strictly your opinion. But more context and commentary is always good. (Well, within reason - really, there should probably be an article on Horowitz's Sweden documentary, which is called Stockholm Syndrome, with all the back-and-forth commentary about the documentary there.) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually that seem to be the general opinion. In any case, he's a primary source and can not be used directly per WP:PRIMARY. // Liftarn (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
This is probably irrelevant now, given recent changes to the text, but the guideline doesn't say that primary sources can't be used, just that they should be used "with care". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting... The Local: Rinkeby teens say Russian TV crew tried to bribe them // Liftarn (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Alleged attack on Australia's 60 Minutes

In this the word "alleged" was removed that was added due to WP:PRIMARY. There are those who claim the incident was staged. In the same edit the info of what type of activist they got their info was somehow lost. // Liftarn (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ami Horowitz and "Stockholm Syndrome"

There's now a paragraph in this article about Ami Horowitz and his 10-minute documentary Stockholm Syndrome. It's relevant because in the film he states that there are no-go zones in Sweden where police don't enter, and in an interview, two policemen seem to agree with him. The relevant section can be found here. (One police officer states, "If the police is chasing another car, for some kind of crime, if they reach what we call 'no-go areas', the police won't go after it." That part doesn't seem like it was taken out of context to me, but that's just my view.) The documentary has attracted all sorts of responses, and so has Trump's subsequent assertion that Sweden has an immigration problem - but let's not forget that this article is strictly about no-go areas, not about immigration or crime as a whole. No-go areas are a fairly small part of the documentary, and Trump didn't mention them at all - and it's not clear that the police officers who complained about being misquoted were talking about that part specifically. So there's no need for the article to get into lots of detail about people arguing about Trump, Sweden and this documentary; it's mostly not relevant. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the last sentence for the same reason. It's unclear to me whether the WSJ op-ed from two Swedish opposition MPs mentions/focuses on the so-called "zones"; it seems like it is an attack more broadly on Swedish immigration/refugee policy, which is indeed out of the scope of this article. (I don't have access to the full text of the WSJ at the moment). The very contentious op-ed is by Åkesson and Karlsson, two members of a Swedish opposition party (a fairly far-right one, at that). There's no reason to think these two politicians have any special access to data or expertise in statistics or criminology. I would only mentioning the op-ed if we also include the government's direct response to the op-ed. I think otherwise we have a weight issue. Neutralitytalk 23:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Paulina Neuding interview with head of Swedish ambulance drivers' union

Earlier this week a video was uploaded to YouTube of Swedish journalist Paulina Neuding interviewing Gordon Grattidge, the head of the Swedish ambulance drivers' union, who states that Sweden does in fact have no-go zones, at least for medical personnel. She's a notable journalist, at least on the Swedish Wikipedia, and the interview has been reported on by notable sources like the Weekly Standard and Daily Express, but it's not clear who produced the interview - maybe the Swedish think tank Det Goda Samhället, or maybe they're just the ones who uploaded it. The question is, does it matter, for the sake of notability, who produced the interview? Or does the fact that it's a notable journalist and that it has gotten notable media coverage enough? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the fact that it is a notable journalist who interviews an extremely reliable authority on the subject is more than sufficient for this to qualify as a mention.
I am uncertain if "Det Goda Samhället" were the ones producing the video, or simply the only ones who accepted it, as most mainstream Swedish media tends to censor facts regarding crime and religious extremism related to immigration. David A (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The reliability of a source is sometimes grey. There is no clear publisher it is essentially self-published, which is not automatic exclusion. It was reported in other sources is telling us the interview may be important, though unclear how reliable Weekly Standard and Express are. It might be we report on those sources rather than the interview directly. Worth checking Google Translate for other languages, particularly French, German and Dutch news sources .-- GreenC 06:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Here are the sources that turn up in a Google news search for the past week: https://www.google.se/search?q=%22gordon+grattidge%22&client=firefox-b&biw=800&bih=1148&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuueO16LnSAhXBDywKHY1SCkw4ChCnBQgW&dpr=2
Here is a new The Weekly Standard article by Paulina Neuding about the interview: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-truth-about-sweden/article/2007071 David A (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
This story looks like Fringe. The Weekly Standard and a couple other tabloid newspapers have been the only ones to pick this up. RS are places like wire services (AP, Reuters, AFP..) These tabloids, many of them with racist, anti-immigrant agendas who have been searching around desperately ever since Trump's last night in Sweden comments for any evidence that Sweden, one of Europe's safest and most well off countries is crumbling into chaos. If anything this needs a serious RS before it gets put into an encyclopedia reference. Certainly the weight of the Swedish Government against an ambulance driver should not be equally authoritative.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
There are lots of reliable sources besides wire services. And the Swedish government may have biases of its own - in her Weekly Standard article, Paulina Neuding writes that, though the government collects statistics all the time, it has not released a study on immigrant crime since 2005. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
In fact, living in Sweden myself, there are frequent reports in certain regular newspapers, such as Expressen and Göteborgsposten, about police officers, ambulance drivers, and firemen being violently attacked by stone-throwing mobs in the immigrant-heavy suburbs, who also recurrently set several cars on fire. I strongly dislike Trump myself, but this is not myth, it is reality. Our current government shows far more concern about Sweden's public image, than they do about actually solving our ever increasing social problems.
Among others, both the newspapers that I mentioned have attempted to convince our politicans to let BRÅ do another official study about immigrant crime, but most of our parties remain adamant in hiding the truth. David A (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is NOT an article about immigrant crime in Sweden. Whether the Swedish government has good stats on immigrant crime has nothing to do with no-go zones. This article is about something called a "no-go area." The fact is that it's Fringe to try to push this POV that Sweden has "No-go areas." IT DOESN'T. That's a fact supported by statements from the government. If a couple of people, even Swedes are scared to go there and even if they decide to adopt language and call these places "Little Sadr City" or a "no-go area" that doesn't actually make them "sites of insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty." This content does not belong on this page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Sweden very much does have areas which rescue workers cannot enter without police protection. This is a fact that is regularly reported in parts of the Swedish press. If our government claims othervise, they seem to be lying. Of course, whether or not that qualifies as a "no go zone" depends on subjective interpretation, but as long as what the union head intended is clarified, it is certainly relevant information. David A (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A quote from an ambulance drivers union is not a reliable source for a "no-go zone." If an American union leader said that Mexicans were murders and rapists doesn't mean he's correct and certainly we as editors would not consider his statement worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. He is not a RS. Find a RS that says there are "no-go zones" in Sweden and then Sweden can be included on this page. Until then these are Fringe theories.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Paulina Neuding, The Weekly Standard and the Daily Express all fit the criteria listed at Wikipedia:RS. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the head of the ambulance drivers' union is certainly qualified to evaluate his members' working conditions. Also, Sweden and the US have vastly different demographics and problems. It is not useful to wantonly mix up the two. David A (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Sweden is not experiencing an armed insurgency with entire sections of the country being declared no-go areas by the government. That's what a no-go area is and Sweden doesn't have any. Case closed. And tabloids are not RS.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
In the sense of civil war, no obviously not. In the sense of rescue workers and police officers being systematically violently attacked by large stone-throwing mobs of criminals, yes definitely. Attempting to hide valid information goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. David A (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"an armed insurgency with entire sections of the country being declared no-go areas by the government" — What is the basis for insisting on this absurdly restrictive definition? It seems to deviate noticeably from the ordinary usage of the term, and it doesn't seem to be supported by sourcing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It is close enough to the definition used in this article: "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. You might think it's absurd but it is, at least until recently, the ordinary usage of the term.Sjö (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
No, that isn't the ordinary definition, at least not in reference to western nations; rather, the second sentence is closer to it (areas where police have simply lost control). Anyway, the formulation quoted above ("armed insurgency" etc) isn't even remotely close to the first of those two definitions anyway.
I'd like you to please answer my question. What is the basis for insisting that this is the definition of a "no go area"? (Hint: I mean I want to see a source that substantiates it.) Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, as the article says it's originally a military term, but I suppose that the current meaning should be reflected in the article. That means that the definition in the lede must be changed if you want to include areas that don't fit that definition. 05:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No-go_area/Archive_1&oldid=1144185538"