Talk:No-go area/Archive 1

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). —

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.

talk

) 00:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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? —

• Revert removal, content removed met
  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. —
  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. --
  C
  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)
  • For the most part, these are not passing mentions, but the main subject of the references in question. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:30, 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
  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 "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. —

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

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. —

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

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

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.

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. —

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. —

talk

) 23:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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. —

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. —

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

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. —

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)

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). --

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. —

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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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

@

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)

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".

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)

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

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)

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)

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. --

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! --

C

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)

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Archives/Archives-des-actualites/2013/ZSP/Combien-de-ZSP

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—