![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Quote:
[11] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:53, 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)
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. -- Green C 22:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
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. -- Green C 14:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 § 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)
I fixed it now. Zezen ( talk) 09:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{
citation}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 134 (
help)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.
Hopefully this source won't be challenged as being partisan.
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.
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.
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.
Some of these sources have a political point of view.
{{
citation}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help) – discusses a "no-go zone" created against several minority youths by a
court injunction in the UK; cites another paper "No-Go in the Fortress City: Young People, Inequality and Space"
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)
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)
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)
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)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.
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
« 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)
« 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)
« 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)
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). -- Green C 15:54, 6 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 WP:SEEALSO. — Brianhe ( talk) 19:39, 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)
References
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)
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)
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. -- Green C 15:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
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 /info/en/?search=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 ( talk) 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_de_non-droit -- Japarthur ( talk) 09:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
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.:
-- Neutrality talk 05:07, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
"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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Quote:
[11] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:53, 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)
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. -- Green C 22:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
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. -- Green C 14:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 § 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)
I fixed it now. Zezen ( talk) 09:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{
citation}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 134 (
help)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.
Hopefully this source won't be challenged as being partisan.
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.
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.
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.
Some of these sources have a political point of view.
{{
citation}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help) – discusses a "no-go zone" created against several minority youths by a
court injunction in the UK; cites another paper "No-Go in the Fortress City: Young People, Inequality and Space"
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)
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)
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)
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)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.
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
« 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)
« 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)
« 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)
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). -- Green C 15:54, 6 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 WP:SEEALSO. — Brianhe ( talk) 19:39, 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)
References
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)
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)
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. -- Green C 15:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
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 /info/en/?search=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 ( talk) 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_de_non-droit -- Japarthur ( talk) 09:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
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.:
-- Neutrality talk 05:07, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
"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)