![]() | 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 |
The definition in the lede says: "No-go area" (or "no-go zone") is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or barred to certain individuals or groups.[1] It has also been used to refer to areas undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty. Many of the areas mentioned seem to better fit the part of the Collins English Dictionary definition that says "has a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there". Either we remove the areas that don't fit the definition or we change the definition, or we add a section discussing how the term is used in different contexts. Sjö ( talk) 05:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Would anybody who disagrees with this article text, which was removed, mind suggesting a more accurate paraphrase? Whatever the problem with the disputed diff, I'm not seeing it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If we chase a car that can drive to certain addresses in Tensta where a lone police car can not follow - for then it will be stoned or riot. There are no-go-areas. We do not reach there, he continues.
I have found some information sources. Some of them may be of interest to incorporate into the article:
http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/problem/ghetto-report-deutschland-45300680.bild.html
http://www.fnp.de/nachrichten/politik/No-go-Areas-und-Parallelgesellschaften;art673,1739112
https://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchtet-sich-sogar-die-polizei-id4926287.html
David A ( talk) 08:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on No-go area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
My restoration of the Pete Hoekstra claim regarding no-go zones in the Netherlands (added by other editors) was reverted on the basis that "one misstatement by someone does not seem notable enough for this article." The initial justification for removal was because "Bullshit has no place on Wikipedia, no matter what politician spouted it." I don't see the rationale that supports including the United Kingdom section and excluding the Netherlands section. Brushing Hoekstra's allegations off as "one misstatement" ignores that (1) he is the U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands; (2) his claims touched off a minor international incident, forcing the State Department to weigh in; (3) the comments were widely reported in numerous reliable sources; and (4) Hoekstra's claim directly relates to the subject matter of this article and was added to a section that already contains disputed or incorrect claims. Dyrnych ( talk) 00:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The only one listed here is Israel. If border zones are no-go areas, all border zones should be added, if not, that one should be removed. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 18:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Merkel's statement has been distorted in translation and representation. Merkel did not specify such areas exist in Germany, she said "such areas exist" and that authorities would have to move forcefully against them. Noteably, however, she did not mention where they exist and she used a very peculiar definition of no-go areas: She referred to them as areas where people are scared to go - not areas where public authority has collapsed. She then continued that the Minister of Interior had done a very good job. So if his job is, as she established, to prevent and/or clear up such areas, then they can hardly coincide with him having done a good job. Basically, the whole statement was politician waffle, allowing everyone to interpret into it whatever they want. -- 91.67.245.87 ( talk) 15:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
What's the problem with using the heading 'Criticism' instead of 'Alternative Views'. 1. Criticism is integrated throughout the article. 2. It's multiple sources rather than a singular source. Regards. EELagoon ( talk) 16:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If the source is well written and relevant, what's the problem? -- 2001:8003:4023:D900:1C46:116B:BB59:19D7 ( talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government[11][12][13] and its foreign policy.[11][13][14][15][16][17] RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation[17][18][19] by news reporters,[20][21] including some former RT reporters.[22][23][24]This clearly demonstrates a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Grayfell ( talk) 00:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
"In 2017 the postal service limited or halted delivering mail to areas deemed "no go zones"." [1] [2] [3] [4]. -- 2001:8003:4023:D900:1C46:116B:BB59:19D7 ( talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The term no go needs to be used precisely in the source otherwise this article turns into original research. One can then openly apply the concept to any place off limits for any reason, making the term meaningless. A road closed for construction making it a "no go" zone. A military controls part of a contested city in an active war zone making it a "no go" zone. Such wildly broad and general usages dilute the meaning, and undermine it. Also this is the English-language Wikipedia it is appropriate to focus on English-language meanings and usages. -- Green C 14:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Why is [insert example here], a famous example of human wave attack, not included in the article? Certain examples are not included here because there are currently no reliable sources that explicitly labeled them as "human wave attacks". If an example is truly famous for being human wave attack, then there should be multiple reliable sources that support its "human wave attack" designation.- 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Not only is the addition of Soros as the major donor for Media Matters relevant, but knowing that fact and deliberately excluding his name in order to conceal his connection to information manipulation would be entirely disingenous. Including it is not POV, but rather pinpoints the source of the so-called controversy. No-go zones are an established fact, in multiple nations. Downplaying, minimizing or politicizing this fact is the job of professional obfuscators. If anything, the entire section should be excluded as disinformation. - JGabbard ( talk) 01:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The list of places under "Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas" are pretty much all either disputed or with out-of-date citations (Brazil), with the exceptions perhaps of Kenya and Israel/Palestine - not to mention the problematical terminology and reporting. I'd like to suggest one heading "Contemporary official no-go zones" and another "Contemporary alleged (or disputed?) no-go zones". Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The section seems to be chaotic. Xx236 ( talk) 12:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Probably remove the label of the media publication as 'conservative'. All sources should then be described by their politics, and since this in itself would be biased, that should probably be left out. As long as the source is a verifiable source (as in stating the truth), labeling it is not necessary and introduces the author's own bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.233.118 ( talk) 01:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Wykop.pl is kind of a polish digg/reddit equivalent. Apart from normal users it has a very vocal group of hardcore right wing users. There were two threads about this article linked to wykop: they focused on the LBGT free zones in Poland.
First thread with over 3500 upvotes:
https://www.wykop.pl/link/5198225/wedlug-wikipedii-w-polsce-istnieja-no-go-zones/
Second thread with over 150 upvotes (at the time of linking):
https://www.wykop.pl/link/5199751/strefy-no-go-w-polsce-w-wikipedii-dalszy-ciag-walki/
Those threads encourage wykop users to come and brigade the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambr5 ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Given the plethora of red-linked brand new SPA accounts that have shown up here, I'd say there's some brigading going on on both sides. Volunteer Marek 14:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
No-go area has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the section about Poland. 1. It has nothing to do with no-go zones 2. It is completely untrue, fake news. 91.223.64.248 ( talk) 15:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to semi protect the talk page as there seem to be all kinds of hijinks and shenanigans going in here, to the point where regular discussion is obstructed. Volunteer Marek 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm not the right person to do it, so... If anyone would like me to refrain, or if somebody may do it better - please do not hasitate. I guess, no answer will be an answer too.
I would like to ask for concise and unambiguous answers if possible. Answer sould be marked '[ANS]'. Answer bellow right section. Asking a single question at the same time might limit unnecessary discussion. Proposals of question to ask should to be marked '[QP]' accordingly.--
BthereDthat (
talk)
20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
As @
Sjö: suggests...
Please treat this as a local discussion in WP:RFCBEFORE meaning and with the possible option of the following WP:DRN and WP:RFC.-- B'there D'that ( talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
-- B'there D'that ( talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
-- B'there D'that ( talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
=== Way of meeting a consensus ===
[Q]: How to meet consensus here?
Suggested answers: '[unanimously]'/'[majority of votes]'.--
BthereDthat (
talk)
20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
=== Consensus on the requirement to meet the definition ===
The content of the article suggests that there is no such requirement, but I'm not sure whether it was because of such a consensus or because things got out of control. The lack of consensus on this issue suggests no requirement to meet the definition. Thus...
[Q]Is it possible to add/keep areas to/in the article without sources confirming the no-go area definition?
Suggested answers: '[Y]'/'[N]'.--
BthereDthat (
talk)
20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
=== Suggestions for Questions / Discussion ===
If possible, please do not specify further questions / sections before reaching consensus on previous ones. If possible, propose more questions here, after obtaining a consensus on previous ones. Selection of question to add another section (prior to this one) might/should also be discussed in this section...--
BthereDthat (
talk)
07:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
==== Way of meeting a consensus (disscusion) ====
--
BthereDthat (
talk)
08:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
==== Consensus on the requirement to meet the definition (disscusion) ====
--
BthereDthat (
talk)
08:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Content on LGBT-free zone has been removed. Our article presently contains information on alleged "no-go zones" due to Muslim immigrants. In the LGBT-free zones - this is an actual resolution by an elected body. Furthermore, besides comparisons to Nazi-era measures (e.g. by Mateusz Goździkowski) the liberal Razem party has expressly compared this measure to no-go zones: "Remember how the right [were scared] of the so-called [Muslim] no-go zones? Thanks to the same right, we have our own no-go zones. Disgusting" (Polish: "Pamiętacie, jak prawica straszyła tzw. no-go zones?" - zapytano. "Dzięki tej samej prawicy doczekaliśmy się własnych stref no-go. Obrzydliwe"). [1] [2] Icewhiz ( talk) 09:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
" or an area barred to certain individuals or groups". Sources have made the connection here. Our article currently covers "no-go zones" induced by Muslim immigration (plastered all over the article) - the LGBT-gree zones are much more significant. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Are somebody here aware that LGBT-free zones are just political scrambling between LGBT movement and conservatives/christians? For example - how it is possible to allow to build 20 rainbow benches in one of biggest cities in "LGBT-free" zone?!? LGBT-free zones lays damn far from no-go zones. Isn't putting it here just pure vandalism?
A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or an area barred to certain individuals or groups. The term has also been used to refer to areas: Undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty[1]; That have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there[2] ; That are inhabited by a parallel society that have their own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors have been described as "no-go zones".[3]
All three above conditions aren't fulfilled!
- Ruling authorities working normally and enforce sovereignty on country standard levels.
- Crime and violence levels are below average!
- There is no parallel society which control this areas.
Look at
police statistics:
- Robbery, robbery, extortion / Rozbój, kradzież rozbójnicza, wymuszenie.
- Fight and battery / Bójka i pobicie.
- Damage to health / Uszczerbek na zdrowiu.
- Sexual / Seksualne]
Merged maps for above...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.60.1.128 ( talk) 22:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I concur with the recent deletions and I think those who are edit-warring to keep it in are on very thin ice! You have no rationale for shoe-horning such a ridiculous concept into this article! Elizium23 ( talk) 03:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
:::: This is of obvious relevance and meets all criteria of a no-go zone. Sources treat this as a no-go zone. Far-right canvassing here only makes inclusion obvious.
twitter.
AstuteRed (
talk) 18:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Sock puppet of banned user -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty[1]; That have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there[2]; That are inhabited by a parallel society that have their own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors have been described as "no-go zones".[3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess that I have started to understand what's the source of problems here...
"LGBT-free zone" name are abysmal, but it isn't even near what the name suggests. "LGBT-free zone" is administrative formation which means that this specific administration which create it is free from LGBT movement influence. Yep, I know polish politics are terrible.
Of course there are LGBT-free zones in Poland and this is what sources here confirms. But LGBT-free zones are not no-go zones!
Will referencing here original administrative acts which creates LGBT zones and translating them will be enough to solve this situation here?
--
31.60.39.240 (
talk)
21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Please keep mind that the "LGTB free zone" as "no go zone" in Poland was introduced originally by the indefinitely banned user. WP:ONUS then is on those who wish to add this highly irrational, blown out of the proportion section. I'll repeat, I am totally unconvinced why this particular ridiculous political statement, proclaims by politicians in Eastern Poland, is of any specific relevance to real "no go areas.” GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
You all use as a source liberal media, usually German owned with long history of Anti-Polish articles. If you go to the source for Polish "LGBT free zones" - FE: https://lublin.onet.pl/sejmik-przyjmie-stanowisko-ws-ideologii-lgbt-radny-pis-to-niezwykle-grozna-ideologia/m64g65s - they're only about not pushing any sexual propaganda in schools, public organizations on government. That's all. And they're only statements, not any law. They're statements not against LGBT, LGBT are free to walk and kiss in all public places in Poland just as any other people are. You're not free to tell kids that LGBT is the way to go using goverment money. The only bad thing in it now, is the fact that Church is using goverment money to tell kids that Christianity is the way to go and if you guys want to foght against something - fight against Polish goverement promoting Christianity for public money (I'm atheist and Polish and I don't like it). THERE ARE NO ANY NO GO ZONES IN POLAND. ALL LGBT PEOPLE IN POLAND ARE EQUAL TO ALL NON LGBT PEOPLE, THERE IS NO ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT. 82.3.126.207 ( talk) 02:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
One problem I see here is that this map it's pretty misleading as it suggest that there are actually more threats for lgbt people on east side of Poland, but in reality there are no differences and I would even say that over last few years more accidents happen on west side Gdansk, Wroclaw, Poznan, Gorczyn 155.145.195.134 ( talk) 08:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not that different from all the other allged no-go zonesWait. So you're saying that this non-binding declaration by a few idiot politicians is "no different" than ... "In Kenya, the ongoing conflict in Somalia, where the terrorist organization al-Shabaab controls territory, has severely affected the security situation even on the Kenyan side of the border. ". Or wait. Maybe it's "no different" than ... "Between 1969 and 1972, Irish nationalist/republican neighborhoods in Belfast and Derry were sealed off with barricades by residents. The areas were policed by vigilantes and both Official and Provisional factions of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) operated openly". Or maybe it's "no different" than "The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) maintains a border zone on the Gaza strip and declares "no-go zones", where they may use lethal force to enforce the security exclusion zone".
really is not that different from other alleged contemporary no-go zones in Europe. That's not true. It's different than Northern Ireland. It's different than Molenbeek in Belgium. It's different than the neighborhoods in France (if we take the description at face value). Maybe it's kind of similar - but not really - to the part on Germany. But that just means that part should also be removed. It's different than the areas described for Sweden. It's different than the areas described for UK. Pretty much all of these, except Germany, fit 2) or 3). The Poland part fits none of the criteria.
:::::::::::::::: Sources compare these zones to Judenfrei Nazi zones. Say they are no-go zones for LGBT. In Białystok LGBT marchers were beaten up by violent mobs.
AstuteRed (
talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC) (sock puppet of banned user) -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
is full of the same type of hyperboleCan you be specific? Can you give examples of parts of the section which are "full of the same type of hyperbole"? Volunteer Marek 16:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Look, the point is, official non-binding declarations that are not enforceable by law or even paramilitary agencies are not relevant here. Look at the lead of this. This is not a military exclusion zones, border zones, or other declared exclusion zones, or a zone controlled by paramilitaries. Nobody is controlling who enters or leaves, there are no penalties. A no-go zone needs more than an unenforceable declaration. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-04-19
Declaration No. 1/19 of the Lesser Poland Regional Assembly of 29 April 2019 on opposition to the introduction of the "LGBT" ideology in local government communities
https://bip.malopolska.pl/umwm,a,1594074,deklaracja-nr-119-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-malopolskiego-z-dnia-29-kwietnia-2019-r-w-sprawie-sprzeciwu-wo.html
pdf — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BthereDthat (
talk •
contribs)
2019-04-25
The position of the Regional Council of the Lublin Voivodeship regarding the introduction of the "LGBT" ideology in local government communities
https://umwl.bip.lubelskie.pl/index.php?id=57&p1=szczegoly&p2=1382854
pdf
--
BthereDthat (
talk)
10:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-05-27
Resolution on adopting the position of the Sejmik of the Podkarpackie Voivodship objecting to the promotion and affirmation of the ideology of the so-called LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) movements.
http://www.bip.podkarpackie.pl/index.php/uchwaly-sejmiku/4617-viii-sesja-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-podkarpackiego-vi-kadencja-z-dnia-27-maja-2019-r
pdf
--
BthereDthat (
talk)
10:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-07-18
The position of the Sejmik of the Świętokrzyskie Voivodship regarding opposition to attempts to introduce the "LGBT" ideology into local government communities and to promote this ideology in public life.
https://bip.sejmik.kielce.pl/826-oswiadczenia-stanowiska-i-apele-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-swietokrzyskiego-vi-kadencji-lata-2018-2023/7457-stanowisko-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-swietokrzyskiego-dotyczace-sprzeciwu-wobec-prob-wprowadzenia-ideologii-lgbt-do-wspolnot-samorzadowych-oraz-promocji-tej-ideologii-w-zyciu-publicznym.html
pdf--
BthereDthat (
talk)
11:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-04-02 Stand No. 1/2019 regarding the suppression of the LGBT ideology by the local government community. pdf-- BthereDthat ( talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-04-30 Resolution of the District Council of Ryki - Position of the District Council of Ryki on stopping gender ideology and "LGBT". pdf-- BthereDthat ( talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-06-27 Resolution No. VIII / 90/2019 of the Poviat Council in Zamość of 26 June 2019 on the adoption of the Poviat Council Position in Zamość on stopping the promotion of the "LGBT" ideology doc-- BthereDthat ( talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Some authorities declared cutting themselves off from what they called LGBT movement ideology/affirmation/promotion. Some people (from both sides) began to call these administrative areas LGBT-free zones and snowball have started rolling down a hill... And now "there are" no-go zones in Poland.-- BthereDthat ( talk) 19:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no point in discussing this any further. "LGBTQ free zones" don't belong here because it doesn't fit the scope of this article and it should be removed. If some people still believe that this is useful information to have, then maybe a separate article of its own is an answer? GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
* In scope, obviously. Sources compare LGBT-free zones to no-go zones. Sources state LGBT-free zones are like Judenfrei zones by Nazis in WWII. Perhaps straight cisgender people are able to go about freely in LGBT-free zones. LGBT people are excluded from the zones. Are threatened with violence.
AstuteRed (
talk) 12:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC) (sock puppet of banned user) -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Official
police statistics from 2019-01 to 2019-09, scaled per 10 000 inhabitants
Damage to health
Fight and battery
Robbery, theft and extortion, extortion
Sexual--
BthereDthat (
talk)
19:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Re [13] I'm sorry I don't see where it's established or written in stone that the "present inclusion criteria" are " it is enough that areas have been described as no-go zones" (putting aside that some of the included cases aren't actually described as such in sources). This might be an inclusion criteria some editors *want* but they are NOT the inclusion criteria that presently exist. The present inclusion criteria are that no-go-zones are areas that are:
The fact that various editors have included off-topic WP:COATRACK material in the article (like the section on Sweden) doesn't change the fact that the problem is with the text precisely because it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria.
Wikipedia's "inclusion criteria" are NOT "well, somebody managed to get it into the article so now we must keep it forever and ever".
Volunteer Marek 19:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
:: Can you be more tendentious? You quoted "also been used". The first sentence preceding is: "A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or an area barred to certain individuals or groups". LGBT-free zones meet the definition of "an area barred to certain individuals or groups" as the government outlawed "LGBT ideology" in the zone.
AstuteRed (
talk) 05:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet of banned user -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
:::: Government and church organized the beating up of LGBT in Bialystok:
[14]. Enforcement here is violent.
AstuteRed (
talk) 06:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Sock puppet of banned user -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
"Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas" tittle do not differentiate alleged from acknowledged areas. WP:UNDUE WP:BALANCE WP:GEVAL -- BthereDthat ( talk) 23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Having sources that confirms the definition is not a criterion for distinguishing areas in the article. WP:UNDUE WP:BALANCE WP:GEVAL -- BthereDthat ( talk) 23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I restored the UK section (someone else's contribution), which was promptly reverted with a pontification of WP:ONUS as the excuse. That policy applies only to "disputed content," yet there has been little if any discussion about this content, which had been arbitrarily deleted earlier. It is also very well-referenced material, and fits the general topic. In a systematic discussion of European nations, it is not undue to include the UK; what is undue is tendentiously omitting it. Looking for some support and voices of reason here please, to override what I perceive as minimalism and obstructionism. - JGabbard ( talk) 18:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Free zones from gays and lesbians? Lawyers: Local government resolutions against LGBT persons are illegal
https://oko.press/prawnicy-uchwaly-samorzadowcow-przeciwko-osobom-lgbt-nielegalne/
Local and territorial units opposing LGBT ideology.
Map of communes, poviats and voivodships in which anti-LGBT resolutions have been adopted or are being worked on
Supposed "no-go zones" not exist in Poland, invention of Russian agents? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FxJ (
talk •
contribs) 19:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
: The illegality of the actions by local authorities does not change their effect. If you are illegally excluded by the regional government, you are still excluded.
AstuteRed (
talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Sock puppet of banned user -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Unlike some of the sketchy accounts around hereIf may i ask... Are you (or any other person here) evaluating my actions here as sketchy activity too? I guess that my edits here were "a bit" chaotic and I'm sorry for that. Please be rather honest than nice.
What do RS say? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The whole thing is a fringe matter overblown like hell by Western and LGBT media. There is no exclusion at all, no matter how some mainstream media outlets try to paint it. It doesn't matter what some local politicians proclaimed. Gay people can go to those towns, and yeah, they even live there. The notion of a no-go zone is completely false here.-- Darwinek ( talk) 01:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Hoax created by Paria Razem and their supporters for purpose of heating up political debate.
A.J. (
talk)
Until we have a clear cut idea of what the scope of this article is can we please not remove any material. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
My last words and conclusion: someone asked about reputable sources dealing with LGBT "no-go zones" in Poland, so here you are: [21]
A lot of the issue about the Polish "no go areas" can be equally said about (for example) those in the UK section. So what do WE mean by no go area? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
OK so should we change the lede to say "and areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years"? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Note in all cases must be supported by at least two RS, and over a period of at least two months.
I think thats all. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that this article might better be organized around "Types" of "no go" exclusions. If we want to have one based on specific locales, that could be part of a "History" section. I think that would address some of the issues at this 2nd AFD discussion. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I see French Sensitive urban zone. Then why aren't American ghettos included? Not much difference. In general, I am unsure if high crime areas should be mentioned here. After all, there's a difference between military no-go zones and areas where there is just rampant crime. This article is mixing a lot of different concepts. Many Demilitarized zone are also no-go areas and may warrant mentions here, through it does vary from case to case. What about Chernobyl Exclusion Zone? Also not mentioned here. Neither are dozen+ relevant places from Category:Radioactively contaminated areas... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so I read the whole paragraph about France and I'm totally shocked. There NEVER WAS ANY No-go zones in France, and especially the airport...sorry it's nothing more than a racist fake thing that racist people wants to hear and read. I'm a French woman proud to be able to go wherever I want, whenever I want, in every clothes that I want to wear etc.. I know it's only "alleged".. but hm... On Wikipedia? Like seriously? Did you know that this website has an impact for people who read it? Also, alleged by who except people who never lived there? So yeah, ALLEGED BY A FRENCH GIRL SINCE HER BIRTH : THERE NEVER WAS, NEVER EVER! If it's only alleged, then write it in the conditional, or don't write anything, because, whatever, that's false
Also, both far-right politicians/pundits and some ostensibly "non-far-right" conservative politicians push the no-go zone falsehood. "Far-right" should be restored. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The editor Korny O'Near changed clear RS-supported language that "no-go zones" are a falsehood/conspiracy theory into proponents of no-go zones "have faced press scrutiny for their allegations". The notion of a "no-go zone" in the context that anti-immigration far-right people use is clearly false and should be described as such. Korny O'Near's change is his own warped original research on the topic, and it's completely unacceptable that his whitewashed language is in the lead. We should stick to what RS say. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Your description is quite a bit more extreme than the standard definition of "no-go zones". Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The article currently said that « In 2005 France's domestic intelligence network, the Renseignements Generaux, identified 150 "no-go zones" around the country where police would not enter without reinforcements. » The Christopher Dickey article used as source do not give its sources, and I after a quick search, I didn't find anything in French about that. Same for Christopher Dickey's claim that then-French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said « No-go zones would not be allowed ». Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 15:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The Collins Dictionary source provides two definitions of "no-go area":
A wikipedia article typically covers a single topic or definition; this article is clearly about #2, and we shouldn't include #1 just because it uses the same name. We're clearly not talking about subways or neighborhoods where people are afraid to walk at night. – dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-go area (2nd nomination) some contributors (me included) suggested to split the article and transform No-go area into a redirect to No-go zone, which is a disambiguation page. Thought? Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The editor GizzyCatBella removed the RS content about the falsehoods about no-go zones in the US. The editor said nothing in the edit summary besides "no". The content should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
And once I'm here Snooganssnoogans. This line - "have falsely been called no-go zones" is an OR. It was either labelled as a "no-go zone" or not. Adding the word "falsely" is OR. GizzyCatBella 🍁 20:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-french-city-zones-where-police-rarely-escape-unscathed Xx236 ( talk) 13:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/mensch-metropole/islamwissenschaftler-ralph-ghadban-wenn-die-frauen-rebellieren-zerfallen-die-clans-li.35622 The author link ethnic Clans with no-go areas. "Wenn Polizisten einen Verdächtigen kontrollieren wollen, sind sie plötzlich umkreist, werden geschubst, beschimpft, bedroht. So sind No-go-Areas entstanden." Xx236 ( talk) 13:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/23/firefighters-have-become-targets-vicious-mob-attacks/ Xx236 ( talk) 13:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
No-go area has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Some politicians and commentators have claimed the existence of no-go zones in areas with large populations of Muslims and immigrants" to "Some politicians and commentators have falsely claimed the existence of no-go zones in areas with large populations of Muslims and immigrants" to make it clear that the claim is a myth —as all the mentioned sources clarify. Nestive ( talk) 12:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This wording has been controversial. Should this article definitively state that there are no no-go zones in Europe (or the United States)? Maybe it's true, but I don't see any evidence for making this comprehensive claim. On the other side, people who have claimed that there are no-go zones, whether that's in Perpignan, Rinkeby, Malmö, or elsewhere, are various mainstream journalists, police officers, and politicians, including Angela Merkel. Korny O'Near ( talk) 14:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Not a propos of anything specific, but it's interesting to note that this Snopes debunking of "Sharia Law Muslim ‘No-Go’ Zones", currently cited several times in this article, contains the following quote from the website "Geographic Travels", about France's sensitive urban zones:
“ | A few [Zones Urbaines Sensibles] are truly no-go zones, while most are just areas where the government is focusing more development and police require special procedures to operate. A few (NOT ALL of the 751 ZUS, as falsely reported in “anti-jihadist blogs”) of these zones, primarily around Paris, are under control of radical Islamists. | ” |
I don't know what "Geographic Travels" is, or whether it's a reliable source - the site seems to be a blog, and is currently "under construction". But Snopes clearly think it's reliable, and they quote it as saying that, yes, there are indeed Muslim-controlled no-go zones in France. Which is quite an admission to make, in a piece arguing that there are no sharia law no-go zones. Of course, Muslim-controlled does not mean sharia law, but I wish the Snopes people had expanded on this apparent contradiction. Korny O'Near ( talk) 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
« Should this article definitively state that there are no no-go zones in Europe? » → No if I understand WP:SYNTH correctly, but look at WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Every time somebody claimed no-go-zones in Europe and pointed specific locations, people went there and showed it was not a Muslim-only no-go zone. «There have been false claims that no-go zones exist in various European countries» and «There have been false claims that Muslim-only no-go zones exist in various European countries.» looks good to me. Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 21:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
We go with what RS say, as I understand it they say "there is an accusation but no real evidence". Slatersteven ( talk) 16:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
The definition in the lede says: "No-go area" (or "no-go zone") is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or barred to certain individuals or groups.[1] It has also been used to refer to areas undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty. Many of the areas mentioned seem to better fit the part of the Collins English Dictionary definition that says "has a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there". Either we remove the areas that don't fit the definition or we change the definition, or we add a section discussing how the term is used in different contexts. Sjö ( talk) 05:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Would anybody who disagrees with this article text, which was removed, mind suggesting a more accurate paraphrase? Whatever the problem with the disputed diff, I'm not seeing it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If we chase a car that can drive to certain addresses in Tensta where a lone police car can not follow - for then it will be stoned or riot. There are no-go-areas. We do not reach there, he continues.
I have found some information sources. Some of them may be of interest to incorporate into the article:
http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/problem/ghetto-report-deutschland-45300680.bild.html
http://www.fnp.de/nachrichten/politik/No-go-Areas-und-Parallelgesellschaften;art673,1739112
https://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchtet-sich-sogar-die-polizei-id4926287.html
David A ( talk) 08:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on No-go area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
My restoration of the Pete Hoekstra claim regarding no-go zones in the Netherlands (added by other editors) was reverted on the basis that "one misstatement by someone does not seem notable enough for this article." The initial justification for removal was because "Bullshit has no place on Wikipedia, no matter what politician spouted it." I don't see the rationale that supports including the United Kingdom section and excluding the Netherlands section. Brushing Hoekstra's allegations off as "one misstatement" ignores that (1) he is the U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands; (2) his claims touched off a minor international incident, forcing the State Department to weigh in; (3) the comments were widely reported in numerous reliable sources; and (4) Hoekstra's claim directly relates to the subject matter of this article and was added to a section that already contains disputed or incorrect claims. Dyrnych ( talk) 00:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The only one listed here is Israel. If border zones are no-go areas, all border zones should be added, if not, that one should be removed. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 18:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Merkel's statement has been distorted in translation and representation. Merkel did not specify such areas exist in Germany, she said "such areas exist" and that authorities would have to move forcefully against them. Noteably, however, she did not mention where they exist and she used a very peculiar definition of no-go areas: She referred to them as areas where people are scared to go - not areas where public authority has collapsed. She then continued that the Minister of Interior had done a very good job. So if his job is, as she established, to prevent and/or clear up such areas, then they can hardly coincide with him having done a good job. Basically, the whole statement was politician waffle, allowing everyone to interpret into it whatever they want. -- 91.67.245.87 ( talk) 15:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
What's the problem with using the heading 'Criticism' instead of 'Alternative Views'. 1. Criticism is integrated throughout the article. 2. It's multiple sources rather than a singular source. Regards. EELagoon ( talk) 16:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If the source is well written and relevant, what's the problem? -- 2001:8003:4023:D900:1C46:116B:BB59:19D7 ( talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government[11][12][13] and its foreign policy.[11][13][14][15][16][17] RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation[17][18][19] by news reporters,[20][21] including some former RT reporters.[22][23][24]This clearly demonstrates a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Grayfell ( talk) 00:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
"In 2017 the postal service limited or halted delivering mail to areas deemed "no go zones"." [1] [2] [3] [4]. -- 2001:8003:4023:D900:1C46:116B:BB59:19D7 ( talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The term no go needs to be used precisely in the source otherwise this article turns into original research. One can then openly apply the concept to any place off limits for any reason, making the term meaningless. A road closed for construction making it a "no go" zone. A military controls part of a contested city in an active war zone making it a "no go" zone. Such wildly broad and general usages dilute the meaning, and undermine it. Also this is the English-language Wikipedia it is appropriate to focus on English-language meanings and usages. -- Green C 14:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Why is [insert example here], a famous example of human wave attack, not included in the article? Certain examples are not included here because there are currently no reliable sources that explicitly labeled them as "human wave attacks". If an example is truly famous for being human wave attack, then there should be multiple reliable sources that support its "human wave attack" designation.- 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Not only is the addition of Soros as the major donor for Media Matters relevant, but knowing that fact and deliberately excluding his name in order to conceal his connection to information manipulation would be entirely disingenous. Including it is not POV, but rather pinpoints the source of the so-called controversy. No-go zones are an established fact, in multiple nations. Downplaying, minimizing or politicizing this fact is the job of professional obfuscators. If anything, the entire section should be excluded as disinformation. - JGabbard ( talk) 01:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The list of places under "Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas" are pretty much all either disputed or with out-of-date citations (Brazil), with the exceptions perhaps of Kenya and Israel/Palestine - not to mention the problematical terminology and reporting. I'd like to suggest one heading "Contemporary official no-go zones" and another "Contemporary alleged (or disputed?) no-go zones". Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The section seems to be chaotic. Xx236 ( talk) 12:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Probably remove the label of the media publication as 'conservative'. All sources should then be described by their politics, and since this in itself would be biased, that should probably be left out. As long as the source is a verifiable source (as in stating the truth), labeling it is not necessary and introduces the author's own bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.233.118 ( talk) 01:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Wykop.pl is kind of a polish digg/reddit equivalent. Apart from normal users it has a very vocal group of hardcore right wing users. There were two threads about this article linked to wykop: they focused on the LBGT free zones in Poland.
First thread with over 3500 upvotes:
https://www.wykop.pl/link/5198225/wedlug-wikipedii-w-polsce-istnieja-no-go-zones/
Second thread with over 150 upvotes (at the time of linking):
https://www.wykop.pl/link/5199751/strefy-no-go-w-polsce-w-wikipedii-dalszy-ciag-walki/
Those threads encourage wykop users to come and brigade the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambr5 ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Given the plethora of red-linked brand new SPA accounts that have shown up here, I'd say there's some brigading going on on both sides. Volunteer Marek 14:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
No-go area has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the section about Poland. 1. It has nothing to do with no-go zones 2. It is completely untrue, fake news. 91.223.64.248 ( talk) 15:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to semi protect the talk page as there seem to be all kinds of hijinks and shenanigans going in here, to the point where regular discussion is obstructed. Volunteer Marek 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm not the right person to do it, so... If anyone would like me to refrain, or if somebody may do it better - please do not hasitate. I guess, no answer will be an answer too.
I would like to ask for concise and unambiguous answers if possible. Answer sould be marked '[ANS]'. Answer bellow right section. Asking a single question at the same time might limit unnecessary discussion. Proposals of question to ask should to be marked '[QP]' accordingly.--
BthereDthat (
talk)
20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
As @
Sjö: suggests...
Please treat this as a local discussion in WP:RFCBEFORE meaning and with the possible option of the following WP:DRN and WP:RFC.-- B'there D'that ( talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
-- B'there D'that ( talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
-- B'there D'that ( talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
=== Way of meeting a consensus ===
[Q]: How to meet consensus here?
Suggested answers: '[unanimously]'/'[majority of votes]'.--
BthereDthat (
talk)
20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
=== Consensus on the requirement to meet the definition ===
The content of the article suggests that there is no such requirement, but I'm not sure whether it was because of such a consensus or because things got out of control. The lack of consensus on this issue suggests no requirement to meet the definition. Thus...
[Q]Is it possible to add/keep areas to/in the article without sources confirming the no-go area definition?
Suggested answers: '[Y]'/'[N]'.--
BthereDthat (
talk)
20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
=== Suggestions for Questions / Discussion ===
If possible, please do not specify further questions / sections before reaching consensus on previous ones. If possible, propose more questions here, after obtaining a consensus on previous ones. Selection of question to add another section (prior to this one) might/should also be discussed in this section...--
BthereDthat (
talk)
07:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
==== Way of meeting a consensus (disscusion) ====
--
BthereDthat (
talk)
08:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
==== Consensus on the requirement to meet the definition (disscusion) ====
--
BthereDthat (
talk)
08:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Content on LGBT-free zone has been removed. Our article presently contains information on alleged "no-go zones" due to Muslim immigrants. In the LGBT-free zones - this is an actual resolution by an elected body. Furthermore, besides comparisons to Nazi-era measures (e.g. by Mateusz Goździkowski) the liberal Razem party has expressly compared this measure to no-go zones: "Remember how the right [were scared] of the so-called [Muslim] no-go zones? Thanks to the same right, we have our own no-go zones. Disgusting" (Polish: "Pamiętacie, jak prawica straszyła tzw. no-go zones?" - zapytano. "Dzięki tej samej prawicy doczekaliśmy się własnych stref no-go. Obrzydliwe"). [1] [2] Icewhiz ( talk) 09:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
" or an area barred to certain individuals or groups". Sources have made the connection here. Our article currently covers "no-go zones" induced by Muslim immigration (plastered all over the article) - the LGBT-gree zones are much more significant. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Are somebody here aware that LGBT-free zones are just political scrambling between LGBT movement and conservatives/christians? For example - how it is possible to allow to build 20 rainbow benches in one of biggest cities in "LGBT-free" zone?!? LGBT-free zones lays damn far from no-go zones. Isn't putting it here just pure vandalism?
A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or an area barred to certain individuals or groups. The term has also been used to refer to areas: Undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty[1]; That have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there[2] ; That are inhabited by a parallel society that have their own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors have been described as "no-go zones".[3]
All three above conditions aren't fulfilled!
- Ruling authorities working normally and enforce sovereignty on country standard levels.
- Crime and violence levels are below average!
- There is no parallel society which control this areas.
Look at
police statistics:
- Robbery, robbery, extortion / Rozbój, kradzież rozbójnicza, wymuszenie.
- Fight and battery / Bójka i pobicie.
- Damage to health / Uszczerbek na zdrowiu.
- Sexual / Seksualne]
Merged maps for above...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.60.1.128 ( talk) 22:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I concur with the recent deletions and I think those who are edit-warring to keep it in are on very thin ice! You have no rationale for shoe-horning such a ridiculous concept into this article! Elizium23 ( talk) 03:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
:::: This is of obvious relevance and meets all criteria of a no-go zone. Sources treat this as a no-go zone. Far-right canvassing here only makes inclusion obvious.
twitter.
AstuteRed (
talk) 18:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Sock puppet of banned user -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty[1]; That have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there[2]; That are inhabited by a parallel society that have their own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors have been described as "no-go zones".[3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess that I have started to understand what's the source of problems here...
"LGBT-free zone" name are abysmal, but it isn't even near what the name suggests. "LGBT-free zone" is administrative formation which means that this specific administration which create it is free from LGBT movement influence. Yep, I know polish politics are terrible.
Of course there are LGBT-free zones in Poland and this is what sources here confirms. But LGBT-free zones are not no-go zones!
Will referencing here original administrative acts which creates LGBT zones and translating them will be enough to solve this situation here?
--
31.60.39.240 (
talk)
21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Please keep mind that the "LGTB free zone" as "no go zone" in Poland was introduced originally by the indefinitely banned user. WP:ONUS then is on those who wish to add this highly irrational, blown out of the proportion section. I'll repeat, I am totally unconvinced why this particular ridiculous political statement, proclaims by politicians in Eastern Poland, is of any specific relevance to real "no go areas.” GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
You all use as a source liberal media, usually German owned with long history of Anti-Polish articles. If you go to the source for Polish "LGBT free zones" - FE: https://lublin.onet.pl/sejmik-przyjmie-stanowisko-ws-ideologii-lgbt-radny-pis-to-niezwykle-grozna-ideologia/m64g65s - they're only about not pushing any sexual propaganda in schools, public organizations on government. That's all. And they're only statements, not any law. They're statements not against LGBT, LGBT are free to walk and kiss in all public places in Poland just as any other people are. You're not free to tell kids that LGBT is the way to go using goverment money. The only bad thing in it now, is the fact that Church is using goverment money to tell kids that Christianity is the way to go and if you guys want to foght against something - fight against Polish goverement promoting Christianity for public money (I'm atheist and Polish and I don't like it). THERE ARE NO ANY NO GO ZONES IN POLAND. ALL LGBT PEOPLE IN POLAND ARE EQUAL TO ALL NON LGBT PEOPLE, THERE IS NO ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT. 82.3.126.207 ( talk) 02:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
One problem I see here is that this map it's pretty misleading as it suggest that there are actually more threats for lgbt people on east side of Poland, but in reality there are no differences and I would even say that over last few years more accidents happen on west side Gdansk, Wroclaw, Poznan, Gorczyn 155.145.195.134 ( talk) 08:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not that different from all the other allged no-go zonesWait. So you're saying that this non-binding declaration by a few idiot politicians is "no different" than ... "In Kenya, the ongoing conflict in Somalia, where the terrorist organization al-Shabaab controls territory, has severely affected the security situation even on the Kenyan side of the border. ". Or wait. Maybe it's "no different" than ... "Between 1969 and 1972, Irish nationalist/republican neighborhoods in Belfast and Derry were sealed off with barricades by residents. The areas were policed by vigilantes and both Official and Provisional factions of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) operated openly". Or maybe it's "no different" than "The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) maintains a border zone on the Gaza strip and declares "no-go zones", where they may use lethal force to enforce the security exclusion zone".
really is not that different from other alleged contemporary no-go zones in Europe. That's not true. It's different than Northern Ireland. It's different than Molenbeek in Belgium. It's different than the neighborhoods in France (if we take the description at face value). Maybe it's kind of similar - but not really - to the part on Germany. But that just means that part should also be removed. It's different than the areas described for Sweden. It's different than the areas described for UK. Pretty much all of these, except Germany, fit 2) or 3). The Poland part fits none of the criteria.
:::::::::::::::: Sources compare these zones to Judenfrei Nazi zones. Say they are no-go zones for LGBT. In Białystok LGBT marchers were beaten up by violent mobs.
AstuteRed (
talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC) (sock puppet of banned user) -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
is full of the same type of hyperboleCan you be specific? Can you give examples of parts of the section which are "full of the same type of hyperbole"? Volunteer Marek 16:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Look, the point is, official non-binding declarations that are not enforceable by law or even paramilitary agencies are not relevant here. Look at the lead of this. This is not a military exclusion zones, border zones, or other declared exclusion zones, or a zone controlled by paramilitaries. Nobody is controlling who enters or leaves, there are no penalties. A no-go zone needs more than an unenforceable declaration. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-04-19
Declaration No. 1/19 of the Lesser Poland Regional Assembly of 29 April 2019 on opposition to the introduction of the "LGBT" ideology in local government communities
https://bip.malopolska.pl/umwm,a,1594074,deklaracja-nr-119-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-malopolskiego-z-dnia-29-kwietnia-2019-r-w-sprawie-sprzeciwu-wo.html
pdf — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BthereDthat (
talk •
contribs)
2019-04-25
The position of the Regional Council of the Lublin Voivodeship regarding the introduction of the "LGBT" ideology in local government communities
https://umwl.bip.lubelskie.pl/index.php?id=57&p1=szczegoly&p2=1382854
pdf
--
BthereDthat (
talk)
10:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-05-27
Resolution on adopting the position of the Sejmik of the Podkarpackie Voivodship objecting to the promotion and affirmation of the ideology of the so-called LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) movements.
http://www.bip.podkarpackie.pl/index.php/uchwaly-sejmiku/4617-viii-sesja-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-podkarpackiego-vi-kadencja-z-dnia-27-maja-2019-r
pdf
--
BthereDthat (
talk)
10:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-07-18
The position of the Sejmik of the Świętokrzyskie Voivodship regarding opposition to attempts to introduce the "LGBT" ideology into local government communities and to promote this ideology in public life.
https://bip.sejmik.kielce.pl/826-oswiadczenia-stanowiska-i-apele-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-swietokrzyskiego-vi-kadencji-lata-2018-2023/7457-stanowisko-sejmiku-wojewodztwa-swietokrzyskiego-dotyczace-sprzeciwu-wobec-prob-wprowadzenia-ideologii-lgbt-do-wspolnot-samorzadowych-oraz-promocji-tej-ideologii-w-zyciu-publicznym.html
pdf--
BthereDthat (
talk)
11:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-04-02 Stand No. 1/2019 regarding the suppression of the LGBT ideology by the local government community. pdf-- BthereDthat ( talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-04-30 Resolution of the District Council of Ryki - Position of the District Council of Ryki on stopping gender ideology and "LGBT". pdf-- BthereDthat ( talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2019-06-27 Resolution No. VIII / 90/2019 of the Poviat Council in Zamość of 26 June 2019 on the adoption of the Poviat Council Position in Zamość on stopping the promotion of the "LGBT" ideology doc-- BthereDthat ( talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Some authorities declared cutting themselves off from what they called LGBT movement ideology/affirmation/promotion. Some people (from both sides) began to call these administrative areas LGBT-free zones and snowball have started rolling down a hill... And now "there are" no-go zones in Poland.-- BthereDthat ( talk) 19:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no point in discussing this any further. "LGBTQ free zones" don't belong here because it doesn't fit the scope of this article and it should be removed. If some people still believe that this is useful information to have, then maybe a separate article of its own is an answer? GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
* In scope, obviously. Sources compare LGBT-free zones to no-go zones. Sources state LGBT-free zones are like Judenfrei zones by Nazis in WWII. Perhaps straight cisgender people are able to go about freely in LGBT-free zones. LGBT people are excluded from the zones. Are threatened with violence.
AstuteRed (
talk) 12:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC) (sock puppet of banned user) -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Official
police statistics from 2019-01 to 2019-09, scaled per 10 000 inhabitants
Damage to health
Fight and battery
Robbery, theft and extortion, extortion
Sexual--
BthereDthat (
talk)
19:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Re [13] I'm sorry I don't see where it's established or written in stone that the "present inclusion criteria" are " it is enough that areas have been described as no-go zones" (putting aside that some of the included cases aren't actually described as such in sources). This might be an inclusion criteria some editors *want* but they are NOT the inclusion criteria that presently exist. The present inclusion criteria are that no-go-zones are areas that are:
The fact that various editors have included off-topic WP:COATRACK material in the article (like the section on Sweden) doesn't change the fact that the problem is with the text precisely because it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria.
Wikipedia's "inclusion criteria" are NOT "well, somebody managed to get it into the article so now we must keep it forever and ever".
Volunteer Marek 19:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
:: Can you be more tendentious? You quoted "also been used". The first sentence preceding is: "A "no-go area" or "no-go zone" is an area in a town barricaded off to civil authorities by a force such as a paramilitary, or an area barred to certain individuals or groups". LGBT-free zones meet the definition of "an area barred to certain individuals or groups" as the government outlawed "LGBT ideology" in the zone.
AstuteRed (
talk) 05:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Sock puppet of banned user -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
:::: Government and church organized the beating up of LGBT in Bialystok:
[14]. Enforcement here is violent.
AstuteRed (
talk) 06:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Sock puppet of banned user -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
"Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas" tittle do not differentiate alleged from acknowledged areas. WP:UNDUE WP:BALANCE WP:GEVAL -- BthereDthat ( talk) 23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Having sources that confirms the definition is not a criterion for distinguishing areas in the article. WP:UNDUE WP:BALANCE WP:GEVAL -- BthereDthat ( talk) 23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I restored the UK section (someone else's contribution), which was promptly reverted with a pontification of WP:ONUS as the excuse. That policy applies only to "disputed content," yet there has been little if any discussion about this content, which had been arbitrarily deleted earlier. It is also very well-referenced material, and fits the general topic. In a systematic discussion of European nations, it is not undue to include the UK; what is undue is tendentiously omitting it. Looking for some support and voices of reason here please, to override what I perceive as minimalism and obstructionism. - JGabbard ( talk) 18:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Free zones from gays and lesbians? Lawyers: Local government resolutions against LGBT persons are illegal
https://oko.press/prawnicy-uchwaly-samorzadowcow-przeciwko-osobom-lgbt-nielegalne/
Local and territorial units opposing LGBT ideology.
Map of communes, poviats and voivodships in which anti-LGBT resolutions have been adopted or are being worked on
Supposed "no-go zones" not exist in Poland, invention of Russian agents? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FxJ (
talk •
contribs) 19:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
: The illegality of the actions by local authorities does not change their effect. If you are illegally excluded by the regional government, you are still excluded.
AstuteRed (
talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Sock puppet of banned user -
GizzyCatBella
🍁
12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Unlike some of the sketchy accounts around hereIf may i ask... Are you (or any other person here) evaluating my actions here as sketchy activity too? I guess that my edits here were "a bit" chaotic and I'm sorry for that. Please be rather honest than nice.
What do RS say? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The whole thing is a fringe matter overblown like hell by Western and LGBT media. There is no exclusion at all, no matter how some mainstream media outlets try to paint it. It doesn't matter what some local politicians proclaimed. Gay people can go to those towns, and yeah, they even live there. The notion of a no-go zone is completely false here.-- Darwinek ( talk) 01:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Hoax created by Paria Razem and their supporters for purpose of heating up political debate.
A.J. (
talk)
Until we have a clear cut idea of what the scope of this article is can we please not remove any material. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
My last words and conclusion: someone asked about reputable sources dealing with LGBT "no-go zones" in Poland, so here you are: [21]
A lot of the issue about the Polish "no go areas" can be equally said about (for example) those in the UK section. So what do WE mean by no go area? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
OK so should we change the lede to say "and areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years"? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Note in all cases must be supported by at least two RS, and over a period of at least two months.
I think thats all. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that this article might better be organized around "Types" of "no go" exclusions. If we want to have one based on specific locales, that could be part of a "History" section. I think that would address some of the issues at this 2nd AFD discussion. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I see French Sensitive urban zone. Then why aren't American ghettos included? Not much difference. In general, I am unsure if high crime areas should be mentioned here. After all, there's a difference between military no-go zones and areas where there is just rampant crime. This article is mixing a lot of different concepts. Many Demilitarized zone are also no-go areas and may warrant mentions here, through it does vary from case to case. What about Chernobyl Exclusion Zone? Also not mentioned here. Neither are dozen+ relevant places from Category:Radioactively contaminated areas... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so I read the whole paragraph about France and I'm totally shocked. There NEVER WAS ANY No-go zones in France, and especially the airport...sorry it's nothing more than a racist fake thing that racist people wants to hear and read. I'm a French woman proud to be able to go wherever I want, whenever I want, in every clothes that I want to wear etc.. I know it's only "alleged".. but hm... On Wikipedia? Like seriously? Did you know that this website has an impact for people who read it? Also, alleged by who except people who never lived there? So yeah, ALLEGED BY A FRENCH GIRL SINCE HER BIRTH : THERE NEVER WAS, NEVER EVER! If it's only alleged, then write it in the conditional, or don't write anything, because, whatever, that's false
Also, both far-right politicians/pundits and some ostensibly "non-far-right" conservative politicians push the no-go zone falsehood. "Far-right" should be restored. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The editor Korny O'Near changed clear RS-supported language that "no-go zones" are a falsehood/conspiracy theory into proponents of no-go zones "have faced press scrutiny for their allegations". The notion of a "no-go zone" in the context that anti-immigration far-right people use is clearly false and should be described as such. Korny O'Near's change is his own warped original research on the topic, and it's completely unacceptable that his whitewashed language is in the lead. We should stick to what RS say. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Your description is quite a bit more extreme than the standard definition of "no-go zones". Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The article currently said that « In 2005 France's domestic intelligence network, the Renseignements Generaux, identified 150 "no-go zones" around the country where police would not enter without reinforcements. » The Christopher Dickey article used as source do not give its sources, and I after a quick search, I didn't find anything in French about that. Same for Christopher Dickey's claim that then-French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said « No-go zones would not be allowed ». Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 15:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The Collins Dictionary source provides two definitions of "no-go area":
A wikipedia article typically covers a single topic or definition; this article is clearly about #2, and we shouldn't include #1 just because it uses the same name. We're clearly not talking about subways or neighborhoods where people are afraid to walk at night. – dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No-go area (2nd nomination) some contributors (me included) suggested to split the article and transform No-go area into a redirect to No-go zone, which is a disambiguation page. Thought? Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The editor GizzyCatBella removed the RS content about the falsehoods about no-go zones in the US. The editor said nothing in the edit summary besides "no". The content should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
And once I'm here Snooganssnoogans. This line - "have falsely been called no-go zones" is an OR. It was either labelled as a "no-go zone" or not. Adding the word "falsely" is OR. GizzyCatBella 🍁 20:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-french-city-zones-where-police-rarely-escape-unscathed Xx236 ( talk) 13:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/mensch-metropole/islamwissenschaftler-ralph-ghadban-wenn-die-frauen-rebellieren-zerfallen-die-clans-li.35622 The author link ethnic Clans with no-go areas. "Wenn Polizisten einen Verdächtigen kontrollieren wollen, sind sie plötzlich umkreist, werden geschubst, beschimpft, bedroht. So sind No-go-Areas entstanden." Xx236 ( talk) 13:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/23/firefighters-have-become-targets-vicious-mob-attacks/ Xx236 ( talk) 13:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
No-go area has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Some politicians and commentators have claimed the existence of no-go zones in areas with large populations of Muslims and immigrants" to "Some politicians and commentators have falsely claimed the existence of no-go zones in areas with large populations of Muslims and immigrants" to make it clear that the claim is a myth —as all the mentioned sources clarify. Nestive ( talk) 12:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This wording has been controversial. Should this article definitively state that there are no no-go zones in Europe (or the United States)? Maybe it's true, but I don't see any evidence for making this comprehensive claim. On the other side, people who have claimed that there are no-go zones, whether that's in Perpignan, Rinkeby, Malmö, or elsewhere, are various mainstream journalists, police officers, and politicians, including Angela Merkel. Korny O'Near ( talk) 14:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Not a propos of anything specific, but it's interesting to note that this Snopes debunking of "Sharia Law Muslim ‘No-Go’ Zones", currently cited several times in this article, contains the following quote from the website "Geographic Travels", about France's sensitive urban zones:
“ | A few [Zones Urbaines Sensibles] are truly no-go zones, while most are just areas where the government is focusing more development and police require special procedures to operate. A few (NOT ALL of the 751 ZUS, as falsely reported in “anti-jihadist blogs”) of these zones, primarily around Paris, are under control of radical Islamists. | ” |
I don't know what "Geographic Travels" is, or whether it's a reliable source - the site seems to be a blog, and is currently "under construction". But Snopes clearly think it's reliable, and they quote it as saying that, yes, there are indeed Muslim-controlled no-go zones in France. Which is quite an admission to make, in a piece arguing that there are no sharia law no-go zones. Of course, Muslim-controlled does not mean sharia law, but I wish the Snopes people had expanded on this apparent contradiction. Korny O'Near ( talk) 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
« Should this article definitively state that there are no no-go zones in Europe? » → No if I understand WP:SYNTH correctly, but look at WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Every time somebody claimed no-go-zones in Europe and pointed specific locations, people went there and showed it was not a Muslim-only no-go zone. «There have been false claims that no-go zones exist in various European countries» and «There have been false claims that Muslim-only no-go zones exist in various European countries.» looks good to me. Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 21:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
We go with what RS say, as I understand it they say "there is an accusation but no real evidence". Slatersteven ( talk) 16:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)