Talk:No-go area/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC: Include falsehoods about American no-go zones

The consensus is that this article can note that parts of the United States, such as Texas, Michigan and Minnesota, have been inaccurately referred to as no-go zones.

Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can this article note that parts of the United States, such as Texas, Michigan and Minnesota, have been inaccurately referred to as no-go zones? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, of course. If there is going to be a Wikipedia article about the subject of "no-go areas" (or no-go zones), then we should of course also include prominent instances of falsehoods about no-go zones. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes and no We should mention areas that have been described as no go zones, and if RS say these are inaccurate so should we. If however they do not, than neither should we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to inclusion, no to unqualified mention in Wikipedia's voice that these allegations are incorrect. For other countries whith alleged no-go zones we mention the sources that say there are no-go zones and the sources that contradict it. There's no reason to treat the US differently.Sjö (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  

Edit: I wasn't up to date with the recent changes to the article and I thought that current consensus was to include both sides when writing about alleged no-go zones. However, now I see that the article does describe the claims of no-go zones in France as incorrect, so I withdraw my non-vote. My point still stands that disputed no-go zones in the US should be treated just like disputed no-go zones in any other country. Sjö (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Allegations made by notable people or sources should be included in this article. If you're talking about this specific wording, which was deleted in March, though, I think that wording could be much better. As far as I know, the only definitive allegation mentioned in any of those sources is the one mentioned here: "In 2015, President of the Family Research Council Tony Perkins falsely claimed that Dearborn, Michigan had fallen into a no-go zone and was under Sharia Law.". The rest are allegations about Sharia Law jurisdictions (not the same thing), future no-go areas, etc. So, if these are the sources available, it could potentially be a one-sentence section, about Tony Perkins. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - as far as I can tell, these "no-go" zones are more famous for being fake than for being real, anyway. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Include Sweden?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was do not include.

This was a bit more complicated than it might look at first glance, because people were arguing completely different things. Broadly, the positions advanced can be divided into four different categories:
(1) Include the section and present the claims as factual.
(2) Include the section and present the claims as disputed/controversial.
(3) Include the section and present the claims as false.
(4) Do not include the section.

While (1), (2), and (3) are all in favour of inclusion, they are mutually exclusive. Thus, they cannot be treated as a single "include" option. Indeed, including the section would likely necessitate a second RfC (or at the very least further discussion) to decide between these three options.

There is some overlap in the arguments made for the different positions, in particular between (1) and (2) on the one hand and between (3) and (4) on the other hand. I have simplified this somewhat in my summary of the arguments below in order to present these arguments where they are most relevant and to reduce redundancy.

The case in favour of (1) relied on WP:Reliable sources reporting on individuals using the term "no-go area/zone" to describe places in Sweden and separately on an assessment that there are places in Sweden that meet the definition.

The case in favour of (2) relied, in essence, on WP:YESPOV. The point was made that the threshold for inclusion is WP:Verifiability, not truth. It was noted that disagreement between sources could be explained by the use of different criteria in defining the term. The issue of censorship was briefly raised and an appeal was made to teach the controversy.

The case in favour of (3) relied in large part on countering the arguments above. In particular, the argument was made that the existence of no-go areas/zones in Sweden constitutes a WP:FRINGE theory and that the assessment that some places in Sweden meet the definition constitutes WP:Original research. Moreover, there was discussion about the respective quality of the sources who say that no-go areas/zones in Sweden do or do not exist.

The case in favour of (4) relied in part on the same arguments as (3). In addition, the argument was made that this is not within the scope of this article because what the sources describe does not meet the inclusion criteria as outlined in the WP:LEAD. The use of the term "no-go area/zone" for these areas was argued to be equivocation. It was argued that the use of the term was rhetorical and that we would not regard mere uses of a term as sufficient basis for inclusion in other contexts. The paragraph about utsatta områden was argued to be WP:OFFTOPIC. The scope of the article was criticised for not being clearly focused and combining multiple definitions. The results of this on the different kinds of areas included in the article together were described as not making sense, and the term was argued to be defined in an overly flexible way.

Based solely on the number of adherents, none of the options held a majority. Of course, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY applies and WP:CONSENSUS is determined not by voting but by the quality of the arguments.

With regards to some of the arguments for (2), I'll note that WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant here as the argument against inclusion is not that it would be offensive, and I'll refer to the essay WP:Don't "teach the controversy" as to why that's misguided (in terms of phrasing, if nothing else). These particular arguments for position (2) have been discounted, and the others have been considered.

In order to properly assess the quality of the arguments, I have reviewed some of the previous discussions on this talk page (including the archives), the AfD from December 2019, and the version of the section linked at the top of this RfC.

This discussion has many similarities with the multiple previous discussions about Poland, where the argument for inclusion was (more or less) that there are reliable sources that report the use of the term to describe areas in Poland and the argument against inclusion was (again, more or less) that the use of the term was rhetorical and that the inclusion criteria outlined in the WP:LEAD were not met. Poland is not currently included, for what it's worth.

The issue of the scope of this article was raised in the AfD from December 2019, and as the closing editor noted, it was never quite addressed properly. Specifically, it was argued that this article violates WP:SYNTH and WP:BROADCONCEPT by conflating disparate concepts (in other words equivocation, see (4) above). The result of the AfD was that there was no consensus either for deleting the article or keeping it without addressing this issue. This has been further discussed since, most recently in March, though the issue was not resolved then. There seems to be some agreement in this RfC between editors who otherwise disagree that this is still a problem that needs to be taken care of. Thus, while this was not the subject of this RfC, I nevertheless find that there is (at least a weak) consensus that the definition/scope needs fixing.

In much the same way as the aforementioned AfD had a fundamental concern that was not properly addressed (in that case, it was WP:SYNTH), so did this RfC. In this case, it was about the areas in Sweden not being within the scope of the article as they do not meet the inclusion criteria. While it was noted that different definitions exist and that the scope could/should be adjusted, neither of these points refuted the argument that this does not meet the inclusion criteria. This is the most fundamental argument of the entire RfC; it does not matter how many or high-quality reliable sources can be found for something if it is not within the scope of the article, because establishing WP:VERIFIABILITY is not the same thing as establishing relevance.

In summary, I find that there is consensus against inclusion. If the issue of not being within scope had been properly addressed, this would have been a WP:NOCONSENSUS close, which would still mean not including the section because the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

On a personal note, I would suggest that clarifying the scope (and splitting the article as previously suggested, if that is deemed necessary) first would be a better solution than trying to reach consensus about inclusion on a case-by-case basis as has been done. In my experience, fixing problematic scopes is often difficult but nonetheless necessary in the long run.

TompaDompa (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the section "Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas" include a subsection on Sweden? This page previously contained such a subsection; you can see what it looked like here. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

When did we finish the last RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

May 16, apparently. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Then this is too early to restart.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is that? This is for a different country. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Only to clarify that no-go zones are non-existent in Sweden and that they are a common falsehood promulgated by right-wing crackpots. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. As (formerly) noted in that subsection, people who have publicly stated that Sweden has no-go zones include Liz Hayes (reporter for the Australian 60 Minutes), Gordon Grattidge (head of the Swedish ambulance drivers' union), Jacob Ekström (police chief of Sweden's Operation Fenix) and Lars Korsell (head of the the Department of Economic and Organized Crime at the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention). The notability and relevance of this information seems obvious. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional yes If it, like the French and US section makes it clear the allegations are false. The statements about no-go/sharia zones has garnered some attention. But the article shouldn't mislead the reader inte thinking that there are areas that meet the definition of no-go zone. Sjö (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support There are multiple reliable sources. If you believe it is fake news, a conspiracy, propaganda etc.. it can and should also be discussed in the section (with reliable sources). Removal of this section hides the facts, gives room for conspiracy and rumor to breed. Teach the controversy. There is a place on Wikipedia for controversial topics, deleting it solves nothing and creates new problems. -- GreenC 18:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The reliable sourcing uniformly says that there's no such thing, and the rambling conspiracy theories about this seem to have died down. Covering it here (even as a baseless conspiracy theory, which it is) would violate WP:ONEWAY. The Swedish Police source (which was the only non-opinion source that seemed to provide any support at all) is clearly WP:OR in context and cannot be used here under any circumstances; it makes no mention of no-go zones and does not seem to have anything at all to do with the topic. Without that the section would only say "some conservative commentators in other countries have made false statements using this term in regard to Sweden"; that is not a useful thing to have. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOTUSEFUL, usefulness has no bearing on whether material belongs in an article. Verifiability does, however. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• That essay covers article deletions, not sections; you should be more cautious when citing essays in the future. More generally, though, it also fails verifiability - the only sources using the term "no-go zones" in relation to Sweden correctly identify it as a conspiracy theory. Listing those is outside the reasonable scope of the list and, of course, also fails WP:ONEWAY, WP:FRINGE and similar policies; outside of pages specifically dedicated to such topics, we do not list lies simply to debunk them. --Aquillion (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion - did you notice this 2015 magazine article? It's non-opinion, and it quotes a Swedish police chief using the English-language phrase "no-go areas". Korny O'Near (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support the current situation is that no, ambulances and fire engines can't go into these areas without police escort. Single police patrols can't go there either, they have to come with at least two patrols so one patrol can guard the vehicles while the other makes arrests. Per Norwegian public service NRK interview with Swedish police inspector Lars Alvarsjö: – Vi møtes av steinkasting når vi drar ut på oppdrag. Det samme skjer med redningstjenester som brannmannskaper og ambulanser. De reiser aldri inn uten at politiet er på plass – kommer de først, stanser de utenfor området til politiet har sikret det, selv om de er på utrykning, sier Alvarsjø. Paste into your favourite translator. Note that the police inspector is talking about the general situation. This is also confirmed by an instance where a man died because the ambulance personnel refused to go there without police escort. So based on the available sources, a case can be made that a short section does belong in this article. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is straightforward WP:SYNTH and WP:OR (your sources don't mention the term "no-go zones" at all, so you are merely making an impassioned personal argument for categorizing it this way, which must be disregarded - especially since you are trying to use WP:SYNTH to contradict high-quality secondary sources unambiguously dismissing the point you are trying to make as baseless.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The sources explicitly state that police and ambulances DO ordinarily go into these areas albeit they are sometimes not welcomed by all residents! However, since both sources are anecdotal, relating to specific incidents, it isn't even possible to establish how often or widespread such difficulties arise for the police. This is pure SYNTH and selective use of a pair of anecdotal sources to establish a general truth. Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose due to thorough debunking from reliable sources per Aquillion. There's no reason that an article about "no-go zones" should cover all of the conspiracy theories and false claims about the topic.

Of secondary concern is the lack of a clearly-focused topic for this article. The lead mentions three definitions of "no-go area"; our standard practice is to cover one definition in a single article, and it make no sense to lump high-crime neighborhoods together with areas that are physically barricaded and defended by a paramilitary group.

It's also inappropriate to use an agency's internal guidelines to define a no-go area. If we take the claims at face value, there's nothing preventing police or ambulance crews from entering these areas alone; that's just a rule that they've set for themselves. If that's our standard then I guess my entire town would be considered a no-go zone because the President of my country will not enter without a large law enforcement presence. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as there are no no-go zones outside the imagination of a few far-right tinfoil hats. // Liftarn (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The current and former heads of the Swedish ambulance drivers' union both say that there are no-go areas in Sweden. Are they both far-right tinfoil hats? Or is just one far-right, and the other wears a tinfoil hat? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, when you look at the linked video it's the interviewer who says "no-go zones" but the men don't contradict her. However, it is clear from the video and the rest of the article that they are not talking about "areas barricaded off", "barred to certain individuals or groups", "undergoing insurgency", or "inhabited by a parallel society which has its own laws and is controlled by violent non-state actors". Instead, they talk about how they do when they enter those areas. This looks like a case of equivocation to me.Sjö (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether we should be analyzing videos directly, I think the definition in the intro needs to be improved. Clearly, a lot of people use the term "no-go zone" to describe simply areas where the police are afraid to enter - which doesn't quite rise to the level of "barricades" or "insurgency". Korny O'Near (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support given the moderate coverage of this topic in Sweden I think it is within the scope to include it within this article. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 10:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose since it does not look like there are many reputed references that say that these exist. AnomalousAtom (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all that is not accurate (see sources below) but even if you believe that, there are many things on Wikipedia about things that don't exist. See WP:NOTTRUTH. We report about controversial things, not censor them out of Wikipedia. -- GreenC 00:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support and WP:WikiVoice applies, in particular "describe disputes, but not engage in them". We can quote both the reliable sources saying they don't exist and the reliable sources saying that they do. This is not necessarily a contradiction as not everyone has the same definition. For example imagine that in region X an ambulance can enter with a police escort but won't enter without one. It is entirely reasonable that source A may consider this to be a no-go zone, but source B may consider it not to be one. Both are accurate; they just have different definitions. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support They are alleged to exist we say its only an allegation and why should we not mention them?Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per previous comments: why have a section on something that has no reliable sources saying it exists? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't think Australia's 60 Minutes, Forskning & Framsteg, or Politico are reliable sources? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There are reliable sources saying that people call some areas or places "no-go *" (as well as sources saying the opposite), but merely calling something a name doesn't make it so. We don't call the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democracy and if Gordon Ramsey called a dish a "disaster" we would not add it to Lists of disasters even if Ramsey's viewpoint was reported prominently in a large number of published, reliable sources. "No-go area" is one of those expressions that don't have a set definition (much like democracy and disaster). Because of that I think we should rely on the definition in the lede which mentions barricaded off, barred to some, insurgency and control by violent non-state actors. Looking at the available sources they support that in some places the police deploy more than one car and that ambulances and fire service wait for police backup. However, there are also sources that report that police do work alone [1] and that police are not called by default when ambulances or fire services are called to vulnerable areas [2][3] So these are areas where police, ambulance and fire services go, but sometimes with extra precautions and support. I believe that this is not a unique situation for these areas in Sweden, but that providing extra support is a practice that is not at all uncommon in many cities, mostly without them being called no-go zones or being discussed at this page. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. As I said above, I support inclusion if the article explains that the claims are incorrect. I would change my mind if the text in the lede was changed to include areas where e.g. police don't go alone and I suppose that then the same standard would apply to all countries. Sjö (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

merely calling something a name doesn't make it so. Please read WP:NOTTRUTH (seriously, it speaks directly to situations like this). No one is saying we would claim in Wikipedia-voice that Sweden has no-go areas. That would be completely inappropriate. -- GreenC 19:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per Adoring nanny discussed above. Idealigic (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. per arguments of Aquillion, Sjö and others. Most of the sources support nothing more than that there are areas of cities where policing is sometimes very difficult (as though policing of inner cities has not always been so) and that occasionally someone has called these areas "no-go areas" rhetorically. Not that they are generally accepted as being thus, nor that they even meet our own criteria, since civil authority DOES operate there, albeit not always smoothly. There does seem to be a very flexible definition throughout the article - Merkel seemingly uses the term to mean areas where some people don't feel comfortable going. Has there ever been a modern city that some people don't feel safe going to, sometimes? Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Inclusion criteria" for Sweden

I re-added the subsection about Sweden, but it was removed by Liftarn, who said that it was not allowed "per inclusion criteria". Presumably he was referring to the criteria listed here, by another editor. I don't know what the consensus is for these "inclusion criteria", if any, but these criteria seem incorrect on the face of it. If anything, these seem like criteria for clearly acknowledged no-go areas, but the name of the section is "Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas". Surely there are enough well-referenced and notable allegations of no-go areas in Sweden in this section so that it easily qualifies for inclusion. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see why the lies about Sweden should not be included in the Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas section. Liftarn could you explain? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The present inclusion criteria are that no-go-zones are areas that are:

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

None of these applies to Sweden. If Sweden goes back then Poland should too and then we're back where we started. // Liftarn (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand what "alleged" means? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand the inclusion criteria as listed above? // Liftarn (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand them, but, as a I said before, they don't make sense. Plus there doesn't seem to be any consensus behind them, though that's probably partly due to them not making sense. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

There are no real of alleged no-go zones in Sweden so it shouldn't be included in this page. // Liftarn (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to create Muslim no-go-zones conspiracy theory (wikidata:Q77834046, User:Visite fortuitement prolongée/Muslim no-go-zones conspiracy theory) and put in the no-go zones in Sweden story. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Liftarn - there are indeed alleged no-go zones in Sweden. If you had read the section you deleted - and its footnotes - you would have known that people who have publicly stated that Sweden has no-go zones include Liz Hayes (reporter for the Australian 60 Minutes), Gordon Grattidge (head of the Swedish ambulance drivers' union), Jacob Ekström (police chief of Sweden's Operation Fenix) and Lars Korsell (head of the the Department of Economic and Organized Crime at the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention). Korny O'Near (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's always possible to find some fringe nutcase who can state anything, but no notable sources have claimed it. And you misrepresent the sources as they don't say what you claim. // Liftarn (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

These are four notable journalists and/or notable subject matter experts, who are themselves quoted in reliable sources. I don't know how it could get more notable/reliable than this. And what did I misrepresent? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Of those it's only Liz Hayes that says what you claim and that's because she repeats lies by a far-right activist. // Liftarn (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's six minutes of Gordon Grattidge talking about the existence of no-go zones in Sweden. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A YouTube video published by a far right blog[11]? That's your source? // Liftarn (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who published the video (and I'm not even sure what it means to "publish" a YouTube video), but it's not relevant to the discussion - either he said these things or he didn't. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a useable source for Wikipedia since a) it's self published, and b) it's published by a fringe group. // Liftarn (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Good thing it's not cited directly in this article, then - only indirectly, via reliable sources. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We'll have to see about that. // Liftarn (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

My good sir, WP:FAITH Let's stay civil, yeah? Also, let's try our best to treat sources equally regardless of their possible political leaning and such. Doing otherwise would certainly endanger the credibility of WP as a source Lucatir (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing RS content that characterizes "no-go zones" as a false claim

The editors Korny O'Near and Elizium23 removed a bunch of reliable sources and changed a lot of language so that text about false claims of no-go zones no longer explicitly says the claims are false.[12] For example, now, the article no longer clearly says that claims of sharia law in Minnesota and other parts of the US are false. This is non-compliant with WP:FRINGE and does not stick to what RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Understand the WP:CLAIM concerns but it is important our article is factual. Have reverted again but edited to address concerns. Noted some other places where our text strays from the sources on this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

We need to be very clear that the Sharia law claims are false, and to do otherwise is to misrepresent the sources. When a false claim (Sharia law) and a true claim (police will not enter an area without backup) are in the same sentence, the solution is to clarify what it true and what is false, not remove the word "false" entirely. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, Wikipedia is not in the business of discerning "true" from "false". WP:VNT still applies. We explain what is supported by the sources and what is debunked by reliable sources. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV may also apply here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Elizium23, I'm in complete agreement. We go by what the sources say and every single source in that section [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] describes the no-go-zone claims as "false", "debunked", "wrong", "outlandish", and "When I heard this, frankly, I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April Fools' Day." We're not deciding for ourselves what is true or false, we're writing to reflect what reliable sources describe. –dlthewave ☎ 19:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what you write, and I also want to point out that this article are about no-go zones, according to the definitions in the lede. It is not about areas with run-down housing, poor schools, high levels of crime or predominantly Muslim populations. These are offtopic to the article, and should be removed. I also question including the the bar in Sevran, which allegedly excludes women, as undue and think that if the bar is included we would also need to list other places where women are excluded, such as some of those in List of gentlemen's clubs in the United States. Sjö (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What is this article about?

There are at least four different (though related) meanings of the term "no-go area" or "no-go zone": an area made restricted by the government (like the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone), an area controlled by an insurgent force (like Free Derry), a quasi-independent area that police don't enter (like Kowloon Walled City) and a high-crime area that police are afraid to enter (like, allegedly, parts of France, German, Sweden etc.). They're all different, though of course they have the concept of restricted entry in common. Now, one user, Dlthewave, has decided (I think) that this article is only about the first three of those meanings. Although I'm not sure about that, because the resulting article still includes a fair amount of discussion of high-crime areas in Europe. So I don't know what the thinking is. But does anyone want to express an opinion on what this article is about?

By the way, I think it's obvious that - unless new articles are created like No-go area (high crime) - this article should cover all of the meanings, as it did before. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It is rich of you to say that Dlthewave "decided" when he just restored your change that expanded the scope of the article. Sjö (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that - I don't think he restored any of my changes. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's long past time to have a serious discussion about what this is supposed to be about. Wikipedia articles are written to cover a single topic, not every use or definition of a word or phrase. I support our long-standing definition which includes areas that are either "undergoing insurgency" or "have their own laws and are controlled by violent non-state actors" (which would cover the false Shariah law claims). The fact that police and ambulance crews do enter high-crime areas such as French Sensitive urban zones tells us that they're really not the same thing as a zone that's occupied by some sort of hostile force. This is just agency safety policy which has no real legal or political significance. Are we to include all high-crime areas here or just the ones used to support weird anti-Muslim conspiracy theories? –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad we're having this discussion, then. Personally, I think it makes sense to include "areas that are so dangerous that police refuse to enter" in this article: a lot of people have used the term "no-go zone" or "no-go area" to describe such places, and it certainly fits in with the general concept: if, say, you witness a murder and you know that there's no point calling the police about it, it hardly matters whether it's because the area is controlled by the IRA or just a bunch of local criminals. Now, you could argue that such places don't exist (though there's a fairly substantial number of police officers, journalists, scholars etc. who say they do); but it doesn't really matter whether they exist or not. There's an article on unicorns, for example, even though those don't exist. As for which high-crime areas to include: the ones that reliable sources have alleged to be no-go zones, of course. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Belgium

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2022/11/28/police-union-slates-politicians-after-sundays-post-match-rioting/ Allegedly 20 zones in Brusselles. Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sweden

Bizarre that Sweden is not mentioned in the Alleged section, yet the term "no-go area" is covered in the article Vulnerable area. I'm not seeing a difference between this and France's Sensitive urban zones, which we do cover. I came to this article specifically for information about vulnerable areas, and was surprised not to find it.

I have reviewed the discussions in Talk:No-go area/Archive 1, Talk:No-go area/Archive 2, Talk:No-go area/Archive 3. I think it is time to revisit this issue. As the article says in the lede, in the 21st century the term is used for "areas that police or medical workers consider too dangerous to enter without heavy backup". This criterion is met by Sweden's "vulnerable areas", of which the national broadcaster NRK reported "They are often called 'no go zones' because ambulances and fire trucks cannot drive into the areas without police protection on critical occasions." [21] cagliost (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the disparate usages evident (in reliable sources) for the term 'no-go area', there are basically two options for this article: either contributors decide for themselves what the phrase really means (which is of course contrary to policy), or we stop pretending that a 'no-go area' is anything more than a location that someone somewhere has described as such. Not a thing, a phrase. In the case above, a phrase (at least in part) in Swedish. So a phrase apparently close enough to English to pass muster quite possibly, but only if we arbitrarily decide for ourselves what constitutes a literal translation. As for Sweden's 'vulnerable areas', they are defined as such in a list compiled by the Swedish Police Authority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:Consensus can change of course, but has anything new emerged since the RfC back in 2020 (Talk:No-go area/Archive 3#RfC: Include Sweden?)? Has anything changed such that we have a strong reason to expect a new discussion to be substantially different, rather than more-or-less a rehash of the previous one? I stand by what I said in my close of the previous RfC: it's almost certainly a better idea to figure out what the scope of this article is supposed to be first (which would of course require reviewing the relevant sources on the overarching topic), rather than debating individual examples. At any rate, anybody who comes here looking for information about vulnerable areas can follow the link to that article in the "See also" section. TompaDompa (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

"either contributors decide for themselves what the phrase really means (which is of course contrary to policy), or we stop pretending that a 'no-go area' is anything more than a location that someone somewhere has described as such. Not a thing, a phrase." This is a false dichotomy. There is a third option, which is to use reliable sources. The term has a dictionary definition, for example the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus defines it as "an area, especially in a town, where it is very dangerous to go, usually because a group of people who have weapons prevent the police, army, and other people from entering".

So the scope of the article seems quite clear to me. The article at present tries to draw a distinction between the "historical" usage and the "21st century usage", but this is a false dichotomy. The "historical" examples include Hong Kong, which is a non-military example. It seems to me that the distinction is not one of definition, but merely which are controversial ("alleged") and which are not. The example of Mozambique has a source proclaiming the existence of no-go zones in 1960s-1970s Mozambique, and no sources disputing this, so it's uncontroversial. Whereas the section on Germany has a source (Novotny) describing the controversy. I don't see evidence of disparate usage. Even in the controversial cases, it is clear what is being discussed. The example of Kenya is placed in the "Alleged" section, for no apparent reason. Frankly, the distinction the article attempts to draw between the "historical" usage and the "21st century usage" is Original Research, not supported by reliable sources.

It is not up to us to determine whether a given place is a "no-go area". Instead we must use reliable sources, while avoiding False Balance and Original Research. For example, if the Chancellor of Germany proclaims the existence of no-go zones, reported in reliable sources, we can report that without it being Original Research. If the Swedish national broadcaster reports that "vulnerable districts, where criminal networks have a strong influence... are often called 'no go zones' because ambulances and fire trucks cannot drive into the areas without police protection on critical occasions", that sounds like a reliable source to me, and not Original Research. cagliost (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, it's clear from the Cambridge definition that it doesn't have to be impossible for the authorities to enter, just dangerous/difficult. Ambulances need police escort, police need substantial backup, etc. cagliost (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

As I recall one of the objections was that this was very much tabloid journalism, unaffected by more sober analysis. In effect a violation of wp:undue. Lost of towen and cities have "well dodgy" reps (SARF OF THE RIVA DIS TIMEA NIGHT, YOUR AVIN A LARF!"), that does not make them no go zones. Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Given TompaDompa's comments about figuring out the scope of the article first, I've started a new discussion below, labelled "Unfocused".