Talk:No-go area

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law Enforcement  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Remove political labeling.[edit]

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 (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. // Liftarn (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

LGBT-free zone[edit]

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)

This is absurd. The content is completely unrelated to the scope of this article which is about "A no-go area, a region where the ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce the rule of law" [1]. These "resolutions" are just statement from shitty politicians saying shitty things. Or wait. Maybe this falls within "Undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty"??? Or maybe these LGBT Zones are "Areas where fishing is made illegal due to overfishing"???
Just stop being ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh - do quote the rest of the lead - " 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)
Has anything happened to gay people who have entered one of these zones, or is this designation just symbolic? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Mixed. Symbolic in a sense, but per Telegraph it is dangerous to be openly gay in rural Poland.[3] Dozens of pride marchers (1st march) were injured when beset on by a mob of thousands in "LGBT-free zone" of Białystok.[4] Icewhiz (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Beatings at a gay pride march, though unfortunate, sound like political violence and not an attempt to keep people from entering a certain area. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Once again, let's not WP:COATRACK this article by misrepresenting what the sources say and what the governments actually decreed. Doesn't belong in this article by any stretch of the imagination. Elizium23 (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
That is nonsense. The article says it is about "areas that have been described as no-go areas" and the LGBT no-go zones of Poland qualifies. // Liftarn (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
So... which of your sources described them with those words "no-go zones"? (Answer: none) Thanks, but no thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, this and this perhaps. // Liftarn (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Liftarn here, that the Polish zones (whatever you want to call them) should be mentioned in the article. As I understand the consensus of the discussion about Muslim no-go zones in Europe it doesn't really matter if the allegations are correct or if they meet the definition in the beginning of the article. What matters is if reliable sources have called them "no-go zones". Personally, I think that inclusion criterion is too broad, but there we are. Sjö (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Quote - "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”. So no, this is not what the LGTB free area in Poland are.GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The article covers "areas that have been described as no-go areas" and as they have been described as that they can go into the article. // Liftarn (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella, not one of the European countries listed in the article has any areas that fit the definition that you reference (and maybe that goes for other countries as well). They're still included in the article, and if you want to remove the LGTB-free zones because they don't fit the definition, then you should remove the rest that don't meet the definition. Sjö (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Unquestionably no consensus to include. You restoring the material added initially by the now-banned user. WP:ONUS then is on you to explain and gain consensus on why this utterly unrelated to the scope of this article, blown out of proportion, irrelevant material should be on our article. I am entirely unconvinced why this particular material is of any specific relevance.GizzyCatBella🍁 02:44, 3 November 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 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC) 
Out of curiosity, why do so many registered and unregistered editors edit the article right now? Has it been in the Polish news or on the Polish WP Village pump? 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Your guess is right... -- (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019[edit]

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)

There's already similar content to this in the Germany and UK subsections: "A sociology paper published in 2009 said that right-wing extremists had been discussing the creation of no-go areas in Western Europe since the 1980s", "an investigation for Today has found disturbing evidence that Asian youths in parts of Oldham are trying to create no go areas for white people". François Robere (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Elizium23: I take offense at your accusation of edit-warring. If you get so emotional about a subject that you can't keep a cool head and discuss without resorting to personal attacks you should consider not editing articles about those subjects. This is the link where you report edit warring: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, please go there if you believe that you have a case. If you don't, I would expect you to strike your accusation and apologize to the involved editors. Sjö (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The sections says it's about (and I quote) "areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years". Like I said above, there is a consensus to include areas that have been called no-go zones. That means that it includes areas that are nowhere near barricaded off or where authorities don't go. As a Swede, I think that it is ridiculous to call the areas in Sweden no-go zones because they don't fit the criteria unless in in some news media reporting. Poland is now in the situation that Sweden and several other countries have been in for years, where this article lists so-called no-go zones that really aren't. I would be happy to see a new consensus that include only areas barricaded off or undergoing insurgency, but that would remove a lot of the areas that are currently listed here. Until that happens, the solution is not to remove the Polish areas because you don't like it, or because someones original research says that they can't be no-go zones. Such arguments carry no weight here. If they did, I could have listed police stations in alleged no-go zones but I don't. Like in every other article in Wikipedia, we go by what the sources say. Sjö (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Sjö: if you feel that you are edit-warring then perhaps it is a personal attack. Please take special note: I named nobody in my "accusation" of edit-warring, and therefore only those who are actually edit-warring will feel attacked.
That being said, those who are demanding for inclusion of this information are committing WP:SYNTH as well, because they long for the situation in Poland to be more violent or more foreboding than it actually is (merely political rhetoric.) We can see the SYNTH in the original article as well, with the specious inclusion of a category it does not belong in. It would seem that this over-inflated hype must stop at some point. Is @Icewhiz: not banned by now? Elizium23 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
By the way @Sjö: I have reported the page to WP:RFPP which is where we report instances of edit-warring by more than 2-3 parties. Hopefully an RFPP admin will full-protect this article and force you and others to discuss, rather than edit-war as you have been. Thanks for the suggestion! Elizium23 (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Sjö: Are you saying that if you have a definition and you have allowed to add some information that isn't compatible with this definition, you should allow to put more discordant information?!? Haven't you rather correct definition or correct/remove improper information? Are you aware that Polish LGBT-free zones are created by administrative decissions?-- (talk) 15:12, 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)
@AstuteRed: If we are still talking about:
  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]
your statement make me speechless. I guess, that you are sure that sources are correct, but are you sure that sources are correct? edits are mine (dynamic IP)... How are you explain official under-average crime ratings police statistics for that area?!? Are any official authorities statements will be enough for you?!?-- (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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?
-- (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

LGBT are people too. LGBT-free zones are no-go areas for LGBT. LGBT are threatened and intimidated in zones that are declared "free" of "LGBT ideology". Just like apartheid white areas were no-go to blacks in South Africa. Numerous newspapers and human right advocates state this, amply sourced.Catogato (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Catogato: Would you kindly point me out any source claiming that polish "LGBT-free zones" are no-go zones for lesbiasn, gays, bisexuals, transvestites or LGBT people?-- (talk) 22:52, 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: - 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. (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 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The map shows where the no-go zone is. // Liftarn (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liftarn: Yes, the no-go declared zones but in reality it changes nothing, even more threats in many places outside of them (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Same with the alleged no-go zones in Sweden. // Liftarn (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liftarn: Map shows "LGBT-free zones" not no-go zones. Would you kindly show me any source claiming that LGBT-free zones are no-go zones?--BthereDthat (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
It's in the article. // Liftarn (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liftarn: References in article confirms LGBT-free zones existence not the identity/equality of LGBT-free zones and no-go zones. Would you like to be more specific?--BthereDthat (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
As it says at the header it enough that it is an alleged no-go zone so it's enough that it is reported by a reliable source that it has been called that. For Poland it is [2] ("Left-wing party Razem said: ‘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.’") and [3]. So we have a source saying it's called no-go zones. It is not required that they are de facto no-go zones. // Liftarn (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liftarn:Header is enough?!? Are you sayng that Gay Star News header "Polish newspaper is handing out 'LGBT-free zone' stickers" is enough to claim that "LGBT-free zone" is no-go zone? How are you deduced it?!?
From article: 'Pamiętacie, jak prawica straszyła tzw. no-go zones? Dzięki tej samej prawicy doczekaliśmy się własnych stref no-go. Obrzydliwe." - following link leads to Tweet containing: '#StrefaWolnaOdLGBT #naklejka #LGBT wkrótce wraz z „Gazetą Polską' #GazetaPolska" text! Isn't that inaccuracy/error? Shouldn't that be corrected?--BthereDthat (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Not the headline. In this article (here on Wikipedia) it says "The following are areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years, though in some cases the characterization has been disputed.". The Polish LGBT no-go zones have been described as such and the homophobic far right don't like it. // Liftarn (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: says that we don't have a chance of removing the Poland section from this article because there are "twelve reliable sources". It seems that information may be included in any article as long as there are enough sources to support its WP:TRUTH, irregardless of its relevance. Elizium23 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
This is essentially the equivalent of adding Andre the Giant Has a Posse to List of totalitarian regimes because there are lots of reliable sources for both of them. Elizium23 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be if List of totalitarian regimes included alleged totalitarian regimes and some reliable source have stated that Andre the Giant Has a Posse have been called a totalitarian regime. // Liftarn (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Nobody trying to include stuff here is overly worried about the definition of a "no-go area" as laid out in this article. The point is that whether we have a bunch of skaters distributing stickers of a wrestler, someone photoshopping Mary to put on a rainbow, or some other sticker campaign, this is more a case of "artistic differences" than what actuall falls under the topic of this article. Elizium23 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Err.... No. This is local politicians declaring their area to be off-limits for LGBT (persons or "ideology" really don't matter) and it has been described as a no-go zone. It's not that different from all the other allged no-go zones apart from that this is supported by the ruling regime. // Liftarn (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not that different from all the other allged no-go zones Wait. 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".
Dude. It's *completely* different. And it's completely out of scope of this article. Is it:
1) An area "Undergoing insurgency where ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce sovereignty"? NO.
2) An area "That has a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there"? NO.
3) An area "That is inhabited by a parallel society that has its own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors have been described as "no-go zones"? NO.
4) Is it a " military exclusion zones, border zones, or other declared exclusion zones"? NO.
It is none of these things, these "areas" are just local electoral district which happen to have some particularly stupid and obnoxious politicians who made some homophobic and disgusting proclamations. Like, oh, I don't know, some politicians do everywhere. This whole thing is just one big troll (both the proclamations by local politicians as well inclusions of this info in this article). The fact that this is completely different from rest of the article is blatantly obvious.
And if there are other parts of the article (and a quick look gives the impression that that may well be the case) which are also out of scope, then remove that stuff too. Volunteer Marek 14:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Notice the word "alleged", not "de facto". We're talking about the ones listed underNo-go area#Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas. So the inclusion of Poland, Sweden, France et.c. are about the same. The difference is that usually it's some far right tinfoil hat that claims a suburb is a no-go area because there are people with darker skin living there, but in the case of Poland it's a) officially declared by the local authorities, b) not about skin colour. // Liftarn (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Well, actually it really is not that different from other alleged contemporary no-go zones in Europe, which is what I think Liftarn refers to. AFAIK there's not one of the European areas in the section Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas that meets the criteria that you list. My advice would be to either accept that this article has a definition of no-go zone that you don't agree with, or to change the consensus about what areas to include. I personally think that many of the alleged no-go zones don't belong in the article, but such is not the consensus and i try to support the consensus from pick-and-choose editing, even when I would prefer more stringent inclusion criteria. Sjö (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
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.
So actually, the comparison with the other sections on Europe clearly illustrates the point that this does not belong here.
Look. We have two choices here: 1) rewrite the entire lede to accommodate this particular phenomenon. But that would be changing the scope of the article and would require an RfC. Or 2) remove this stuff. What needs to be accepted is that this just is out of scope. Volunteer Marek 14:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not different in any meaningful way. The difference (apart from that the no-go zones in Poland is backed by the government) is that in the case of Poland it's liberal/left that says it's a no-go zone and in the case of the rest of Europe it's righ/far-right that says it's a no-go zone. But the political leanings shouldn't matter as Wikipedia should be neutral. // Liftarn (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
It's completely different! In the case of Northern Ireland you have an armed organization (the IRA) preventing certain people from going in. In Belgium you have "government has no control over the situation" and "terrorist links" (whether this should be included is a separate question). In France these are supposed to be areas controlled by gangs (whether that is true or not is a separate question) and "lawless". In Sweden these areas where (again, allegedly) criminal gangs have taken over. All of these qualify under areas "That have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there" or areas "inhabited by a parallel society that has its own laws and which are controlled by violent non-state actors" (again, allegedly).
NOTHING like that is true of these "areas" in Poland. These are just electoral districts where some politicians said some shitty things. Nobody, regardless of their sexual orientation, is actually prevented from going, living or being there. The same rights apply to everyone. There is no "armed gangs" or "insurgent groups" or "terrorist links" or anything like that. There is no "backed by the government". What exactly does the "government" (sic) do here? Politicians on local councils made unenforceable, empty, declarations. It's stupid and dumb, but it's not a "no go zone".
Completely different. Volunteer Marek 16:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
In Poland the government declared themself to be no-go zone for LGBT and there are certainly violent gangs that beat up people who they suspect of being gay. In for instance France and Sweden they are ordinary suburbs with more people who arent entierly white and a slight elevation in crime. There is no "armed gangs" or "insurgent groups" or "terrorist links" or anything like that in either case. So (with some slight variations) it's about the same. Not a de facto or de jure no-go zone, but they have been described as such. // Liftarn (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
And both (yes, there is only two, not "twelve") sources which refer to these as "no-go zones" are actually talking about... stickers handed out by a Polish newspaper. Which isn't even mentioned in this article!!! And the sources are being misrepresented too. Neither of them says "described these areas as "no-go zones" for LGBT people". There's nothing in either about the voivodeships or other municipalities. It's all about the stickers. This, on top of everything else, is WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 16:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
No they actually don’t. A single organization made that hyperbolic comparison. These empty declarations are nothing like rest of what’s in article, which involve control of territory by armed groups. Why you writing in broken sentences brand new account? Volunteer Marek 15:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I hope you're not intentionally misspresent what this article says. The section in question Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas is full of the same type of hyperbole. There is nothing special about Poland in that regard. // Liftarn (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
is full of the same type of hyperbole Can 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)
For instance the entire section about Sweden. There are no no-go zones in Sweden so the entire section is just the ordinary rumour mills and fake news. It's still included as we have reliable sources saying that some people claim there are no-go zones in Sweden. // Liftarn (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
You're right, that section should be removed as well. I tried. Of course I was quickly reverted by another red-linked account with few edits which has never shown an interest in Sweden. Volunteer Marek 14:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Is WP:FAPO still valid?--BthereDthat (talk) 15:58, 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)

Yet we have had many such "unofficial" zone in the article for months before this was an issue. No two wrongs do not make a right, but neither is a right a wrong just because of the target.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Official administrative acts concerning LGBT-free zones[edit]

Sejmik Województwa Małopolskiego [Regional Council of the Lesser Poland Voivodeship][edit]

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,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 (talkcontribs)

Sejmik Województwa Lubelskiego [Regional Council of the Lublin Voivodeship][edit]

2019-04-25 The position of the Regional Council of the Lublin Voivodeship regarding the introduction of the "LGBT" ideology in local government communities pdf --BthereDthat (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sejmik Województwa Podkarpackiego [Regional Council of the Podkarpackie Voivodeship][edit]

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. pdf --BthereDthat (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sejmik Województwa Świętokrzyskiego [Regional Council of the Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship][edit]

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. pdf--BthereDthat (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Starostwo Powiatowe w Świdniku [District Authority Office of Świdnik][edit]

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)

Starostwo Powiatowe w Rykach [District Authority Office of Ryki][edit]

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)

Starostwo Powiatowe w Zamościu [District Authority Office of Zamość][edit]

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)


Yes, they hate gays. I think that is established by now. // Liftarn (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liftarn: Nope. That your opinion. Facts are that they are against LGBT movement ideology and LGBT movement affirmation. They are not against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals...--BthereDthat (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
No, it's suported by reliable sources.[4][5][6][7][8] That they in their own propaganda claims to be against the "ideology" is really not relevant. Please read up on WP:V and so on. // Liftarn (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liftarn: You have some administrative acts claiming being against LGBT movement ideology/affirmation/promotion and you have some commentary about this acts claiming that administration is against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals... Yep. You are right--BthereDthat (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources make a difference. // Liftarn (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liftarn: I couldn't agree with you more.--BthereDthat (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Good. Please go find some before continuing. // Liftarn (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liftarn:Your wish is my command. Been there, done that.--BthereDthat (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Good. Could you please post them here. So far I've only seen primary sources. // Liftarn (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
You are right as always. Primary sources that are officiat administrative acts can't be good in any mean.
So they say somthing like "The Regional Assembly of the Malopolska Voivodship expresses its strong opposition to the public-oriented activities appearing in the public sphere promoting the ideology of LGBT movements". And what new information does that provide? // Liftarn (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
That would indeed be an accurate and precise way to describe it but it also shows that it's stuff which doesn't belong in THIS particular article (though it does probably belong in others). Volunteer Marek 16:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't parrot government propaganda as that would violate WP:PRIMARY as well as WP:RSSELF. // Liftarn (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Would you kindly explain me why you you call official administrative acts a "parrot government propaganda" WP:NPOV? Please note also that there are no "LGBT-free zones" in official administrative documents. "LGBT-free zones" only shows up in political commentary.--BthereDthat (talk) 09:49, 5 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)

I'm agree. Just for explanation... I'm aware that this sources are off topic here, but they just present necessary background.--BthereDthat (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
It fits under "areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years" that is indeed covered by the article. Either all areas that are not de facto or de jure no-go areas should be removed or included. You can't just select to remove one of them without any valid reason. // Liftarn (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Im slightly disagree. They fits under: "areas that have been wrongly described as no-go areas in recent years".--BthereDthat (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
We make no judgement on that, but most of the other areas in the section are more or less wrongly described as no-go areas. // Liftarn (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I guess I'm aware this. That was just mental shortcut. Let me expand it: "areas that haven't meet no-go area definition and was described as no-go areas in recent years". And then we will go through the same as now again...--BthereDthat (talk) 11:51, 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)
This is false. No one is excluded from anything. Your wording is strange brand new account. Volunteer Marek 14:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Official police statistics of crime ratings[edit]

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)

Sweden - timeline[edit]

The section seems to be chaotic. Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)



Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2019[edit]

Please remove the section about Poland. 1. It has nothing to do with no-go zones 2. It is completely untrue, fake news. (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Not done. Please establish a consensus for this change before making this edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The article header defines no-go area as "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" and whole paragraph about Poland seems to reference to some stickers. We either should extend the definition of "no-go area" or provide actual source indicating any kind of force being used to barr anyone as mentioned in definition. Srokap (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The whole "LGTB free zone" areas was just a political stunt pulled up by some foolish Polish politicians hoping to gain popularity among the conservative rural population. Nobody is taking this seriously, and quite frankly, no one is talking about it anymore in Poland. The LGBT community isn't in any way banned from entering the south Eastern Poland (lol!) or anything even close to that. This is ridiculous to have the entire section dedicated to that nonsense in our article as it is now. Maybe if we extended the definition of "no-go area" and rewrite the Poland section to describe the circumstances accurately.. but honestly, I don't think it's even worth it. I can't find any sources except the media buzz from back then.GizzyCatBella🍁 03:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
No it says "A force".Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is being brigaded by users of portal[edit] 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:

Second thread with over 150 upvotes (at the time of linking):

Those threads encourage wykop users to come and brigade the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambr5 (talkcontribs) 00:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cambr5: Are you saying that over 3500 upvotes have been a result of activity of "hardcore right wing users" or maybe people there have been just shocked by the fact that there is Wikipedia article about polish enormous (almost 1/5 of country) no-go zones? Will my opinion about hardcore left wing users that are at least as strong as right wing users be as valid as your opinion? Is such opinions in any mean that important, that shoud be preached here?
Just for my credibility(?)... All earlier edits from and are mine. I have already offered "" link in reply to Sjö question.--BthereDthat (talk) 09:10, 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)

Got sources for that claim? // Liftarn (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The "source" is all the brand new SPI red linked accounts which have appeared here all of sudden. Volunteer Marek 16:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

FAKE NEWS - No-go areas in Poland[edit]

Free zones from gays and lesbians? Lawyers: Local government resolutions against LGBT persons are illegal

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 (talkcontribs) 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)
There’s no “illegal exclusion” here by any government, regional or otherwise. Volunteer Marek 14:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
So you say it's legal? Got sources for that? // Liftarn (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Noooo, what I'm saying is that there is no "exclusion". Please, don't twist my words. Unlike some of the sketchy accounts around here, I assume and believe that even though we disagree you're acting in good faith and genuinely want to improve the article and resolve this dispute. If you start with this whole "so you're saying that <insert strawman here>" then I won't be able to maintain that assumption. Volunteer Marek 15:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Unlike some of the sketchy accounts around here If 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.
And if may I ask one other thing... References here have a relationship rather with "LGBT-free zones" than with "'LGBT-free zones' being no-go zones". May/should I do something about it and how to make it following good practises? Or it will be better when I shut up already?--BthereDthat (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

since March, 31 right-leaning local governments (and counting) have declared their counties and cities “LGBTQ-free.”[9] ‘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.’[10] // Liftarn (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
That's not what RS says, that's what one organization said. That can be mentioned in the other article (LGBT-free zone) but it's not enough to merit inclusion here and the info here is still out of scope. Volunteer Marek 15:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
We have reliable sources that says the organisations said that so it fits the inclusion criteria for this article.Now if you want to discuss changing the scope of the article it's an entierly different discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
There's a difference between "a reliable source says X is Y" and "a reliable source reports that someone said that X is Y". Except, as it turns out, we now don't even have the latter (see below), as the organization issued a statement saying they were purposefully using the term "no-go zones" in a hyperbolic way as a way of provoking Polish right wingers. Volunteer Marek 21:44, 11 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)

Same as with the alleged no-go zones in for instance Sweden and France then. So there is nothing odd about including Poland as well. // Liftarn (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
No, not "Same as the alleged no-go zones in for instance Sweden.."Refer to people's comments throughout this page, please. It was explained to you repeatedly by several people why Poland's "LGTB free zones" do not belong to this particular article.GizzyCatBella🍁 08:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, the same except that some Poles don't like it. However WP:DONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Apart from that there have only been a lot of strawman attacks and (intentional or not) missunderstanding about the scope of the article. // Liftarn (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Are you - as a person who use 'parrot government propaganda' sentence to describe official administrative acts that are WP:PRIMARY - really feel that is right to play WP:DONTLIKEIT card and present your opinion about Poles at the same time? Isn't WP:FAPO, WP:RS more important than WP:DONTLIKEIT? Isn't sources here referencing 'LGBT-areas being no-go zones' flooded by sources referencing 'LGBT-areas'? Isn't all or vast majority of that sources is WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:RSSELF and WP:CIRCULAR? Isn't the whole situation 'Earth' vs 'flat Earth' class situation? --BthereDthat (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It is a fact (backed up by reliable sources) that the areas have been described as no-go zones and as such they are within the scope of this article. // Liftarn (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Flat earth have also been described by many reliable sources. --BthereDthat (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, and we have articles such as Flat Earth. Compare with the UK section where we say that the group Falmouth Hates Students have declared the town of Falmouth, Cornwall a no-go zone for students. // Liftarn (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
With that little difference that nobody declared no-go zones in Poland (no WP:PRIMARY). There are sources (WP:PRIMARY) that declares rejection of LGBT movement influence in govermental administration and there are of course sources (WP:SECONDARY, WP:TERTIARY) that declares that administrative areas 'LGBT-free zones' and sources (WP:SECONDARY, WP:TERTIARY) that declare that areas as no-go zones. Is it correct? --BthereDthat (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
And primary sources should be avoided. // Liftarn (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Is WP:FAPO not enough to override WP:PRIMARY policy? What about 'Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."'? Is statement "government administration declares rejection of LGBT movement influence" a interpretation? --BthereDthat (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't that applies here. It is better to have an independent party report on the issue rather than an involved party presenting their own view as facts. Also WP:FAPO is an essay while WP:PRIMARY is policy. // Liftarn (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
You haven't answered for 2 other arguments. Isn't WP:FAPO - as its definition states - a complement to WP:NPOV and isn't WP:NPOV - as its definition states - a fundamental principle of Wikipedia? Are you really trying to use WP:PRIMARY policy to exclude WP:PRIMARY sources while policy starts with 'Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them'?!? I strongly disagree here - its EOT for me. --BthereDthat (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what you are talking about. Please check again. We report what reliable souurces say and avoid primary sources. If you have problem understanding how that works I suggest you take that discussion elsewhere as this is not the right place for it. // Liftarn (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thats your opinion. My opinion is that your statements/actions here hinder to put WP:NPOV in this topic. However I'm strongly agree with 'take that discussion elsewhere as this is not the right place for it.' part. --BthereDthat (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
That is Wikipedia policy, but please do tell me in what way the article isn't NPOV and how it can be improved. // Liftarn (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
:I think that explanation has been provided multiple times - several sections in this article do not fit the scope of this article and are poorly sourced. Volunteer Marek 19:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Red XN Hoax created by Paria Razem and their supporters for purpose of heating up political debate. A.J. (talk)

  • in their origial tweet they in trolling-like way refer to righ-wing "islamic no go zones in Sweden" propaganda. You took trolling for facts, dear Wikipedians. A.J. (talk)
  • There were LGBT-free_zone controversy started by Gazeta Polska and some (more symbolic than with any legal meaning) resolutions by some local authorities, but no one seriously stated that these stickers create a "no go area" as defined by this article. Deliberate trolling against right wing (Partia Razem as a modern "internet" party often resort to trolling an memes in political debate) which echoed in foreign media was the sole reason of "Polish no-go zones" appearing in this article. I hope it ends soon. (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Presumably there are reliable sources that say exactly what you are saying, no actual no-go areas, and it was a fake news story/trolling of the right. This POV is itself notable for inclusion in an article about No-go areas. Wikipedia allows for multiple even contradictory POVs, so long as they are well sources. But deleting the entire section because one disagrees with a POV is not how Wikipedia works. -- GreenC 18:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Presumably there are no "reputable sources" treating "No go zones" in Poland as a fact, because no one seriously talks about idea that is so stupid? As in old Polish joke: when someone says you're a camel, how can you prove you're not! A.J. (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
But the point is that there is NO sources which refer to these as "no-go areas", aside from a couple reports in minor sources about one particular organization making that claim. The sections are NOT being deleted because someone "disagrees with a POV". They are being deleted because the text is out of scope of this article (and actually, POV material IS suppose to be removed). Volunteer Marek 18:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." Earth vs flat Earth class problem. --BthereDthat (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

It's actually the opposite, per WP:ONUS. Until we have a clear idea of what the scope of the article is, we shouldn't keep restoring contentious material. Volunteer Marek 18:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone read any of municipalities acts declaring "LGBT-free zone?" Please quote at least one paragraph that denies anyone public rights.A.J. (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Then any such material should be removed, irrespective of country..Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Volunteer Marek 17:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
So lets start by removing less contentious material, then many of the arguments about retaining this might go away.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
If you're gonna cut a cat's tail off it's better to do it all at once rather than piece by piece. Also, the other way we're likely to get bogged down in tiresome arguments about irrelevant things or get worn out by all the SPI brand new accounts that pop up. BTW, there is an article Białystok equality march, which is 100% notable, and where the things you mention/link to, should go. Volunteer Marek 21:42, 11 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: [11]

Nasze nawiązanie do terminu "no-go zones" było prowokacją i wytknięciem prawicy jej hipokryzji. (en: Our reference to "no-go zones" term were provocation and calling out right wing's hypocrisy) says Dorota Olko, speaker of Partia Razem (emphasis mine). Wikipedia is not a tube for someone's provocations and political activism, but deals with facts. "LBGT free" stickers were facts, "anti-LGBT-ideology" statements were facts, but "No go zones" for LGBT in Poland are NOT a fact; even most left-wing and pro-LGBT party Razem admits it, comparing it to "islamic no-go-zones" in Sweden which according to them are only in right-wing propaganda. A.J. (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
That kind of puts the nail in the coffin of the argument that there are sources which would support the inclusion of this stuff here. At this point it'd basically be... well, WP:POINT violation. Volunteer Marek 21:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

semi the talk page[edit]

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)

Not done We very rarely protect talk pages - usually only in the case of severe vandalism. In this case, since the article itself is full-protected, it is important that people have a place to discuss the situation - and hopefully try to resolve the issue or meet some kind of compromise or consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Definition of no go area[edit]

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)

In the section Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas where it is listed the definition given is "areas that have been described as no-go areas in recent years, though in some cases the characterization has been disputed". // Liftarn (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Then that needs to be move to the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
"areas that have been described" is NOT a "definition". It's a circular statement. The present lede gives a definition (the three bullet points). And yeah, lots of stuff in the article doesn't fit that definition, but that's the problem with the text, not with the present definition itself. Volunteer Marek 16:32, 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)

No, because that's circular as mentioned above. The current lede is fine. It's the rest of the article which has had a bunch of junk WP:COATRACK'd into it for POV reasons that needs to go. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"present inclusion criteria" (sic)[edit]

Re [12] 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:

  • 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

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)
As a brand new account, you sure are familiar with Wikipedia-speak. Are there any other accounts, previous or current, you should disclose before participating in discussions on controversial topics? Volunteer Marek 17:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Nothing is outlawed (sigh) Please read the earlier comments. Can you produce instances of anybody standing charged for "promoting LGTBQ ideology" in those "zones" .. or let it be in Poland? GizzyCatBella🍁 06:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Government and church organized the beating up of LGBT in Bialystok: [13]. Enforcement here is violent. AstuteRed (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
AstuteRed, are you stating this source[14] says - "Government and church organized the beating up of LGBT in Białystok”? Misrepresentation of sources is a pretty big deal, you know.GizzyCatBella🍁 06:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
"That have a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there;" it fits that description.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
But it doesn’t. These areas (several counties) DON’T have “reputation for violence and crime” (in fact they’re probably some of the safest in Europe”. There was a LGBT march in one town which was attacked by a bunch of assholes. Does that make, say, Portland Oregon a “no go area” because of the clashes between leftist and rightist groups? No. This is pure WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I understand some people really *want* this to be within the scope of this article, so they’re willing to throw both common sense and Wikipedia policies out the window, but it’s simply not. Come on Steven, you know better. Volunteer Marek 17:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
No, no more then say Oldham was a no go area, the fact is the article has long had sections about areas perceived as no go areas, if if there is no official enforcement. So why now is this suddenly an issue? But [[15]], [[16]], [[17]] so yes there is real fear of violence.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry Slater, I don't get the reference to Oldham. Your sources are about the violence at the LGBT march. That violence and the attacks on the march were despicable, but the same sources do not refer to these as "no go zones", so that's classic WP:SYNTH, and this is similar to violence between left and right in Portland Oregon... yet we do not include Portland as a "no go area". The material you reference does need to be included but in the proper article: LGBT rights in Poland, not here where the topic of this article is completely different. Volunteer Marek 14:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean by Oldham and I think that while that's a little bit closer to the topic of this article, it's still UNDUE and also should be removed. Volunteer Marek 17:35, 11 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)

Thanks for the initiative, but you might want to consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment which is a process for discussion about changes to articles (among other things). Also, I think that the best way to begin is to get consensus about the definition in the lede on two points: what is the definition of a no-go area and if the definition is also the inclusion criteria, such that the article includes only areas where the description as a no-go area (per the definition) is unchallenged. Sjö (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I still think I'm not the best person to do it, but... -- B'there D'that (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Definition and inclusion criteria[edit]

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)

What should the definition be?[edit]

-- B'there D'that (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

What should be the inclusion criteria?[edit]

-- 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)

Possible Violations of Wikipedia Policies[edit]

"Alleged and acknowledged contemporary no-go areas" tittle[edit]

"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)

Lack of differenciation of areas basing on given no-go area definition[edit]

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)

United Kingdom section[edit]

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)

Actually I have disputed its inclusion on the grounds its a relevant as the stuff about Poland. As I suggested above we should stop removing content until we decide what the scope of the article is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)