Talk:Paris

Cite errors

In the Paris#References Notes section I am getting multiple Cite errors. It appears several refs have different definitions for the same names. I don't want to mess around with the reference tags myself as I am not great at them so I just thought I would point it out. HighInBC 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the Lichfield reference. Someone else will have to fix the Lawrence Gondrand reference. I can't figure those out. Thanks for pointing this out. Coldcreation (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Clear anti-Muslim bias in the article in the history and religion sections

20th-21st under history: There were many problems with that paragraph's narration about Charlie Hebdo attack: the mentioning of "Muslim extremists" is unnecessary and the writer definitely has a sinister motive behind it, do we label other terrorists attacks in Europe carried by non-Muslims like that? Was the picture necessary? what's the point of mentioning that the attackers " were born and raised in Paris"? Why the writer wrote just "Muhammad" and not prophet Muhammad when referring to the cartoons? Who is Muhammad? there are hundreds of millions of Muhammads in the Muslim World!! Prophet Muhammad must have been mentioned to inform readers what the writer is talking about, that practice is used by western media when talking about the cartoons. Religion section: Religions of Paris after Christianity it says " other religions" when Islam is the notable second religion in that city and in France in general! and even in that segment of " other religions" the write talked too much about Jews who are just few hundreds in that city ignoring the clear second religion in Paris, Islam, with it's old history in the city and the region and ignoring the fact that Muslims make up to 15% in metro Paris with a population exceeding 200k! Even when talking about Islam , just small two lines were written mainly talking about the Grande mosque of Paris and not even mentioning Islam or Muslims by name. I request changes to these two sections to protect the neutrality of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alforu88 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but I don't entirely agree with you. I don't know any other way to characterize the attackers at Charlie Hebdo as other than "Muslim extremists", since religion was, according to all the cited sources, the motivation of the attacks. As for using the term Muhammad rather than Prophet Muhammad, this is the standard practice in Wikipedia; see the article on Muhammad.

The section on religion was largely organized by chronology, not number of believers, and the Jewish community has a long and well-documented history in Paris. (It's larger than a few hundred). There's less information about the Muslim community, and no official statistics that I know of. What is the source of the fifteen percent statistic? We can include more statistics if you can provide a good source. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest to call him prophet Muhammad in the article, of course that would be wrong, I meant to suggest adding the word prophet to let readers know what the article is talking about, like cartoons ridiculing prophet of Muslims Muhammad, etc, but that's not the main issue with the article, I think the main issue is the religion of the attackers and their background ( born and raised in France, sounds irrelevant), the word Muslims extremists was unnecessary because many terrorist attacks were carried by right wing Christians in Europe and the religion of the attackers was never mentioned in any of them even though the motive was clearly religious hatred. As for religion, there are hundreds of sources about that even on another Wikipedia articles, websites like pew research center, muslimspopulation.com all put Muslims population around 10% ( 9.6% to be precise) amount to 6 and half millions compared to less than half of million of Jews. As for history it goes back to the battle of tours, the subsequent Muslim expeditions, Ottoman naval bases, etc, etc, rich history and much more historical events than Jews presence in France , it goes back till 7th and 8th century, please read Islam in France.

I didn't want to bring this up earlier, but I'd like to suggest removing the religion section entirely (making it an article of its own), and giving religion a reference in the 'demography' section... and that should clear all this up nicely. Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps making it a subsection in the 'Culture' section, reduced to a paragraph about the city's predominant religions and an indication of some of their major shrines therein. Do let me know what you think. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Very sensible suggestions. I'd suggest that we divide the religion section, leaving the description of major places of worship where they are, and moving the estimates of the size of religious communities to the demographic section, clearly indicating that there are only estimates, no official numbers. Would that work? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes! And what about moving the religion section to the 'culture' section, instead of being one of its own? I think that, with the reduced size, that should happen anyway. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There are two sections on religion

Can somebody merge them into an appropriate place without compensating the information? '''tAD''' (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the two sections you are referring to... are you talking about the religion section (now 'Churches, Mosques and Temples'), plus the mention in the 'demographics' section? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(Slapping forehead) Yes, you are, sorry. We're discussing this at present (right, Siefkin? ; ). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and fix this, then. Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I was going to do this this morning, but I think it better to present a rationale here, first.

Basically I think it best to move the entire religion section to an article of its own (it is already an article as it is, and there is much more information that can be added, as it is a subject all on its own), create a 'religion' sub-section in the 'culture' section, and move the demography info (that has no place there, anyway, as there is no real (let alone official) statistical data on religion (French law forbids it)), and use some of the moved info to concoct a paragraph describing the city's most prominent temples (and the quarter/culture around them). This would simplify the article greatly, as well as remove the 'who's on top' aspect of the present section (that, as we can see above, will always invite objection and 'different points of view'). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the Lead

I see that an editor has deleted the population of the Paris Region from the lead, without any discussion, and also deleted it from the information box. Since the Region is mentioned frequently in the article, and since many of the statistics given are for the region, I would like to restore that to the lead and the information box. I ask once again that editor who did this discuss first here before they delete important text from the lead. Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the IDF population from the lede, since there is already information about the 'Paris metropolitan area' there, and the entire IDF population is hardly Paris' own. But add it back, if you will. I wasn't aware that it was even present in the infobox. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I added back the lede part, but I have no idea about the inbox. Was IDF data ever there? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquette Minimum

There seem to be a few here unfamiliar with 'Wikiquette'. If you land on a much frequented page that's been heavily edited over time, there's a minimum of politeness that one can afford fellow Wikipedians (there, and anywhere).

a) an edit commentary is enough to explain the rationale for changing or removing a few phrases, or updating existing ones.

b) any proposed modifications beyond that to existing content should be announced on the talk page. For example, if you want to rewrite a section, let others know what you intend to do, and see what others have to say about it.

c) anyone can add content, but if that is contested, again, talk about it on the talk page (and wait for an answer!) before removing or rewriting it. There's no better way to ruffle the feathers of a contributor than to remove or rewrite their just-contributed work.

d) If something of yours has been removed several times over, there's probably already a good reason for it on the talk page; it should be discussed there (if it hasn't already, it should have been) before inserting it again. The same goes for a repeated removal of content. The same goes for reverting to old content.

These demonstrate a modicum of poiteness and constructive editing technique, and they apply to all of Wikipedia, but perhaps a reminder would be useful here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Employment (sector) map - any other additions?

I'm working on a Paris-region 'Employment by sector' map that shows the percentage of people working in each job sector in each arrondissement; the inner departments are easy enough, but I found that just listing one value for the entire department is overly-simplistic, so I'm arranging it by arrondissement of each department, to give a more even Paris-to-suburb transition over smaller areas. It's a bit of a chore.

The data part of it is easy, though, as the statistics come straight from the INSEE: basically every arrondissment is going to have a pie chart showing the percentage of jobs in each sector (which should give a pretty good indication of what each quarter does), and I'm considering accompanying each with a number indicating the unemployment percentage in that quarter, as well as the percentage of fonctionnaires (as they are a large share of the labour market) in every given quarter, too. Would that be overkill? If anyone would like any other data (while I'm there), do let me know, too. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, though it will need regular updating. It would be a single map where you click on different areas and see the numbers? SiefkinDR (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL I don't even know if that is possible here... I wish it was. And I wish we could link directly to the latest data (no updating)... I'm dreaming. I'll see what I can do, though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

...nope, even if all browsers 'got' the .svg format, I can't add the javascript needed to make it clickable. I'm just going to have to make it as clear as possible, thus the questions... THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've found a comfortable level of data where functionaries are calculated with the rest of the employment stats. Unemployment is going to have to be a separate chart, though... unless I (or anyone here) comes up with a brilliant idea. The updating won't be a problem, I just have to dump in the new stats whenever they come out (every five years, apparently) and update the titles. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I may not be able to do unemployment numbers at any level lower than département, because, although I have access to the unemployment numbers for each commune, compiling and averaging them oneself for a wiki article is strictly verboten (WP:OR). But if you do know of any official source that's crunched the numbers by (national) arrondissement, please do tell. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeez, I just found it after writing the above! Had to tweak the URL a bit to find it... [1] (waving pom-poms) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)