Talk:Marseille

Immigration

An IP from Leicester has twice added a statement about Marselle possibly becoming the first predominantly Muslim city in France. One source is a BBC world service blurb for a radio programme. That is not an WP:RS. The second source is a National Geographic opinion piece about politics in Marseille which ends with an interview with a young Muslim lady. The journalist ends the piece by mentioning that some demographers have predicted that at some time in the future Marseille might be the first predominantly Muslim city in Western Europe. That mention en passant is not sufficient to include a definitive statement in the text. No official figures are released by the French government, but it could well be possible to find a proper WP:RS discussing this issue. More than likely it would be in French. Until such a source can be found, that kind of content cannot be included. Mathsci (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read WP:RS and both sources qualify. If you think they don't please explain why. HPotato (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A blurb for a radio programme is not an adequate source. Nor is the cursory piece in the National Geographic, consisting of interviews. It makes a speculative statement, which does not make any reference to a scholarly text. There are long books in French on immigration in Marseille. One for example is, "Histoires d'immigrations a Marseille", editions Jeanne Laffitte, 2007, ISBN 978-2-86-276-450-4. Unfortunately it does not cover recent history or make demographic predictions. To find more recent sources in French I would search for "immigration musulmane Marseille" on google books or google scholar. Cherry-picking isolated sentences from sources which do not directly discuss this particular issue is not helpful. You need to find sources which discuss the matter in some kind of detail or depth. The articles I've seen talk about the paradox of Marseille, with its large North African population, much of it unofficial and undeclared, yet apparently placated by the city's policies. They talk about the project for a new large mosque, proposed in 2001 but later delayed by the mayor Gaudin. But otherwise it's hard to find anything substantial. So please find a more recent book or journal article discussing this demographic issue before including any kind of statement in the "voice of wikipedia". The lack of government figures is a further problem. Perhaps the French wikipedia articles on Marseille and related topics discuss this issue and could provide the missing sources. Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Describing the BBC source as a 'blurb' seems to be an attempt to discredit it. Are you suggesting that programme descriptions fall short of normal BBC standards? Is this official wikipedia policy? If not, please stop reverting the edit. HPotato (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a programme guide on a web page. There are pages on the BBC website which give in-depth coverage of issues, written by experts, but programme guides are not numbered amongst them. Cherry-picking means taking a sentence out of context as you have done. Prediction and speculation are different things. The sentence you included amounts to POV-pushing and goes against wikipedia central policy of neutral point of view. Mathsci (talk)

(edit conflict) I reverted the edit per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Events in the future should not be included unless predicted by reliable academic sources. The sources you provide contain mere speculation with no definite dates or other concrete data. Wikipedia articles are no places for speculative extrapolations. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you also suggesting that programme descriptions fall short of normal BBC standards? Is this official wikipedia policy? If so, please provide a link. HPotato (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not ask about the status of Radio Times or web pages advertising programmes on WP:RSN if you are in any doubt? Mathsci (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already provided you with the policy. The link is WP:CRYSTAL. But to help you along I quote from the policy:

Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it.

and

Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly: neither editor has provided any justification for their claim that either the BBC page or the National Geographic article is not a reliable source. Secondly: the fact has not been taken out of context from either article - both address the issue of the Muslim population of Marseille. Thirdly: demographic forecasts are neither speculation nor prediction (in the sense that Δρ.Κ. intends), they are straightforward descriptions of the constituent parts of a population in the future based on its constituent parts in the present. Barring large-scale unforseen calamities such as wars or mass migrations, demographic predictions always come true. Finally: this is not original research in the sense in which the phrase is used on wikipedia. Are there any further objections? HPotato (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

These sources are not demographers and are not experts. Please supply the opinions of real experts not anecdotal evidence. This is also verging on speculation because it is too open-ended. When is Marseilles scheduled to become predominantly Muslim? In a week? In a month? In fifty years? You cannot have an open-ended statement like that in the article. Please supply a real demographic study with definite projections not idle chatter. And please read WP:CONSENSUS. There is no consensus for this edit. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The source is reliable, therefore the report is not merely anecdotal. Jonathan Laurence (Associate Professor of Political Science at Boston College), for instance, expects Marseille to become a majority Muslim city around 2030: http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/summer_2010/features/in-the-year-2030.html HPotato (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to this passage:

In 2030, to be sure, Islam will continue to be the fastest-growing religion in many parts of the continent (with evangelical Protestantism keeping pace in some places), and many disused churches will have become mosques. A small number of cities will be on the verge of a Muslim majority—Amsterdam, Bradford (England), Malmö, Marseille

I'm sorry but no. It doesn't say that Marseille will become Muslim by 2030. It says it will be on the verge of becoming Muslim. That's hugely different. So in eighteen years from now it is not even certain that Marseille will have a Muslim majority. This projection is so long term and vague, that it is not fit to be included in the article. Finally the author of this article presents no numerical calculations or projections to support the vague and long term conclusions which are being made, in effect engaging in speculation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The facts and figures are all there, and anyone who reads the article and understands the science will see that what I've written above is readily deducible from the article. (Personal attack removed)

If you continue to dispute the idea that demographics is a science, you should do so on the demography talk page, not here. Otherwise the objection of WP:BALL is no more relevant to this case than it would be to any other case involving scientific facts.

And you should read WP:CONSENSUS yourself: it doesn't mean a vote or a majority, the article states that 'Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections'. I've dealt with all of the objections that you and Mathsci have raised, and if you or others present further reasonable objections I'm happy to deal with them and rephrase my edit if necessary :).

But if you want my advice, I think you're wasting your time (and mine too, with all due respect) trying to refute the points I've made. If you really object to the proposition that Marseille will almost certainly become a Muslim majority city in the near future, then your time and energy would be better spent finding a reliable source which says so. HPotato (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not report on speculation which is not properly sourced per WP:CRYSTAL. It is true that the cherry-picked sentence you wanted to add from the BBC WS on-line programme guide can be found on lots of websites. I found a long discussion on Stormfront for example. On wikipedia, however, the onus is on you to find an WP:RS on demography making these predictions in detail about Marseille. That's how wikipedia works. It's not a mirror site for Stormfront. Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've provided a third source - perhaps you overlooked it in your eagerness to regale us with your humour :) HPotato (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no joke in my last message. Dr.K. has already explained why it is not useful as a WP:RS per WP:CRYSTAL. There is no need for me to repeat what he wrote. Wikipedia is for established encyclopedic content: it is not some kind of speculative Op-Ed. If there is a glaring omission in the current article, it is a reference to the new museum that has just been built near the Fort St Jean, the "Museum of the Mediterranean". The museum has been constructed, with underwater windows, and the exhibits are gradually being added for Marseille 2013. Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, HPotato, if the only purpose of your account is, hot off a block, to edit-war this contentious speculative content into the article against consensus and wikipedia policy, then you are likely to be reported at WP:ANI and possibly topic banned or blocked. Please find a reliable demographic source, not a speculative article on what might be the case in 2030. Mathsci (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Your objection lacks any real substance, so I'm taking this to dispute resolution :). HPotato (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the content you wish to add violates WP:CRYSTAL. You must be patient and wait to find out from Dr.K. what he thinks. Last time your tendentious editing and revert warring led to a 31 hour block. If your account was created with the sole purpose of painting Marseille as a problematic city plagued by an ever-increasing Muslim presence (that seems to be your non-neutral point of view) then your editing will be regarded as tendentious. It so far falls into the category of POV-pushing. Please read WP:BOOMERANG. Otherwise find an adequate WP:RS about demographic trends in Marseille. Mathsci (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mathsci's analysis. I am not going to repeat my arguments above but an 18-year uncertain projection is too far in the future and too vague to be included in any article. Adding to that the lack of adequate theoretical analysis and your proposal of inclusion of this information becomes untenable. Of course you are free to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard if you want to pursue this further. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Good :). Lets hope we end up with an accurate and balanced article then :). HPotato (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The DRN got filed, but needs to get re-filed for the bot's sake. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I say leave it out. It's marginal to the article and may or may not come true. It is sufficient to describe religion in terms of today, not several years down the line. Seems like WP:Weight could be applicable here. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The event is so far down the line and so uncertain that WP:UNDUE is also applicable in addition to WP:CRYSTAL. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Laurence discusses various measures pertinent to Muslim population forecasts in 'Integrating Islam: Political and Religious Challenges in Contemporary France', Laurence and Vaisse, 2006. The figure he's using for his Boston College article is 50% growth of Muslim population over the period 2010 - 2030, which is virtualy the same figure for France as a whole quoted on French wikipedia here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_en_France#Population_issue_de_l.27immigration and sourced from the Pew Research Center: http://www.pewresearch.org (Muslim proportion change from 5.7% to 8.5% of total is an increase of 52%). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPotato (talk • contribs) 21:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There do not seem to be sources that Marseille has particular problems with its mixed population, with an estimated 25% of North Afrian descent. There has been a significant North African component for years. All sources indicate that the segment of the population from francophone North Africa, both legal and undeclared (sans papiers), is in a stable state. HPotato has claimed that there is some horrendous "problem", but there seems to be no evidence of that. Linking these demogrphic trends to the religion of those of Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian descent misses out a step. It might be relevant to discuss the building of the Grande Mosquée if and when it looks as if it is actually going to happen, but that is unclear. Per WP:CRYSTAL, editors will have to be patient and wait. HPotato should note that in comparable places in the UK, e.g. Bradford and Leicester, each of which has significant populations originating from the Indian subcontinent, there is no speculation of this kind. HPotato claims that all over the web and in the media, Marseille is being discussed as a problematic city. But in fact those are his own statements , his own original research and his own synthesis. Misrepresenting sources and cherry-picking sentences to support speculative predictions 20 years in the future is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The Pew Forum has compiled demographic projections for individual countries all over the world, including France,[1], but I do not believe they have given an analysis for individual cities. In the absence of good secondary sources discussing such projections in-depth, why should wikipedia mislead its readers by ignoring WP:CRYSTAL? Issues with Islam in France are discussed in that article, but in an appropriate context with carefully nuanced comments and proper sourcing. The sentence that HPotato wishes to include is very close in spirit to the political statements of the Front National and Mouvement National Républicain. Mathsci (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would find it a lot easier to conduct a reasonable debate with you, Mathsci, if you didn't paraphrase my remarks. I haven't at any time suggested there's 'some horrendous "problem"' - I said that there was no mention of the unrest, which is a matter of public record, and omitted from the article. Laurence's book gives a detailed and reasoned record of it, and you can get a used copy of it from amazon for under $10. And the current estimates of the Muslim proportion are now around 30% (also Laurence). I don't think my remarks on the dispute resolution page on the notability of the issue constitute any of the errors cited, but perhaps this should form the starting point of a new debate? HPotato (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no "debate" and this talk page is not a WP:FORUM. Instead there is now a very clear consensus. All others that have commented (GeorgeLouis, Dr.K., Johnuniq and me) are in agreement about how WP policy applies here. As for your other comments, on WP:DRN you wrote "Forecasts of the Muslim population of Marseille were and are the subject of intense media and public interest [...] Failing to adress the subject in the section of the Marseille article entitled 'Immigration' is a clear-cut case of 'igmoring the elephant in the room'." and on WP:AN3 "the section of the article on immigration is itself far from neutral: there's no mention of the recent unrest in Marseille, for instance." Viewed as whole these statements indicate a non-neutral point of view. Further up the page there are comments of a similar nature from 2007. Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Highest and lowest record temperatures

Subtropical-man reverted my edit claiming that this is not reliable source. What is exactly unreliable about the site? If it's unreliable, then weather.com, foreca.com and other similar websites are equally unreliable and then we have no existing reliable source. Do you have any other? If you have, please add from them the highest and lowest record temperatures. Thanks. By the way, in other articles Meoweather is used as a reference. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposed edit was this, which added "Record high" and "Record low" rows to the chart at Marseille#Climate, using this source. Presumably there is some precedent for whether all those details are useful (and how to source them), and I have no opinion on that at the moment (however, the caption for the chart would need improving as it puts too much emphasis on meoweather.com). Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

meoweather.com, weather.com, foreca.com etc is unreliable sources, in particular, if exist official sources (WMO, national meteorological organizations). This pages can be used in weather infobox if not exist official sources. Article of Marseille uses official source: Météo-France, therefore, you should not add information from unreliable sources to this wearher infobox. Also, data of "Record high" and "Record low" are not basic information, weather infobox does not have to include such information. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I already wrote that the record temperatures only were from meoweather. What's the problem? Why does the box have the ability to add record highs and lows when you claim that they don't have to be added!? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Unrest

Mathsci, please read WP:SPA - even if, as you allege, this account exists for a single purpose, that on its own does not justify your revert. HPotato (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You are adding the same WP:UNDUE content that was discussed extensively several days ago. As an indication of why the content you wish to add is undue, note that the Tottenham Hale riots are not discussed in the wikipedia article on London. Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They're discussed in the article on Tottenham, and the incidents in Marseille were not confined to a single district. So the article on Marseille seems like the most appropriate place. HPotato (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an article 2005 civil unrest in France, but Marseille doesn't figure any more significantly than Paris, Lyon, Strasbourg, etc. Events seemed to have started elsewhere in Belfort. You have chosen not to mention those events but to pick two isolated newspaper stories. That is WP:UNDUE and involves your own personal WP:SYNTHESIS. Putting it in the demography section where there is no detailed discussion of ethnicity in the sources indicates that you are trying to push a very non-neutral point of view. Exactly the same as you tried before. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either of these objections are appropriate, so I'm requesting comments. HPotato (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is mention of unrest relevant to this article?

Is the following text relevant?

Although Marseille is often regarded as a city with good community relations, there have been incidents of unrest. In 2002 Or Aviv synagogue was destroyed by arson, and in 2006 rioters set fire to cars and buses. HPotato (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)