Talk:Marseille/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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. ~~Ebe 123~~ → 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)

Is there a reason to start an RfC over this minor disagreement? Is a policy or guideline currently being violated? Has a secondary source written an analysis of the issue in general, and mentioned Marseille in a manner to show that WP:DUE would be satisfied by this proposal? What exactly is the proposal? The text is above, but is there a diff of an edit which also shows the proposed position of the text? What references are proposed?
Regarding the above WP:SPA comments: Ideally an established editor would not emphasize the SPA aspect, but ideally an SPA would not arrive at this article with an agenda to mention something negative about a minority group in Marseille. There are over 4 million articles—why the emphasis on this one? How does a new editor start at this article (known to be watched by an established editor who has been harassed by many SPAs), and why push the point? Not many editors have commented here, but lots would notice a disagreement like this (on a well-watched article), and the fact that others have chosen to not comment is evidence that the changes do not have general support. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Because of the placing of the text, HPotato appears to be prejudiced against those of Northern African origin or descent (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia). He wishes to express this point of view in this article by a sentence of his creation that is a concatenation of newspaper reports on single events. That is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It is as irrelevant as "Occupy London" to an article on London. Previous text he has attempted to insert prominently by edit-warring has been unambiguously anti-Muslim (cf the long discussion above). The present text, chosen arbitrarily from newspaper reports, reflects his own negative prejudices concerning the demographics of Marseille. Another editor could equally well have concocted a long papragraph or essay on the mafia in Marseille. Such content, like this particular text, would be WP:UNDUE. HPotato, with only 8 content edits to wikipedia and all to this article, is clamouring for a sentence or sentences of his own invention to be displayed prominenrly in its very own section. Unless he can find a book on the geography of Marseille which includes text of exactly this kind, citing these incidents, there seems to be no justification for using HPotato as a substitute for a source on the recent history of Marseille. It is the second time that he has created disruption on wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Both times he wished to insert his own prejudiced point of view in this article. I would assume that, if his sole purpose on wikipedia is for others to discuss his prejudices, then wikipedia might not be the place for him. Mathsci (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Without demeaning the violence and its effects etc, if it was a relatively low level of violence then I don't see the need for it to be there. The riots maybe, depending on their extent, breadth, and consequences, which could be socio-political possibly, but not individual acts of violence that get perpetrated in any city of ~900,000 people. Basket _Feudalist 18:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with User:You Can Act Like A Man (Basket Feudalist). United States Man (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No the text is not relevant unless a secondary source is found making this connection. Otherwise it is OR or Synthesis. Mcewan (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on these diffs I would not support the inclusion of this material. Cherry picking isolated incidents reported in the news to create a whole section on "unrest" is WP:UNDUE. Dlv999 (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Tagging and blanking, May 2013

Tagging the whole article and blanking various sections of long standingis not a constructive way of editing this article. The film section has been there for a while and the gallery is a useful way of illustrating various aspects of Marseille and its 2600 year past. That considerable age is something unique to certain European cities, particularly settlements like Marseille that date back to classical antiquity or before that (cf the iron age remains mentioned in the article near the main railway station). Material was removed and a tag added with little more justification than WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. I don't see how the tagging was justified. Please could TheRedPenofDoom explain why they did this. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Even after the "blanking" the page was WP:TOOLONG.

No one thinks an important thing to know about a city is "what films were made there?" particularly when supported solely by a single non notable book by a non notable author making the purely promotional claim "An account of films up to 2007 can be found in the book by the German writer Daniel Winkler"

The excessive images were removed Per WP:GALLERIES - "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, " "if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped" etc" many of the images are duplicative of other images in the gallery or elsewhere in the article.

and the complete rewrite tag was placed because the article is essentially unreadable hodgepodge of stat charts, lists and galleries of anything remotely related to Marseille.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

marseille 6000BC LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL It's a city founded by Romain and before it was just a greek counter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.171.204 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The gallery has been there for a long time. It illustrates items in the text, which is how it was originally created. It would be too difficult to have the images in the relevant part of text, because of clutter. For example the water features at the Palais Longchamps. Additionally many new articles have been created that feed into this article. (I helped create Porte d'Aix, La Vieille Charité, Great Plague of Marseille, etc.) All articles on French cities are rather like this one. The article on Toulouse is much worse, with virtually no history. The French WP article was originally quite similar to this one (it was used as a guide for improving and sourcing this article some time back). Since then the French have devised a very non-Anglo-Saxon approach, with a breakdown into sections which could not possibly be translated and would read look WP:OR in English. An article on the second largest city in France will always be a collection of disparate facts. There is no way to create a uniform way of writing. The main sources will almost invariably be in French, for example for the history. Individual sections (e.g. economy or immigration) are harder to source. Improvements to individual sections are the way to go. Before criticizing this article, please look at Toulouse, Nice, Avignon, Montpellier or Lyon. Unsurprisingly they are all rather the same. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"its been here a long time" and "other articles are also difficult to read" and "sources are in French" are not rational reasons to override policies and creating readable coherent articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of Marseille

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Largest groups of foreign residents: How long a list is long enough?

Background

On 25 October 2014, a table of "Largest groups of foreign residents" was added to the Population section of this article. It listed 7 nationalities, 7 of the top 9 (Comoros and Haiti were skipped). Over the months the list expanded haphazardly to 12 nationalities (12 of the top 20). So far no source had been cited for any data in the table.

On 2 June 2015, I added a citation to INSEE (using "Aire urbaine 2010 de Marseille - Aix-en-Provence (003)"), corrected the figures accordingly, and trimmed the list to groups of at least one-quarter of one percent of the total population, which resulted in a list of length 7. That has not satisfied everyone. Since then IP editors have repeatedly attempted to expand the list to 13 of the top 14 (no Haiti).

Question

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The length of the list should be limited. I seek consensus, how long should the list be?

Discussion

As a cutoff, I chose one-quarter of one percent of the total population. This cutoff has several advantages:

It keeps the list reasonably short.
There is a substantial gap between the last entry on the list (Italy 4,403) and the next largest population (Haiti 2,749).
It lists the same number of countries as the original author.
It lists the same number of countries as INSEE's more condensed "Nationalité regroupée" list, and nearly the same countries (INSEE lists the top three European, top three African, plus Turkey - which means Spain gets included, but Comoros gets excluded and Haiti gets skipped).
It is more complicated than a fixed number, but still fairly simple.
It means most (two-thirds of) foreign residents are broken down by country.

As an alternative I could support a simple round number that isn't too large, such as 10. I could also support 0. Marseille [fr], for example, does not include any list of largest groups of foreign residents. Your input is welcome. Worldbruce (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Marseille/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

We still need to configure out which city - Lyon or Marseille - is the SECOND LARGEST FRENCH CITY. Both articles for these two towns advertise them as being THE second biggest city in France.

Last edited at 14:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 23:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Massilia Sound System

How can this musical formation Massilia Sound System not be mentioned in an article about Marseille? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Gibberish

Can anybody explain this sentence to me please "The city is in the head of the biggest French-speaking university of the world, Aix-Marseille University". I propose deleting it unless somebody can either say what it means or possibly supply the French original. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It certainly could be expressed better, but is reasonably clear, as contributions from editors whose first language is not English go. The largest university in the Francophone world, Aix-Marseille University, is headquartered in Marseille.[2][3][4] --Worldbruce (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Marseille. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Two failed because link rot had set in before they were archived; the others are okay. Worldbruce (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"first metropolis in surface"?

The quote is from the lead. Since this can't refer to surface "land area", what does "surface" refer to? See Urban area (France)#List of France's aires urbaines (metropolitan areas). -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Tentative Addition about the French Revolution

I've noticed this article could improve by adding a section on the role of Marseilles in the French Revolution. For example, information on major Marseille leaders (revolutionary and counter-revolutionary), important roles of Marseilles in the Revolution, and the historical development of the National Anthem. Please comment and let me know if you would like to see that kind of information on this page, please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megancelinasam (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marseille. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723091807/http://www.gdansk.pl/samorzad%2C62%2C733.html to http://www.gdansk.pl/samorzad%2C62%2C733.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marseille. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Photos of notable people

Is it really necessary in the article? I've never seen photos of notable people in other city articles. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation misnomer

Marseille is part of France NOT "the Mediterranean city" what's with this obsession of labeling everything as "Mediterranean" since the mid 2010's? Even Afghanistan is labelled as "Mediterran" despite bordering China & Nowhere near the Mediterranean sea! If we're going to call Marseille "Mediterranean" then let's Call Afghanistan "Chinese" since it's right next to China! Let's call Cozumel Mexico "Caribbean city" instead of the Mexican city, Cancun too! Nobody even refers to Atlantic city NJ as "The Atlantic city" or "City on the Atlantic" despite the Literal Name. Do people refer to Chicago as the "Michigan city"? Or Tampa as "the Mexican city"? After all Tampa & Mobile AL are right next to the Gulf of Mexico. See now you've just opened pandora's box. Don't Cherry Pick geography whenever you feel like it. Just refer to it as the Southern French city. 2603:8001:5800:A8B8:6060:E62C:F2C4:60F1 (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Founding date inconsistency

The main article lists 754 BC as the original founding date by Greek settlers. Everywhere else I've looked, including the History section of the article and the pages "History of Marseille" and "Timeline of Marseille," gives 600 BC as the founding date.

Is there a good source for the 754 figure? The citation in the article is a book I don't have access to, it was written in 1998 and the title is "Marseille, 2600 Years of History," which would support the 600 BC founding date. Regardless of which date is correct, the disagreement between articles should be corrected. I think it's worth noting that the phrase "Founded in 754 BC" is the first thing that shows up when I google "Marseille," so this potential error is likely to be seen by many. Vhickl (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article says founded by Phoenicians, not Greeks. That's two contradictions. Zaslav (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Strange sentence

The intro says "Nowadays the Old Port still lies at the heart of the city, where the manufacture of Marseille soap began some six centuries ago." This is a strange sentence. First, it combines two unrelated ideas for no reason. Second, where did the manufacture begin", in the heart or in the city? Zaslav (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Economy section: NPOV

The lede of the Economy section uses a quote from 2005 to paint a rosy picture of Marseille's economy, while its very high unemployment rate is buried at the bottom of the section. This section should be rewritten to foreground unemployment. Nickc8 (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)