Jump to content

Talk:Monaco/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Religion

Hi, I hate to 'remove' content from Wikipedia, but the religious data was dodgy. The source quoted seemed to be a so called "Joshua Project", which supporters have apparently also tried to edit (without success) the French version of the article.

They quote high numbers of Christians (82%) in Monaco, and although Christians are a majority (which I wrote instead), I know that my government does not publish religious data. Also, I couldn't find any reliable source to replace those figures. The Joshua Project themselves don't quote their source on their page on Monaco, which seems pretty suspicious. Added to the fact that the first sentence you read on their website is : "Joshua Project is a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups with the fewest followers of Jesus Christ." (!!!!!)

This kind of non-neutral source does not have its place in an encyclopedia. So please, if someone finds reliable religious data for Monaco, don't hesitate to share. Pierremc (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Joshua Project is considered a reliable source, and all data is referenced under Monaco (at Joshua Project).1 B-watchmework (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi B-watchmework, thank you for your feedback.
However I notice that you don't offer any proof that Joshua Project is reliable in any way. The first page of this organisation clearly calls for its absence of neutrality regarding religion matters.
So considering that:
1) contrary to your link (please look at it), Joshua project does not give any specific source for Monaco. They just give general sources where I have not found the data.
2) Even if they had themselves reliables sources (which again - I doubt), they are not the producers of the work. Please look at the definition of wikipedia sources at [1]. This project does not qualify as a reliable secondary source.
3) You undid my revision without closing this discussion, which I find a bit strong. Again, the Joshua project has been disqualified as a reliable source in the French version; my action to remove the data until it is proven correct was IMHO justified.
Therefore, I am removing again this unreliable data; and kindly invite you or someone else to continue this discussion:
- Either prove me that Joshua Project is a reliable secondary source (which I find as improbable)
- Or simply find the real source of the data published via the Joshua Project. This source should be the one reference in that case.
Please bear with me when I say that I won't let any christian-oriented group envade an article; this is an encyclopedia. I am sure we won't need to call on an arbitration: the best case scenario is someone can find the real source for this data, and if it matches, we will all be happy to reintegrate it as it was.
Pierremc (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
First off, its referenced in the Monaco page (at Joshua Project) under section Religion. 1 Second, how do you know they don't produce their own work, and if they don't (which - I doubt) link me to the page that identifies the real researcher. Third, I've read though Identifying reliable sources, and have not come across anything that classifies the JP as an unreliable source, and if it does classify JP as a unreliable source (which - I doubt) then link me to that page section that explains it. Fourth, you provide no proof that French Wiki classified JP as being unreliable, and then you quote "which supporters have apparently also tried to edit (without success) the French version of the article", wheres your source for your accusation. Fifth, if its so simple to find another source then why not replace JP's source with another - since your already deeply involved in the articular. Sixth, thinking or wanting to ask for an Arbitration seams like a big step - especially since we've only communicated twice. Finally, in the future opening a talk page discussion mite be a good idea before you remove large sections of data, regardless if its status. B-watchmework (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer.
1) About JP as a reliable secondary source: My point was that JP is a "unproven" reliable source. A group that, on their first page, clearly announce they are here to promote Christianity does not inspire neutrality. Religion is a sensitive topic as you know.
2) About JP's sources: Again PLEASE look at the link you sent me! All they say is: "Source: Each People Group's population is multiplied by the Major Religion percentages for that people group. The results are summed for each Religion for all Peoples within the country." This is not a reliable tertiary source.
3) About the date itself: You are absolutely right, I haven't found any source to contradict or confirm this data. The monegasque government does not pol for religious opinions, private census are also not allowed in the principality. I know that for a fact, but "I" am nowhere being a reliable source of course!
4) About arbitration: I had no intention of calling for arbitration already (wouldn't have qualified for it anyway). I am sorry if this could be misinterpreted.
5) All in all, I still believe this borders commercial self-promotion, hence my removing it in the first place.
However, since no one joined the conversation, an argument between 2 reasonable persons won't lead to anything. Let us let the community decide if this data should be removed again. I'll still be, however, looking out for any further info.
Pierremc (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pierremc on this one. An organization which announces it has an agenda to push a POV cannot be held reliable, except in referencing its POV. That goes double when they have no reliable method for their data production, or won't tell you how they got it. It also doesn't matter whether it is only two people or 100 talking. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. What matters is policy, which is there for a reason, and thus verifiability. There's really no need to have a "list" of reliable sources. There are standards, and if those standards are not met, the data is not held reliable. Oh and by the way, he doesn't need to "prove" that French wikipedia has not found that source reliable, you could look yourself. If you can't read the talk pages because you don't speak French, google translate is actually pretty good, or at least close enough for you to see the idea. It's a moot point, anyway, because standards are standards. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I removed the chart because it was entirely based on the Joshua project. I sourced the statement about official religion to the constitution, which is a better source. I changed the statement about percentage of Christians to majority, and put a citation needed tag on that, but without a source to prove it, it probably doesn't even belong there. I also added a tag for the section so that future editors will see that the information needs better sources. Now B-watchmework, before you get upset, let me just try and lay a bit out for you. After all I would not want to bite the newbies, and you might be new. Please don't mistake my tone, here. The goal is to make the article better, and give it more and better information. The standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. What we mean by that is it doesn't matter if you or I know it is true, we have to be able to prove it with reliable, verifiable sources so people can check our work and be sure. That's what Pierremc was getting at when he said he knew his nation did not take religious census, but he didn't have a source at the time for that statement. It doesn't matter, though. It would matter if he wanted to add that to the article, but he didn't. Anything that is added can be challenged. The onus is on the person adding the information to find a proper source for it. If the source you're using is found deficient in some way and therefore not to meet the standard, you have to find a better source if you want that information in there. That's not to say no one else will help you. If people think there might be a better source, and can find one, they might do so. That's why I added the tag. Now other people looking at the article will know the section needs help, and the article goes in a category of articles needing that help. By the way, in looking at this I noticed that some of the other stuff in the section on Judaism is sourced to some site called "nationmaster." Not knowing anything about it I'm not going to just outright proclaim it unreliable, but I do wonder how reliable it is. I left the stat from nationmaster in, but it would be nice to know where this came from. In any event, I do sincerely hope that a good source for data can be found. We can't rely on propaganda sources or sources that do sloppy work. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
First off, He (Pierremc) should prove his "claims", because I've already searched fr. Monaco logs for some fifteen minutes, and haven't found it. Second, I can read French pretty well. Third, their is a banned source ""list", and fourth, why would they what to publish unreliable data - it doesn't help them. Fifth, if a religious group can't publish reliable data on religion, than the government can't publish reliable data about unemployment or census data. Nationmaster is generally considered a reliable source, and by the way I'm not that new.

"Highest GDP (PPP) Per Capita"

This claim is made in the article, but a simultaneous claim is made in the Luxembourg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg) article. I'm not sure which one is right but someone should look into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.221.11 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources are different; Monaco has the highest PPP on three of the four lists, while Luxembourg has the highest on the remaining list. B-watchmework (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Similarity of flag with Indonesia

I am aware that the Monaco flag is ~20% wider than it is high compared with Indonesia which is 33% wider than high. However, the cite given in the article does not support the claim because it states that the Monaco flag can be in the ratio of either 5:4 or 3:2. The same cite states that the Indonesian flag is 3:2. It thus fails verification as a cite to support the claim in the article. I have not, so far, found a better citation, but if anyone beats me to it feel free to oblige. 86.171.45.27 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Unemployment.

The article claims an unemployment rate of 0%. This rather depends on how you define 'unemployment', which the CIA neglects to mention. If you define it as the number of people claiming some form of unemployment benefit, then 0% is probably a good number. The usual method of measuring unemployment is the ratio of population of working age who do not work compared with the total population of working age. According to the Monogasque government themselves, Monaco has one of the highest unemployment rates in the world. Generally, the former metric is only used by governments who have a political interest in portraying unemployment to be lower than it really is. 86.171.45.27 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/monaco.html
    Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The term Monacan~~31/07/2015~~

I see that the term Monacan appears in this article. Let me say this: NO ONE from Monaco refers to themselves or anyone by that term. This is a word used by mostly American touriots who have never been to or heard of Monaco. There is no term for a foreigner living in Monaco, and the term Monegasque is used for everything pertaining the people, language, and culture. Monacan is never used there. I recently visited Monaco, and the locals got really angry at the term Monacan, because it's false and non-extant there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.72.208 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monaco. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monaco. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Monaco. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism in Monaco

The section regarding religion in Monaco has a subsection entitled Zoroastrianism which asserts that there is a Zoroastrian village, shop region and many Zoroastrians in the country both from Iran and other converts. All three source materials cited make absolutely no claim, one links to a magazine archive where if one searches Monaco absolutely nothing comes up, the other two are stories about a couple of Persian residents, one of whom sells Persian carpets and another about an Iranian dignitary who had a home or villa built in 1918, there is no reference to the religion of either man. I propose that the subsection for Zoroastrianism within the section for Religion in Monaco be completely expunged as there is no evidence for its claims and the contents of the subsection appear to be completely fabricated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elchasai2 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Elchasai2 (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Elchasai2 (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Questions and comments

The article is pretty good. I enjoyed reading it. I made several improvements to the text and the layout. I add some questions and comments.

1. I changed all the "Grimaldis" to "Grimaldi family" because it's proper and more elegant.

2. "The princes of Monaco thus became vassals of the French kings while at the same time remaining sovereign princes. Though successive princes and their families spent most of their lives in Paris, and intermarried with French and Italian nobilities, the House of Grimaldi is Italian."

This sentencei s somewhat misleading. Yes, the Grimaly family is originally from Italy (more properly from Genoa since Italy did not exist as a country in the late 1200s) but in the end it diluted its blood through marriages with French nobility.

3. "The unrest continued until Charles III gave up his claim to the two mainland towns".

I am assuming the two towns are Menton and Roquebrune. However, this is not specifically stated.

4. Were René Borghini, Joseph-Henri Lajoux and Esther Poggio from Monaco? If they were, it should be clearly stated.

5. "Directly ahead is La Condamine, to the right with the smaller harbor is Fontvieille, with "The Rock" (the old town, fortress, and Palace) jutting out between the two harbors; to the left with the high-rise buildings is La Rousse/Saint Roman"

This caption could be rewritten more elegantly.

6. Under the "Administrative divisions", "Monte Carlo" which appears in teh list of municipalities and the map of wards should be spelled with an hyphen.

7. "Fontvieille, was added as a fourth ward, a newly constructed area claimed from the sea in the 1970s"

What does claimed from the sea mean? Was it built on the sea?

8. "In 2015, a new development called Anse du Portier was announced" and "Other possible expansions are Le Portier, a project relaunched in 2012" are not consistent in terms of dates.

9. Considering that the Grimadli family has never had kings, is it correct to say "The plan for casino gambling was mooted during the reign of Florestan I in 1846"?

10. "The grantee of the princely concession (licence) was unable to attract enough business to sustain the operation and, after relocating the casino several times, sold the concession to French casino magnates François and Louis Blanc for 1.7 million francs."

What was the year? It should be added.

11. "They then constructed their casino in the newly dubbed "Monte Carlo" and cleared out the area's less-than-savory elements to make the neighborhood surrounding the establishment more conducive to tourism."

Does it mean that they kicked people out of the area?

12. "which sits on 4 hectares of the Mediterranean Sea and, among other things, offers 145 slot machines, all equipped with "ticket-in, ticket-out" (TITO); it is the first Mediterranean casino to use this technology."

I don't think this part of the sentence is relevant. It should be eliminated.

13. "Citizens of France are not included in the no personal income tax rule."

What does that mean?

14. "In 2000, a report by the French parliamentarians, Arnaud Montebourg and Vincent Peillon, alleged that Monaco had relaxed policies with respect to money laundering, including within its famed casino, and that the government of Monaco had been placing political pressure on the judiciary, so that alleged crimes were not being properly investigated."

Is it "so that alleged crimes" or "because alleged crimes"? It's unclear.

15. "Monaco's national rugby team, as of October 2013, is 91st in the International Rugby Board rankings."

This is a very minimal description that does not add valuable information. It should be expanded with useful information.

ICE77 (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Permit me to add:

16. "It has the highest HDI in the world" -- what is HDI? First use of an abbrev should include a full expansion, no?

mikro2nd (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hope you find this comment useful:

17. "See modern day Catalonia". If we are speaking to the Crown of Aragón i think we should refer to all of the kingdoms and counties which composed it, currently divided in 4 regions (Valencia, Catalonia, Aragón and Balearic Islands). Refering only to one part of the territory leads to confusion about its extension, so I think it should be modified to say something in the likes of "see the eastern coast of Spain" or avoid claryfing on the modern territories which once were part of Aragón, due to the previous link to the article in Wikipedia.

18. What the h is "biothermics"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BetterthanAdam (talk • contribs) 05:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.141.40 (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Monaco. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Skyline Image

Hi all, I am thinking about adding a skyline image to the infobox. If anybody has any objections please do let me know. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk • contribs) 22:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Monaco for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Monaco is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Monaco until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 20:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

20th Century History

It says the Germans occupied Monaco, but it doesn't mention the liberation. Was it the American troops who liberated Monaco? Valetude (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, when did the deportation of Jews occur? There was an apology for that, but it did not say when. If it happened after the Fascist invasion, and later Nazi takeover, that would not have been Monaco’s responsibility, so it must have happened before. More detail needed. 213.205.200.24 (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Some info from a riviera website:

“…when Mussolini and his troops declared war on France [June 10th, 1940] and marched troops into Monaco, they were forced to retreat by the Germans.

After the brief Italian invasion, [Monaco Prince]Louis declared his support for the Vichy regime under Marshall Petain, an old colleague from when Louis was in the French army. He was put under extreme pressure by the Germans to register all Jews, a pressure to which he finally conceded when he passed a law to this effect on 3rd July 1941. Several German and Austrian Jews that had fled to Monaco were handed over to the Nazi regime. Although often seen as a collaboration, Louis II was left with little choice when caught between the two superpowers of Italy and Germany.

In November 1942 Italian troops reoccupied Monaco until the fall of Mussolini, when German troops drove them out and occupied Monaco themselves. The Germans occupied for just under a year, between 8th September 1943 and 3rd September 1944. Although their main goal was to apprehend Jewish people, the local police service made it very difficult by risking their lives to warn people when a Gestapo visit was about to take place. “

This can be put in the article when it is properly sourced. Note that the date of the second Italian invasion is November 1942. The article says 1943. Also, no mention is made of the first Italian invasion in 1940. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:6172:BF:A8A8:CAD (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of this is in the separate article “History of Monaco”. Maybe the two articles can be merged? 213.205.200.24 (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Media

Why there is no coverage of Monaco media, newspapers, magazines, radio/TV. How about the all important Radio Monte Carlo? (radio and TV and international broadcasting like Arabic etc) werldwayd (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Bias

This article reads like an ad from the monégasque tourism ministry. Adding the colaboration of the Grimmaldi familly during the war or the limited freedom of speech in the country might help with that. Ophelia (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the claims you present, but I don't particularly see this article as being tourism brochure-y at all. Criticism about the country is present in the lede and in the article, I don't see how this is something that can be POV-tagged like this. If you think something is missing, do add it with reliable sources, but I will be removing the POV-tag as of now. Uness232 (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


21st Century

I do not have anything to do with the Principality except watch the Grand Prix.

One thing came to mind during the 2023 GP is "Where do these people get their power?". Open the page here, searched for Energy; IAEA... useless. Searched for Power; Prince Albert... really? Searched for Electricity; SFA. I mean we are in the 21st century and one of the thing that is quite important in our societies... Energy... not a peep.

Punched Google... Wait a Minute! It sends me back to WP, to a page named "Energy in Monaco". But! There are no link to it.

Energy_in_Monaco

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Monaco

Puny war or something?

Thank you. Netweezurd (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monaco/Archive_2&oldid=1258123975"