Talk:History of Paris

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ElainaDH.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Lutetia"
"...meaning "boatyard on a river." O yah. ...or "meaning "fat lady with a sallow complexion." Or meaning "swampland with thick yellow clay." Not an auspicious beginning for a History of Paris. Wetman 17:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I found that Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable derives the name from the Latin lutum (mud), giving the city's name as Lutetia Parisiorum ("mud town of the Parisii") - supposedly a reference to the Parisii's mud hovels. -- ChrisO 10:07, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Not only does Latin "lutum" mean mud, it can signify also clay. There has been evidence of Gallo-Roman clay excavations under the montagne Sainte-Geneviève, and clay was readily available from the banks of the Bièvre river. Romans were rather industrious fellows, so perhaps Paris became known as a source of the stuff?  T HE P ROMENADER  (2005-11-12 21:47:45)

Unsourced and vague claims
This article is really nice, but there are a number of claims that would need some backing (like the feelings of Marie-Antoinette for the poor, or the actions of Parisians in WW2). Also, I had to remove some claims that, I think, were false (or were at least a gross distortion of fiction). David.Monniaux 14:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate?
It seems to me that to describe the "whiff of grapeshot" as having "dispersed a hostile Parisian mob by the simple expedient of firing into it with cannons at point-blank range" is inaccurate to the extreme: this was no showdown between an unorganized mob and the iron hand of government. Royalist forces entering Paris numbered up to 30,000 men, Convention forces about 5,000. Napoleon convinced Republicans to hold steady despite the odds; sources also say that he personally saw to the placement of canons, and that he remained at the front line throughout the action, even after his horse was shot out from beneath him. If some of this last may be bravado, the event nonetheless remains a decidedly military victory, and one that took tactical intelligence beyond the norm.

Overall Article needs Reworking - History of Paris, not France or French royalty
This is a very researched article, but I find much of it is rather non sequitur in relation to its title; this is mostly a question of context. For example: ''The Merovingian kings died out in 751, to be replaced by the Carolingians. Pépin was proclaimed king of the Franks in 751, to be succeeded by Charlemagne, who moved the capital of his Holy Roman Empire from Paris to Aachen.''

...would better be written...

''"Paris lost its importance as capital at the Merovingian dynasty's 751 end, especially when Carolingian king Charlemagne made Aachen the capital of his Holy Roman Empire in the early 9th century." ''

...as Paris and its development is the centre of this article, not the succession of Kings whose effect upon the city and its growth was often indirect and even inconsequential.

Cheers. THE PROMENADER  10:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Coins of the Parisii
Here's a nice photograph of coins of the Parisii. Could someone introduce it in the article in the first paragraph? Thank you. PHG (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Diana?
Do you think it would be a good idea to put the death of Princess Diana itno the 'modern' section of the history of Paris? It was a pretty major thins in Britain and the commonwealth, and internationally. Taifar ious1   10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But what about Paris?
There are a number of criticisms here taking this article to task (correctly, I think) for not really being a history of Paris, but rather a history of France seen through the lens of Paris. How about it? How is it possible to write a history of the city without the words "faubourg" or "arrondissement" being used even once? 70.90.143.153 (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Lutetia renamed Paris in 212?
There is no source cited for this name change. A few sources point to Emperor Julian giving the name Paris in 360 AD, but a source for the 212 date is harder to find. It is possible that this is name change was in the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212 by Caracalla, but that is harder to confirm (without resorting to Greek, Latin, or even German sources, since the best scholarly work on Constitutio Antoniniana is in German). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hargettp (talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No history for 1792-1804
The article has no Parisian events between 1792 and 1804 (a rather turbulent period, with decapitation of king, reign of terror etc). I wondered whether a section was deleted by vandalism and so checked 1 Jan 2013 and 1 July 2012 versions, but they're effectively the same as today. So it's official - nothing happened in Paris between 1792 and 1804!? This can't be right! It's not easy to write a concise "history of Paris" without straying into "history of France" territory and listing lots of kings and politicians etc., and the article's already slightly overlong. Wikilinks to main articles such as "French Revolution" should be inserted after section headings, to assist in targeting brevity. (Oddly the article has no wikilink to Napoleon at all!). But something of this turbulent period's effect on Paris should be mentioned, e.g. "Paris remained the capital after the proclamation of the first Republic in September 1792, and Louis XVI was among many executed at the Place de la Concorde during the Reign of Terror that followed from 1793 until 1794." I'll add it in, but one wonders about any changes to (for example) the population, the buildings and the economy of the city during this turbulent time too. Maybe someone knowledgeable can follow up? Pete Hobbs (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The lead and "global cities"
My problem with the lead is less about the length of the lead than what it says, and the link to "global cities". the lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article. The concept of global cities is not discussed anywhere in the article, and there is no explanation what makes Paris different from any other large European city or other major city in the world. It seems to be more a promotion for term "global city" than anything related to the history of Paris. I see that it has been added to other major city articles, also without any explanation. It's completely unnecessary in the lead of an article on the history of Paris. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The term "global city" is standard in urban geography-- Wikipedia scholar reports over 15,000 different articles and books include Paris and "global city" see Google report]. The text in the lede is a reflection of the material in the section on the 20 first century.  If there is a complaint to be made, I think there should be more detail on Paris's multiple roles in terms of  art, medicine, science, fashion, tourism, high culture and high finance.  What makes prayers different from practically all other European cities is its leadership role-- it ranks in this regard with London, and ahead of Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Copenhagen, Moscow, Warsaw and so on.  One approach would be to simplify the jargon in the scholarly literature which talks about, for example, " Global city formation and state re-scaling are therefore dialectically intertwined moments of a single dynamic of global capitalist restructuring. ... the world economy, from Tokyo, New York and London to Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, Miami, Toronto, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam ..." Useful is the article by S Body‐Gendrot - Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1996 that "addresses the extent to which Paris can be classified as a global city in  vein with London and New York." I added some more details and citations about Paris's role as a global city. Rjensen (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The section mostly uses scholarly articles from 2012 and even more recently.  Back in 1996 there was a debate on whether Paris would emerge as a top global city, and recent scholars put it in the top two In Europe and among the top four in the world.  That is to say, there is widespread recognition of Paris's world importance in the 21st-century. Rjensen (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Much of this, I'm afraid, is very subjective and open to debate, and can't simply be stated as fact in an article on the history of Paris.  I deleted text from the section on the 21st century citing a source from 1996.   You can equally argue that Paris is less influential in the world today than  Washington, Berlin, Moscow, and Beijing.  From many points of view, Paris was much more important as a city in the last century than than it is today.   it's an interesting subject for discussion, but not one that really belongs in an article on the history of Paris.  You need to include Paris-specific events in this section,  examples of how Paris has shown leadership, not just general observations. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Subjective? Nonsense.  The job of Wikipedia editors is to report what the reliable sources say.  It is not our duty to say that the sources are subjective-- you made all that up about subjectivity --I do not think you have even glanced any of the scholarly studies that were cited.  In terms of the global city, hundreds of scholars from around the world have used statistical and objective data to measure the importance of each city in terms of economic and political power, and numerous other factors.  The article primarily uses material from British and Japanese specialists, who cannot be accused of any bias in favor of France.  As far as rules are concerned, the Wikipedia policy is present all serious positions.  I think you will agree that the scholarly studies are indeed very serious. Some cities that were once of great importance have become much less important (such as Vienna, St. Petersburg, Madrid, Constantinople and Rome).  Paris has held its own and that is an important historical achievement.  Open to debate? Yes, and if you have statements from reliable sources that say that Paris is really not very important in terms of Europe or the world then please add them-- but I do not think you have them.  I think you are reflecting on personal value judgments rather than relying on what the experts actually say. Rjensen (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're missing the point. This article is about the history of Paris, and the section is about the important events that have taken place in Paris during this century.  This is not the place for a scholarly debate about the relative position of France with other cities; that belongs in different article. Please move this text to a different article or it will be deleted. SiefkinDR (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Paris is a great city and how it got that way is a matter of comparison with other great cities. All histories of Paris talk about its role in world affairs, so this is hardly an inconsequential matter.  To ignore Paris's very important role in the world Certainly misunderstands it.  Your private viewpoint Seems to be that Paris Can not be compared with London or New York or Tokyo or Berlin... but that is what hundreds of scholars actually do. People who are not interested in the world role of Paris can simply skip this section without damaging their provincialism. Rjensen (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again I think you're missing the point. Obviously Paris is an important city, and has been for centuries, but this particular section is about events that have taken place since 2000. Comparisons of Paris's economic role today compared with other cities are found in the article on Paris.  A statement that Paris may pass London in some economic measurements  in the future doesn't belong in this section, since it hasn't happened yet, and is just speculation. You might want to consider starting a separate article on the economic history of Paris,  where you can discuss these topics in more depth.  Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Who says that history is about events only? Historians reject that line of argument.  check out the Annales School, a dominant factor in French historiography for about a century now, which downplayed events and emphasizes that history is the study of structures values, cultures, and very long-term trends. History is about memory, also.  For example, if you are looking at a famous building or garden, there is much more than just the event of its construction.  How Parisians thought of it and treated it and understood its importance and beauty is a matter of history. I have to agree that the statement that will pears may pass London is a matter of future speculation of the sort that Wikipedia discourages.  I will remove it.  However it certainly it is entirely factual that Paris scores very high on the objective economic social and cultural indicators that scholars use to characterize cities. Rjensen (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre

 * I'm curious why you deleted the citation for the Sarmant history of Paris from the text on the St. Barholomew's Day massacre.  The information in the text came from that book, is current, and he's a very respected historian of Paris.  SiefkinDR (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the English edition of Wikipedia, I think we should give strong preference to English language sources. Students in North America Britain Australia etc. have very little access to French titles.  Conversely,  Sarmant  is the preferred source for the French edition of Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I really don't agree with you on that. There are excellent French sources, and after all the information in the English language sources comes originally from French sources. Please add new information and sources,, but please don't delete other editors' citations just because they're French. I will put it back.SiefkinDR (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo shooting

 * This article is not an analysis of public opinion, nor an essay on French political thinking, it's a concise and encyclopedic history of events. How can the unnamed "analysts" know what impact this is going to have on French public opinion one day after the event?   The same with the earlier statement that Paris may pass London as an important global city.  These are statements of opinion, not verifiable, and don't belong in a Wikipedia article on the history of Paris.SiefkinDR (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, let's ask whether you agree or disagree with the proposition that analysts (in the last week or so) have stated that France's undergoing a crisis and a rethinking? This is is a question of the factual behavior of analysts, rather than the content of their opinions or predictions. Here are links to over 17 million!!!! Google hits for "charlie hebdo" France debate using news sites alone-- there are tens of millions of other links. 17 million different news citations in 10 days indicates to me a great deal of debate. Rjensen (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS I get over 2 million citations in French for "charlie hebdo" débat Rjensen (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My reading of the French press each morning tells me that the papers on both the left and right are saying the same things they were saying before the events; I haven't seen any shift in their points of view.  You can't really call it a debate in American sense, because neither side listens to the other.  But once again, let me say that this article is not about what the French are thinking, but about events in Paris.  The "factual behavior of analysts"  isn't important for this article.  This is not an analytical article about what the French are thinking or not thinking, but a description of what has happened in Paris in the 21st century.  If you would like to write an article about French views of immigration issues, please do so, but please don't do it here.SiefkinDR (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Paris has intense discussions underway on this issue--that is an important event that we can describe. Rjensen (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The causes and results of the French Revolution, for instance, or the rise & fall of Napoléon, or the impact of D-Day or the Algerian war on Parisian life are not matters of debate in an article on the History of France: they are matters of debate in their own articles. There is an article on Charlie Hebdo, and that is where mention of what the analysts say & suggest belongs. Besides, what analysts say is also debatable as, IMHO, a lot being said is à côté de la plaque. The background of the three men who were involved in the Charlie Hebdo & Jewish market attacks has less to do with the failure of immigration in France than in the rise of global terrorism using a religion as its weapon.
 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about English Style
I noticed that one editor is trying to change this article from US to British English, and has been doing the same with the article on Paris during the Second Empire. He argues on the talk page of that article that all articles about France (and Europe) should be only in British English. I believe that's contrary to Wikipedia policy, which calls for retaining the spelling of established articles: and MOS:RETAIN  which says it it not acceptable to edit an established article simply to change it from one national variety of the language to another. The present version of this article was written, with the help of many editors, in US English and has been in that form for a long time; and, according to the Manual of Style (MOS:RETAIN) I think it should remain in US English. I hope other editors agree and that the editor who is trying to change it to British English will understand this and cooperate with those of us who worked on this article. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with SiefkinDR. From the point of view of the RS in English, it is my opinion that probably the majority of them are written in American English.  Rjensen (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This rather misses the point, with respect; this is an article about a European subject and, where there is doubt or confusion, the Manual of Style would clearly indicate that European English (and, where relevant to title and quotes, French French), are the correct default styles to employ when carrying-out a major clean-up edit - which this otherwise excellent article clearly required. To get into a into US/UK competition for linguistic supremacy would be to fall for a giant red herring; it's a terrible waste of time and energy, so don't go there.John Snow II (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you are ignoring the relevant section of the MOS.

"An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another. The In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. template may be placed on an editor's talk page to explain this to him or her."

Editing to change the variety of English is exactly what you are doing. You have not made any other contribution to the article. You're welcome to make contributions, with sources, to the article. You are not welcome to break the rules. Changes against the rules will be reverted. You are simply wasting the time of other editors.SiefkinDR (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Housing projects and violent unrest
Is there statistical evidence that the majority of the residents of the housing projects were or are Muslim? This new wording seems to suggest that all the violence was carried out by Muslims, and that it was religious-based. It seems to me that the issues in 2005 were more about economics and perceptions of police harassment, and not religion. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article does not use statistical tests in any paragraph. Our job is to follow the RS and they use  "Muslim" because that is the main commonality, and the main motivation according to the researchers.  Note that former French colonies of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia= "Maghrebians".  1) " third-generation Muslim ethnics who are stranded in the banlieues and who instigated the riots of 2005" Jennifer L. Hochschild, ‎John H. Mollenkopf - 2009; 2) "the majority of these migrants were young single men of Maghrebian origin. ... Paris's banlieues thus welcomed increasingly culturally heterogeneous numbers of Muslims." [The Oxford Handbook of European Islam (2014) - Page 24  3) in Paris ""The great majority of Muslims related to these federations are of Maghribian origin"  Yearbook of Muslims in Europe, Volume 6 p 232; 4) By 1986, 2/3 of people living in Paris's banlieues were immigrants from Africa says Police Power and Race Riots: Urban Unrest in Paris and New York by Cathy Lisa Schneider p 199; 5) "During the riots, French media described the young Muslim rioters as foreigners leading an “intifada des banlieues” with France." Between Suicide Bombings and Burning Banlieues; 6) ". banlieue, riots and Islam. Given the North African origin of much of France's immigrant population" "The youths sympathized with jihad... They were furious partisans of the Arab cause in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine."  Christopher Caldwell - 2009;  7) " the growth of Salafist Islam in the banlieues has posed a serious obstacle to 'mainstream' Muslim associations." Muslim Political Participation in Europe (2013) - Page 203; 8) note also that the highly contentious headscarf issue is related to Muslim religious insistence that women wear the headscarf.  I will add #1 To the main texts Rjensen (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I still think there are some problems with this text that we need to resolve.


 * This sentence we are editing is a summary of the article below, and violent unrest described in the article was in 2005. The main cause of the unrest then wasn't religion, it was unemployment and a sense of exclusion, and of harassment by the police. The government specifically ruled out any connection between radical Islam and the 2005 events.  The French Wikipedia article on the 2005 event doesn't mention religion as a factor in the riots.   While many of those arrested were from the Maghreb, many were not;  they were from largely non-Muslim sub-Saharan countries.


 * The headscarf issue is certainly a passionate one, but it hasn't provoked any violent unrest in Paris, and it's not mentioned in the article and isn't particularly relevant here.


 * Third point, it's not possible to verify that a majority of the residents of the projects in 2005 (or now) were or are Muslims. INSEE doesn't collect any statistics on religion, and it's a crime in France even to ask.   Religion is not is not the main thing that residents of the HLMs have in common, it's that they're first or second (and sometimes third) generation immigrants, and they come from former French colonies in the Maghreb and in Subsaharan Africa.  I think that's what we can and should say.   I welcome your thoughts and those of other editors  SiefkinDR (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion for the second part of the sentence in the lead is:  "...but in 2005 it experienced violent unrest in he housing projects of the Paris suburbs, inhabited largely first and second generation immigrants from France's former colonies in the Maghreb and Sub-Saharan Africa." The second part, about the 2015 attacks, would stay the same. Any comments on this? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK by me. please use the term "banlieues" (suburbs) Rjensen (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's done. Best wishes. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection needed
In view of recent disruptive edits to article, this step is being taken. --Blue Indigo (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

St. Barthlomew's Day Massacre
One editor has raised the number of Protestants killed in Paris from two to ten thousand (according to Sarmant and Fierro) to a possible thirty thousand. The Wikipedia article on the massacre puts the number killed in all of France at thirty thousand. I'd suggest we go back to the estimate of five to ten thousand killed in Paris, unless there's strong evidence for the higher number. Comments? SiefkinDR (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a jump discontinuity from 7500BC to 250BC. Surely, there must be at least one sentence worthy to fill this gap? Noting the presence of hunter-gatherers (modern homo sapiens) begs the question, why there, at that geophysical location? It might be worth noting that a branch of the Seine flowed through that spot 10,000 years ago, and the major river valley was the location of the encampments. Also, agriculture came to France prior to the arrival of the Parisii. The iron-age Celts dominated France for nearly 700 years starting 1000BC, with dozens of City-states before the arrival of the Parisii - nothing about them, either?Sbalfour (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Protection needed
As was asked on 17 August, protection is needed on this article. We cannot go on with disruption brought by a newly-registered so-called editor & his sock-puppets, who register at Wikipedia only with the intent of blocking articles, as was done recently at Marie Antoinette, & Chartres ,. Edit warring at Marie Antoinette lasted for months. Unacceptable.

This is exactly what's happening here. --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Requesting that article be given protection from rogue editor who is not a new editor but one of the many sock poppets of an editor who has been banned.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aubmn#August_2015
 * This editor has been pursuing me at every article I have been working on, reverting me in order to drive me to edit warring. The edit warring he drove me into from end June to August 2015 at the Marie Antoinette article is what caused his banning; however, he had been disruptive, edit warring with other editors & causing endless discussions at the Marie Antoinette talk page for months before. His tactics are always the same, and so his interpretation of Wikipedia rules.


 * Following are names - since August 2015 - under which he has continued his disruptive behavior at article on Chartres, Welborn Griffith, then here at History of Paris:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whiteflagfl
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Europatygr
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huntermiam
 * https://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thesaviourblue
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pirategreen
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alwaysgreen


 * There is not an article at which I work where he does not show up under one of these names & begin playing his game.


 * --Blue Indigo (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120229042729/http://articles.cnn.com/2008-03-07/travel/loire.valley_1_chenonceau-chateaux-loire-valley?_s=PM:TRAVEL to http://articles.cnn.com/2008-03-07/travel/loire.valley_1_chenonceau-chateaux-loire-valley?_s=PM:TRAVEL

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Paris. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.cnn.com/2008-03-07/travel/loire.valley_1_chenonceau-chateaux-loire-valley?_s=PM%3ATRAVEL
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160114075411/http://http// to https://http/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Paris. 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/20141111182327/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2578198/Paris-named-tourist-destination-world.html to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2578198/Paris-named-tourist-destination-world.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Exact date on which 28th Division paraded in Paris?
Could anyone please provide evidence to verify whether on 28th or 28th August the 28th Division paraded? Because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObR9gZslJxM says it was on 28th.--Roy17 (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I

Images ahead of timetable of events
I think the article would look better and would be more in the standard format if the images were placed first, ahead of the timeline of affiliations. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)