This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Yikes, Siefkin why have you been expanding it? It's now back up to 190 kb and looks pretty long again. I thought you were going to work on periods of Parisian history articles? ♦ Dr. Blofeld13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm moving all of SiefkinDR's edits since August 13 here for discussion. All his edits concern the history section, which I have reverted to its August 12 state. Here below is the history section after SiefkinDR's edits from August 13 to August 15. They should be moved to the History of Paris article. The history section, even as of August 12, was already too bloated and should be trimmed (I'll let the trimmers work on this ;) ). Der Statistiker (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: I hate to see time and effort wasted but really this article was already long enough when it was 160 odd kb. It definitely shouldn't go above 180. I wish you'd put your efforts into writing detailed articles by period of Parisian history like Medieval Paris instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A travel pamphlet (Lawrence, Rachel; Gondrand, Fabienne (2010). Paris (City Guide) (12th ed.). London: Insight Guides. ISBN 9789812820792. — with an average customer review rating of one-out-of-five stars on Barnes & Noble) is being used as a citation for the history section. Surely a more scholarly work exists to replace that? Depaderico (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What subjects should be included in an article about a city? The weather and the hour at which cafés open? How can we write an article on Paris and ignore entire chunks of its history? Paris and its history are one block difficult to break because every monument, building, bridge, even its cobblestoned streets spell history.
There are articles difficult to fill because not enough knowledge about them or simply not much to write about. Here we have the opposite, an article about a city that has so much history that the difficulty comes not in digging for events worth writing about, but in eliminating meaningful events.
Out of curiosity, I compared the history section of several cities (decreasing order below):
78 336 bytes Paris (fr.wiki)
61 440 bytes Paris (en.wiki)
59 904 bytes NYC (en.wiki)
58 368 bytes Rome (en.wiki)
53 248 St Petersburg (en.wiki)
41 984 Paris, Texas (!) (en.wiki) - not bad for a town of 25,898 inhabitants that saw the light of day in 1840.
As for the size of articles (any rules & regulations?):
285 043 bytes St Petersburg (ru.wiki)
276 835 bytes Paris (fr.wiki)
259 794 bytes NYC (en.wiki)
241 545 bytes Madrid (sp.wiki)
193 526 bytes Paris (en.wiki)
What I think should be done at this time is:
first go on with the editing/writing as being done, which is correcting mistakes and (yes!) adding details
then when all is done, have our designated contributor-chief editor, i.e. Siefkin, go thru the article & remove all the details then judged not necessary & bring them to the various articles he has created. This way, he will pick material already edited & referenced and, the Paris article will be done.
then, only then and not before, everyone should come in & give their opinion, as it is difficult to try to create something right while others are constantly on your back with a measuring tape.
Going thru such an article demands a lot of time, thinking, checking etc. and what comes out at this time may not be perfect, but perfection will not be reached in one session. It is comparable to making a statue, at one time it has hardly any shape & there is too much plaster. We are now removing some of the plaster & giving it some shape. However, it still will be a large statue as the article is on Paris (France) not Paris (Texas).--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Progress on the size of the history section
With the edits to the history section, the article is now down to 189,000 bytes, compared with 194,000 on August 14, when this discussion began. I hope we can hold it at this level, and that future additions on history can go into the history of Paris article, or into existing and future history sub-articles. Comments and suggestions welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Composite image or the Eiffel Tower-La Défense
There is no consensus for using a single image of any kind in the infobox. The type of composite image to be used is now being discussed below. De728631 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Der Statistiker has reverted for the third time the lede image. Formerly a composite image showing a variety of monuments and panoramic views, Statistiker has repeatedly inserted an image showing only the Eiffel Tower with a lager view of La Défense (part of the Paris Metropolitan Area but not Paris) filling the background. I will revert this edit once again, as I believe the general public would benefit more by seeing other monuments in addition to the well-know Eiffel Tower right from the start of the article. Most other articles about major cities use composite images in the lede. This one should be no exception. Opinions welcome. Coldcreation (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipédia says that "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." But there is no consensus on this montage, there never was any consensus. So we have to discuss. This picture is part of the infobox and the infobox "consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." But it isn't the case here. The Arc de Triomphe, the Louvres, and the Eiffel Towers represent surely not the real Paris. This amateur montage represent the TOURISTIC Paris. Asks a Parisian where he is most often during his days. Ask him where he works. And then you will see how Paris is. There is an article from the INSEE for more informations: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=ip1129Sesto Elemento (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the photo montage that was forced in this article by an editor last year presents a cliché touristy view of Paris as seen by (some) foreign visitors. It would be like having a montage on top of the China article showing the Great Wall, a boy eating rice, an old man with Chinese beard doing t'ai chi ch'uan, and a bicycle in one of the few streets left of old Beijing. Not that these views wouldn't show China, but they would show only a certain aspect of China, completely disregarding the forests of skyscrapers that typify the modern Chinese cities, or the busy seaports, the big car traffic everywhere. Well it's exactly the same with the montage: not that it doesn't show Paris, but it shows only a certain aspect of Paris, and one that is more curios than encyclopedic. I don't think Wikipedia was created to propagate quaint old clichés. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh We went through this for months last year. Those are the best known landmarks internationally. La Défence does NOT give a a fair balance of the feel of the city. Paris is not New York City. Find something of real concern to worry about. Please move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld15:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This photo montage does not give a fair balance of the feel of the city. Paris is not a tourist resort solely made of monuments and old buildings. Minato ku (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And it's also not a metropolis city of skyscrapers like New York. The montage image identifies landmarks most associated worldwide with the city and it looks perfectly appropriate. If you don't like it as a citizen, read French wikipedia instead. Has canvassing for support on that shoddy architecture website taken place again as it seems very suspicious you've all turned up at once again.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have had stability over the montage image recently, so it's a bit depressing to see a revert war breaking out again. Perhaps (esp Der Statistiker) the discussion could run it's course, rather than have you try and crowbar your personal preference in? - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but no but yeah but no La Defense is not in Paris, and it is not representative of Paris. Perhaps one day (soon) it will be a part of Paris, but presenting things like it already is is a lie. I've had at least to witness a few (often the same) hankering for participancy in the "World's Tallest Erections" competition since more than ten years already, so... enough? The OR POV of a few cannot trump reality. The lede image is fine how it is. THEPROMENADER19:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps Wikipedia was not created to "propagate quaint old clichés" - but it certainly was not created to dispel them either. The picture is fine as it is. Timbouctou (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minato ku, which bit of "stop edit warring and use the talk page" are you having difficulty in understanding here? The last stable image on the peg was the montage. It was there during the GA process, which gives it a measure of consensus. You are edit warring to your preferred version based on nothing at present. The etiquette here is to use the talk page to discuss in order to change the consensus, not just mindlessly bloody revert to your preferred version while the rest of us re discussing. - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I see Der Stastiker is also too stupid to understand the concept of discussion, and is content to mindlessly edit war despite a discussion being in progress. Rather pathetic way to ensure people are too pissed off to discuss things properly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this montage is not right because it is only propagating old clichés, old clichés which are very far of the reality of Parisian life, even if La Défense was located inside the city limits of Paris, you would do your best to exclude it. The problem is not the location but the fact La Défense shows a more modern view than the usual tourist stereotypes. Curiously, here many people here hate the modernity when it is about Paris.
Note that the picture shows the Eiffel tower, Trocadero, Haussmannian and other buildings buildings and La Défense, it is not just one type of architecture, this is more a balanced view than a montage of only old monuments. Minato ku (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no logic in your argument. For how many Parisians is La Defense "the reality of life" exactly? I stayed there 3 or 4 times when I was in Paris and La Defense is completely deserted after 6 pm. Timbouctou (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was at La Défense at 8pm no later than last week, and it was full of people. Lots of people sitting at the terraces of cafés that they have installed all across the esplanade and enjoying one of the last warm summer evenings. The stores were also very busy. That was between 8pm and 9pm, on Tuesday last week. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As many people works long after 6 pm in Paris (especially white collars), la Defense is not deserted at 6 pm, the main area is busy until the closure of the shop in the shopping mall at 8 pm even after because of the restaurants in the mall.
Anyway even if La Defense is not busy at night, at least there is many local people going there during the day unlike around the Eiffel tower, Notre Dame and Louvre whose are almost only frequented by tourists. Minato ku (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the montage has been in the article for some time. Any change, if challenged, needs to be agreed upon before it is implemented. --NeilNtalk to me20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May I say that the cityscape picture focusing on the Eiffel Tower has illustrated this English version of the Paris article for years, and that it still illustrates the French version of this article. The anger generated by such a consensual image is highly suspicious. Some people apparently believe this article is their private property. Metropolitan (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what is 'suspect' ; ) The English article montage is better and more informative than the French article one (and the quality of that image ~sucks~); why are a few insisting on one image that says something about Paris that's not true? A few of you have a die-hard obsession for La Defense, not Paris, that is an evidence that has since long become quite tiring. THEPROMENADER21:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
La Défense is Paris just as Mount Rainier is Seattle. Or perhaps you're also going to change the picture at the top of the Seattle article and tell them Mount Rainier is not in Seattle and should not appear there? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You guys can do all the word-twisting, apples to oranges comparisons, cherrypicking and wikilawyering you want, but that will never change the fact that La Defense is not in, nor representative of, Paris. THEPROMENADER21:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In which way monuments would be more "representative" of Paris ? No local goes here ! The cityscape with the Eiffel tower, Trocadéro and La Défense is maybe not the best picture but at least it gives a much better representation of Paris with a mix of monuments, ancien and modern architecture; a mix of landmark, residencial and office buildings. Minato ku (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been living in Paris since twenty three years and I see those monuments all the time. What I don't see is La Defense (and I, or anyone I know, hardly sets foot there), and how can anyone honest really even try to insinuate that, when media of any sort wants to show Paris to the world, La Defense is the image they use?
Really, a few of you guys are taking a very local 'suburb' complex (that our North American friends probably won't understand), mixed with your own desires to be in the 'big-city big-erection race', and trying to use Wikipedia as a pedestal to make yourWP:OR "reality" seem "true".
Enough already. THEPROMENADER22:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promenader, the very own official magazine published every quarter by the Paris City Hall uses the view with La Défense on its cover. See here: [1]. So why, oh why, are you trying to be more royalist than the king? Next thing you're going to tell us that the Paris City Hall is lying by showing La Défense on the cover of their information magazine? Der Statistiker (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...And what's especially annoying about all this is the sneakiness of it all: you can't say, in text, that "La Defense is in Paris and that's really what Paris looks like", because you'd have no sources for such affirmations, and be laughed out of the house because of them... but you can say it through that image that you seemingly hold so dear. THEPROMENADER22:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see more the Montparnasse than the Eiffel tower and I am pretty sure than more parisians sees the Montparnasse building on daily basis than the Eiffel tower or Louvre or Notre Dame. So why the Montparnasse tower is not visible in the montage ? About saying than that nobody goes in La Défense, there are hundred of thousand people working there, several hundred of thousand people shopping and using the transportation hubs, it is much more than the Eiffel tower. 6.7 million vistors at the Eiffel tower, 45.6 million visitors at the Quatre Temps shopping mall in La Défense. Minato ku (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minato ku, you are edit warring and at the limit of 3RR, despite there being an active discussion. Please have the manners to continue the discussion, and not mindlessly revert again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that quite belligerent revert. Tell everyone else to discuss 'your' preferred version after imposing it, but if the discussion isn't going your way... sigh. Herein, any change will be discussed here, gentlemen... THEPROMENADER22:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I'm not too fond of the skyline picture in the composite image. It's too small (on my screen anyways) to make much of an impact. --NeilNtalk to me22:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, all of you involved, instead of just being led by the 'arguments' here, go and look at the facts for yourselves elsewhere. Maps, articles, whatever you want, and you'll see that La Defense is not in Paris, nor is it used to represent Paris. It seems that a few here are trying to pull the wool over other people's eyes because they think that those contributing to this article are ignorant. Cheers. THEPROMENADER23:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're lying. The very own official magazine published every quarter by the Paris City Hall uses the view with La Défense on its cover page to represent Paris. See here: [2]. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're cherrypicking, partaking in ad hominem ('Lying'? Why? But I'm not the one with no argument), and promoting a 'reality' that you know very well is not true. And there is some sort of 'conspiracy' going on to 'suppress' an opinion that anyone looking any further than this page would find is not true? Really. You're the one promoting your agenda, and you have no argument. THEPROMENADER23:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neil, what you're saying about the skyline picture being too small was pointed out by me and several other editors to the owners of the article last year (to Dr Blofeld who created the montage and put it on top of the article without asking for consensus on the talk page beforehand, to SchroCat who stubbornly enforced Dr Blofeld's change without consideration for the opinion of other editors), but it was discarded out of hand (I remember that Dr Blofeld at the time vaguely promised that he would modify his montage to make the skyline with La Défense more visible, but he never did it). As for us, we cannot change his montage, as is too obvious considering what has happened these past few days. This is one of the ugliest case of WP:OWN I have seen on Wikipedia so far. Dr Blofeld single-handedly rewrote 80% of the article last year (June, July, August), and there's not much we can do about it, because either he or SchroCat revert us almost immediately (I had several good faith edits last years reverted by SchroCat without any regard for the time spent by me to research the information and write it down in the article; I can bring in diffs if my statement here is challenged by SchroCat). As for Promenader, for as long as I've seen him around, he's always had this weird obsession that anything one inch beyond the administrative borders of the City of Paris set in 1860 does not belong in this article, even if it's the largest business district of Paris and is visible from pretty much everywhere in Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm.... Lies, damned lies and things that Der Statistiker writes. You still seem to be very bitter that your OWNership of the article was questioned by people who have the temerity to disagree with you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the picture of La Defense in the montage is not visible, with such a bad quality even with a bigger screen you will see nothing. This is done on purpose to make it invisible. We had already a long discussion about the bad quality of this montage. The fact that La Défense is in suburbs (a very close suburbs at 3.5 km or 2 miles of Arc de Triomphe) is not the real problem, the real issue is its modernity. The current montage is clear, no trace of modernity should be used to represent Paris (Pyramide du Louvre is the sole exception but it is because it became a cliché landmark) even if there is plenty of modern buildings inside the City limits.
Paris is not a museum frozen in the 19th century, there are many modern districts inside the city limits of Paris. The 13th, 15th or 19th arrondissements are not less representative of the city than the 5th or 7th arrondissements. Minato ku (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's forbidden to show the modern side of Paris, don't you understand?
Photomontage of Tallinn, displaying the city as if it was some sort of US skyscraper city:
Photomontage of Vilnius, again displaying the skyscraper district prominently (is Vilnius more associated with skyscrapers than Paris? I don't think so!):
Photomontage of Paris, only old monuments, no skyscrapers please, it's France with bérets and baguettes:
This is beyond ridiculous! One of the major world cities, one of the biggest and most modern economic hubs in the world being forced by a few editors to hide its vibrant modernity on Wikipedia because some people have watched too much Moulin Rouge and Ratatouille. Guys, Paris is not a Woody Allen movie, and it's certainly more modern than Tallinn, Vilnius, or Warsaw. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The few 'examples' I have looked at so far have their towers in the cities talked about in the article. Paris is not in this case. Apples to oranges, yet again! If you were honest, you would say: "Look guys, I know La Defense is not in Paris, and not many people in the world would recognise it, but it would be cool to somehow show a more modern side of the city." But rather than risk having that rejected (because you know it represents an untruth), you try to convince (the hopefully ignorant) others that La Defense is Paris. So bravo for both being condesceding and dishonest in your arguments, and motivating those who know better than that to work doubly hard to dismantle them. THEPROMENADER00:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blah, blah, blah, let's just drown any points we don't like in authoritative-sounding hyperbole about how we're 'right' about how things 'should be'. Well, they aren't that way, so you cannot pretend they are so here, that is the very definition of WP:OR. La Defense is not in Paris, nor does it represent Paris. Period. THEPROMENADER23:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Rainier is not in Seattle either. It's located much further away from the municipal borders of Seattle than La Défense is from the municipal borders of Paris. So by all means, if you mean what you say, go and change the picture in the Seattle infobox and tell people there that they can't use this picture because it contains elements which are not in Seattle. You can't have double standards and apply something to the Paris article and not to the Seattle article. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, apples to oranges yet again, it is obvious in that photo that that mountain is well outside the city. You want to pretend that La Defense is in the city. THEPROMENADER00:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What ad hominem? Stating that what you're trying to show is untrue, and inviting everyone to see that for themselves? That is not ad hominem. Outright calling someone a liar, as you did, on the other hand... but if evidenceless affirmations and empty accusations is all you have as arguments, I suggest you give it a rest. THEPROMENADER00:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) I would be okay with moving the rather spectactular panorama that is there down to the bottom, meaning that we'd see more of it. But telling us that that (expletive) shoddy 'marsden' image alone is a 'better' representation of Paris, no way. THEPROMENADER00:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the aerial view in the montage doesn't add much - on my screen it's so small that nothing is visible, and it could be almost any city, I have no problem with showing Paris monuments; I can't imagine an article on Paris that doesn't have a lead image showing the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower, as London shows the palace and the houses of Parliament. I would keep the image as it is. Now please, let's stop the personal attacks and bickering and get on with improving the article. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
La Defense is clearly not visible in the current montage, the image pointing to la Defense is ugly and in a very low quality. I have no problem with showing monuments in the leading picture but I have a problem with a picture showing only cliché monuments, Paris is far more than that. Everything here is done to diminish the modern functionnal form of Paris. Without the fight of some editors, there would be no modernity, no diversity, no economy and etc in the article. If you could write that Paris was only a small resort town with only 2 million and nothing else than tourism and old things, you would. Just higher in this talk, Dr. Blofeld wrote that Paris is not metropolis, say that to the 5 million passengers in the crowded subway, the millions of workers. The promenadeur says that Paris and its suburbs are two completly different things, say that the millions of commuters from the suburbs who come everyday inside the city and hundred thousands people living in the City doing the oposite. In other city articles this doesn't seems to be a problem to include some important leading suburbs, especially if this suburb has for postal name Paris La Défense, if this suburbs is served by the same public transports networks (Paris MétroRERRATP busTram), if this suburb shares the same police and emergency services (Prefecture of Police of Paris) but here in Paris according to some people the limit should be strictly considered. Is the Périphérique worse than the Berlin wall in the mind of some people ?Minato ku (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
La Défense is clearly part of the Paris Metropolitan Area. That is the article in which to include images of it, not in the Paris article which strictly is about the city of Paris, i.e., that which is located within its 20 arrondissements. Anything outside of the 20 arrondissements is outside of Paris. As for the image for the infobox of this article, it is better to show a composite of several sites, including the Eiffel Tower, rather than just show one image of the Tour Eiffel with a panorama of La Défense filling the background. The latter gives the wrong impression of Paris. Coldcreation (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on all counts. This article is not and has never been strictly about the administrative City of Paris within its 1860 borders, otherwise half of the article should be deleted. And the view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense gives a wrong impression of Paris only to those who imagine Paris is like a Woody Allen movie. The skyscrapers of La Défense are visible from pretty much everywhere in the city and have become a visual reference for Parisians just like the old monuments. As for a composite image being better than a single image, there was never a consensus about that, and many city articles still use a single image (for example the Seattle article which I have already talked about). Der Statistiker (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hardouin, I've had to put up with your repetetive evidenceless affirmations (that 'this article is not really about Paris, but the Paris Metropolitan Area (<- itself WP:OR terminology of your design))' since ten years already, and now I have to watch you do it all again... because you were hoping for a sneaky 'no contest' or a new batch of people 'too ignorant' (in your mind) to know that you're spreading untruths? THEPROMENADER13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the montage-composite could be improved why not do so, make a new one, present it here, and we can discuss the new version (within which you could consider including the image of La Tour Eiffel and La Défense). As it stands now, the image of La Tour Eiffel and La Défense, alone, is not representative of the city of Paris.Coldcreation (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to improve the montage. In fact I created one which shows both the old and the modern Paris (see to the right), but surprise, surprise, it was rejected without any discussion by the little clique who control this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, I see another editor has decided to edit war over the image while the discussion is in progress. And it's another newbie. Not suspicious, oh no, not at all. Anyone for meatsock? And once again, they are aided by Der Stastiker warring again – who has managed to revert for the FOURTH time in 36 hours. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If any of you or your 'parachute friends' try to force 'your' preferred image or revert again, I am calling for admin intervention. Change will come only after discussion is finished here. THEPROMENADER12:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly User:Der Statistiker, no one controls this article. Secondly, your composite image is clearly not representative of Paris. The Chinese districts are but small sections of Paris confined predominantly to the 13e arrondissement. The image of the Pompidou Center is so cropped one wonders what it is supposed to mean, aside from being a collection of tubes and pipes (better to show the entire edifice). The street scene with the Tour Montparnasse n'a aucun intérêt architecturally, or culturally, as neither the building nor the street scene are well depicted. You could probably do better than that.Coldcreation (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true. Wikimedia Foundation controls this article, when you think about it. Secondly, the image of Chinese districts is representative of Chinese districts. The collection of tubes and pipes is actually the first thing that comes to mind when people think "Paris" outside the tourist context. And who are you to disparage Tour Montparnasse? Because when I think of Paris, I usually think of phallic symbols. Timbouctou (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is not a picture of a chinese district, I can easily reconize Rue Saint Anne (1st/2nd arrondissement). This street is pretty famous and popular among parisians as the Japanese district. This big error of location gives some clues about the knowedge of Paris that claim some people.
The street with no interest is Rue de Rennes, one of the main shopping street in the left bank in Central Paris.
In my opinion what matters in an encyclopedia is not what people think or believe but the accuracy of the information, this is not a tourist guide Minato ku (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ThePromenaderUser:Coldcreation: I don't know the Statistiker, where did you get that out ??? So i'm surely not a "parachute friend", but you're apparently pathetic...I LIVE in this city, and I can tell you that this multi-picture does NOT represent well Paris. The real Paris (the Paris that you surely don't even know). No, there are not just 18 and 19th centuries buildings in Paris. That's what you try to pretend with a very bad photomontage. Still, another photomontage has been proposed and only one personn is talking about it. Only One. So stop frozing conversation and rejecting all proposition. Sesto Elemento (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, after months of inactivity, a few contributors trying to impose the same image all swoop down on the same article at the same time. What are the odds? (counting fingers, then toes) Damn, if I count any higher this is going to get indecent... but I love the feigned indignation! (applauding) ; ) THEPROMENADER13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough I lived there for five years, and it's very common to me... Secondly, do not call other editors names: you know nothing about them, their background or their thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I've lived here since twenty-three years, so I know full well the what and the why of what's trying to be imposed here. Paris is a bit backwards (especially for your Skyscraper forum), mais, c'est la vie ! THEPROMENADER13:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how that hazy, badly-coloured picture always gets in there... it must have taken at least an 800mm lens to make those distant suburb towers look so close to Paris. Are the other photos just accessory to this, why those in particular? That's not the best picture of Notre-Dame at all, in fact, if I didn't live here, I wouldn't have recognised it (all true, but I'm just poking now ; ). THEPROMENADER14:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the point of your comment ? I've integrated the Arc de triomphe and Notre Dame (le Louvre was already here), and you're still crying ?!? Are you fucking serious ? Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wiping tears (of laughter ; ) I'm simply pointing out that 'your' preferred image is always the centre of everything. Don't you have a better one? For sure, not very many people (not even me) have the sort of equipment it takes to make towers ~4km outside Paris look that close, but I suppose you're willing to sacrifice quality for your... cause... ; ) THEPROMENADER14:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the picture of the Seine in the old montage, it's quality ? And the ugly thing in the center-right (it looks like a photo of a TV screen), it's quality maybe ? What a bad faith ! Laughing out loud ! And yes I prefere by far away this new montage than the old one. I took a step towards you with this new montage. But who is doing any effort ? Sesto Elemento (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly better quality and colour that your blued-out image, and the Montparnasse image is not pretty either. If you have a better proposition, of course you have to work for it, just like the person who proposed the existing montage, but for now I don't see 'better' being promoted, I see La Defense being pushed. Cheers. THEPROMENADER15:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can say whatever about if La Défense is in or out Paris, but you cannot say it do not reprensent the city: La Défense is clearly the financial center of Paris, and just ask people of which city La Grande Arche immediatly make think of.
I don't understand, when we speak about La Défense you say it is outside Paris, and when we propose pictures whith inner Paris tower and/or modern architecture you say it is not representative: does the representation of Paris only goes through your eyes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clouchicloucha (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(waving pom-poms) Another parachuter from www.skyscrapercity.com! I said the Montparnasse tower picture wasn't pretty, not an improvement, mkay? And 'yabut' any way you want, La Defense is not in Paris, and does not represent Paris! Your orchestrated agenda is quite clear now. (finishes pom-pom dance) THEPROMENADER16:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you affirm, as though it's final. I say no of course, because, not only is all that work on that La Defense image in particular you're pushing (henceforth named), the rest looks like it was thrown together as an afterthought, no effort even on the spacing. But no, adding spacing does not make it any better: you guys have an obvious 'tower mission', and must execute it at... any cost. To the suburban-tower-imporation machine! (bugles sounding) THEPROMENADER16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I see that you're not only bad faith, you're just a little troll. You asked before a better picture, I improved it, I put better photo of Notre Dame (why did you precised that it wasn't easily recognizable if it is to finally say that it will never be good ?! Couldn't you just you shut up ?) You said that I had to change the pictures myself, I had. And another thing: why did you asked me to come here to speak, if it isn't to find a compromise ? Whatever, enough time wasted with you. Sesto Elemento (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the joy of "discussing" with ThePromenader, Sesto Elemento. Personally I've long stopped trying. As for your montage, it's still a bit too touristy for my taste, but of course much better than the current one by Dr Blofeld. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For fuck's sake Sesto Elemento, do you really have to keep edit warring to force your preferred version onto,the page instead of letting a consensus develop? How arrogant are you that you are prepared to ignore all other opinions except your own? - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of letting a consensus develop ??? Are you blind, illiterate or something else ??? I just proposed 2 montage 2 hours ago ! Open your eyes, and you will see. The promenader is not trying to develop a consensus. He's just opposing to everything. EVERYTHING ! I try to make a concensus with serverals montage. Sesto Elemento (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, fuck off with your insults. Secondly, it must be said, what an awful image! I am flexible about what is contained within the montage, but the Eiffel Tower blurs into the background too much, the Notre Dame is almost unrecognisable from that angle, and the, quite frankly, fucking boring image of who knows what in the bottom right? It's piss poor and n utter embarrassment. Yes, the Pompidou could be in there instead (but not the close up, which is unrecognisable unless you've seen the building), and yes to Notre Dame, but not that angle (or the previous side view either). As to you forcing your preferred version after only two hours on the talk page, you do realise that this in an international website for people to comment from around the globe? You may have been around in that two hours, many were not: they were asleep, or at work, and have no time to say just how terrible your suggestions have been. Your attempts to try and impose your version, regardless of the opinions of others is, frankly, despicable.
Most of all, take it down until the discussion has reached consensus: you are acting utterly dishonourably here, but I suspect you don't fully understand what that word actually means. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These two latest montage versions (Eiffel tower with La Défense, Arc de Triomphe, Louvre, Notre Dame, Montparnasse tower with Rue de Rennes) seems good to me. I am not against some clichés monuments as long the montage is not only made of those. So this mix seems to be a good compromise Minato ku (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that particular hissy fit of belligerence, since its authour is apparently too arrogant to.
All you 'tower guys' aren't here to edit wikipedia, anyways, you are just trying to use it as a soapbox for your [skyscrapercity.com] tower-fanboi faux-message shout to the world that "Paris is a city filled with big towers, too". And, just by coincidence, all of you are pushing one rare image that, coincidently, at least to the unsuspecting, makes it look as though Paris is a city with tons of towers in it. It isn't.
What makes this most annyoying is that you all know very well the reality of the situation, and are intentionally attempting to spread disinformation. My sense of humour is gone, boys. THEPROMENADER18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rare in the way that that photo was taken with a lens so long that the distant towers seem right behind the Eiffel tower. The fact that you have only that image to push is proof of its rarity... or do you have another, better one? ; ) THEPROMENADER18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, You are insulting me with your "arrogant", "acting dishonourably", "despictable" and other stuffs. Sure that's less woth than me....Secondly, you are not flexible. Not even more than promenader. ""I'm flexible, but I found not the Tour Eiffel picture good, the Notre Dame picture too, and the Montparnasse Tower picture is boring."" We don't have the same definition of "flexible"....The montage is not my prefered version, it's something called "a step toward you", thing that you never, ever did in the entire discussion. Apparently, talking to you is as usefull as talking to a wall. I'm not forcing everything, you're just trying to keep an, franckly(as you say all the time), awful montage. There is even a picture in center-right, where we can see absolutly nothing. How terrible my suggestions have been ?? And where are yours ?! Oups, there is none...And you can keep you your "despictable" for you. Can you try to be more open ? But the problem is that I suspect you don't fully understand what that word actually means... Sesto Elemento (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'He said I said' and opine all you want, but that won't change the fact that La Defense is not in Paris, nor is it representative of Paris. You are attempting to use Wikipedia to broadcast a lie. If this weren't the case, you would propose another image to better the quality of the article, but since propaganda is your aim, you haven't, and you won't. Cheers. THEPROMENADER18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe how the image has suddenly become problematic after all this time. Prompted by nothing but a bunch of amateurs on a piss poor architectural site who like skyscrapers. Good news, you can create as many montages of them as you like in the wiki commons. Just leave the image which the majority of regulars are fine with alone.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have understood that what matter is neither the quality (the picture is ugly) or the accuracy (just tourist clichés) but having a stereotyped cliché image of Paris. Paris is not just made of monument and showing cliché monuments is not representative of the reality of Paris Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a tourist guide, it needs to show a wider view of the city. La Défense as one of the most important business district of the city is as much as its place in the montage than the monuments. Wikipedia is useless if it just made to confirm the stereotypes to the others instead of giving real informations about the city. Minato ku (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunalty, there is no like button. :D I've created a new montage. I hope you will like it, and I hope the buildings aren't too recent for you two (because apparently you 2 decides). I hesitate to put the Arènes de Lutèces, but it would have been too confusing with the anthic Rome. I'm sorry I let the Eiffel Tower in colour (and not black-and white like you should like it), I forget it. Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]File:Montage X.jpg
That's actually funny, Sesto. And you actually worked on the spacing this time! ; )
Like you, I'm also dismayed at the ville musée effect going on here, but what you have attempted to do (in about the worst way possible) is preempt the government and pretend that changes they should make have already happened, and that just ain't what Wiki is all about. Cheers. THEPROMENADER20:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This being en.wiki, which I enjoy very much, I'd rather stay out of this lively discussion, as I can understand everyone's point of view & think it is good for everyone to air out their ideas. However, this concerning Paris, I would like to give my thoughts on a couple of points:
The new montage with La Madeleine, put together by Sesto: The pictures represent some of the old & some of the new(er) Paris, although not going all the way to modern architecture, thus avoiding "la raffinerie", i.e. Beaubourg. Each picture in particular is fine but something bothers my eyes & I believe it is the weight: at the bottom is a street like that of an old town in France with one- or two-story houses, and at the very top, the wide picture of the big Madeleine sitting on top of the Arc de Triomphe, with under a small picture of the Seine, and below the already mentioned street. My first impression was: "My God! What if the Madeleine falls on the Arc de Triomphe, which will in turn fall into the Seine... that street down there is going to be flooded & all its houses crushed!" Going to the left, is the Tour Eiffel on top of fragile-looking Tour Saint-Jacques. Difficult to put these pictures together with proper balance. The Eiffel Tower has to be ankered to the ground in a corner, the Seine has to flow at the bottom, and there is something to do about the size of the pictures so that the ensemble is not top-heavy.
My other point concerns La Défense, which we all agree is not in Paris... yet, would I add, as one hundred years from now, it will be, just like Montmartre is, that some 150 years ago was a village overlooking Paris. And just like Montmartre is seen from everywhere in Paris, La Défense is also seen from different parts of the capital - not from everywhere -, mainly on its Axe historique of which the Grande Arche is the most western end - a will of its creators and the "king of the French Republic" at time of its construction. The problem with photographs showing La Défense from the Eiffel Tower, is that they are taken with back turned to Paris, thus showing very little of it & missing all monuments, except for what is in line with Champ de Mars in front of the Eiffel Tower. What has to be used is a photograph taken from La Défense toward Paris, which would show all of Paris, y compris the axe historique all the way thru the Pyramide and the Louvre, its origin, which also happens to be part of Paris oldest history. That way we would get Paris across the centuries in one picture.
I cringe when I see architectural photos which fail to have the necessary perspective correction, so that a building with vertical lines is made to look like the lines converge, or when pointing the camera up at a building, it looks like it is falling over backwards. This is discussed in any introductory book on photography, and in Perspective control. Such images are just bad snapshots and inappropriate in an encyclopedia. An architectural photographer would have made adjustments on a view camera by raising or lowering the lensboard relative to the film plane. Alternatively, Photoshop offers perspective correction. A building which is not a pyramid (or inverted pyramid) should not be made to look like one. Edison (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A cat then?
How about just putting an image of a cat? Everybody likes cats. We can wrap it in a French flag and position it in front of a fresh croissant. Or maybe a picture of a guy bored to death sitting behind the wheel in a hopeless traffic jam, smiling at the camera, with Arc de Triomphe in the background. Now that would really be "reality of life in Paris". Timbouctou (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and to avoid cliches, we can alternatively replace the cat with an alligator, the flag with a copy of the New York Times and the croissant with a donut. And the background for the bored guy can be an Egyptian pyramid. Timbouctou (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for the donut! Let me count... two, so... two against... none! Okay, we have consensus, we win! And don't even try reverting, it's too late, the vote's over ! THEPROMENADER13:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry we do not want PAris to look like America.
Just would like see the different part of the city, its culture and the reality of its economy and urbanism.
Inner Paris ALSO include Montparnasse tower, Bibliothèque François Mitterrand, La Villette or Centre Georges Pompidou.
For other animals, not my cup of tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clouchicloucha (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't include Tour Montparnasse, the least Parisian and least loved building in the city. There's a good reason they decided to cancel further skyscrapers. Otherwise the current montage is very good. Why don't we close this discussion and move on? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it is loved or not, this is one of the most important and visible building of the city. It is more centrally located than the Eiffel tower
I don't understand what mean "the least Parisian", I didn't know that "Parisian" was an such a restrictive term that it excludes everything that does not correspond to the stereotypes. Most of the French media shows the Montparnasse tower when they speak about Paris, it is noted as a monuments on maps. Minato ku (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR (talk) We would like to put the montage you have seen, but 2 people, THEPROMENADER and SchroCat (talk) don't want that. I proposed many montage, they refused everything. And they are not moderators, they are 2 people like you and me. I could re-take the montage and put another better pic of MOntparnasse, or something else, they say that they wouldn't accept anyway....Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lie. I have not "refused everything": I have pointed out that some of the images used in one of the suggested montages were not very good, while I accepted that the buildings themselves may be OK to include. That means swapping out images with better angles, not just that I "refused everything". If you could try and be honest it would make life easier on everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When a discussion is not going 'your way', just deny that it exists!
Comment on the latest revert: "There is no "talk-page discussion in progress", there is only obstruction by a few editors. Sesto Elemento was entitled to create a new montage, given the criticism of the old one, see WP:BOLD"
The latest addition by our friend Der Statistiker, defending his meat-puppet. When discussion is not going your way, deny it exists! And authoritiarian-toned wikilawyering trumps consensus and fact, too. All carefully crafted around an oft-counted three-revert tally, I'm sure... you guys are behaving despicably. THEPROMENADER21:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and the reverted-to thing up there isn't even finished, look at the spacing! It's not about quality, is it? It's all about misusing Wiki as a disinformation platform; your behaviour these past days shows that only too clearly. THEPROMENADER22:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the quality, ThePromenader, have you seen the quality of the montage (the one with an invisble picture of la Defense) ? The spacing is maybe correct but the quality of the pictures is horrible, this means that as long the modernity is not visble you don't care of the quality. Trying to show Paris as if it was a sole mix of old monuments is disinformation.
I am not interested by your war among editors but by the way that Paris is shown in Wikipedia, I find rather disturbing that an encyclopedia does no go further than the usual Hollywood clichés! Minato ku (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not more than you and the other editors who participated in this discussion. If I am violating rule in this case, you are also violating the rule. Minato ku (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited Paris two times in five years. If that's your idea of edit warring, do go ahead and report me. Don't forget to report any other user who edited an article more than once every five years. But your bizarre accusation just shows what kind of level we're discussing at.Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last two editions you have made in this article were to revert the picture, so, you are actively participating to an edit war if there is one. Minato ku (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You think it is great because you only know Paris through usual stereotypes. What do you would think if London was only represented by few cliché stereotypes ? I note that you have never participed at the Paris talk or edition but that you know Dr. Blofeld and SchroCat. Minato ku (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posting an urban landscape of Paris focusing on the Eiffel Tower to illustrate the article on Paris cannot be compared to "posting a cat". This is pure troll to assume otherwise. I insist on these points:
The picture is currently used on the French version of the article.
The picture has been used during years for the Paris article.
The article of San Francisco is illustrated by a similar picture of its urban landscape dominated by the Golden Gate, which isn't technically fully located within the City : San_Francisco.
A city cannot and should not be reduced to the strict administration managing it under its name. According to Wikipedia a city is defined as a relatively large and permanent human settlement : city. It is under that definition that city's article should be elaborated. This has been the rule on Wikipedia since its origins.
I don't know how exactly we can alert Wikipedia administrators on these points. But this should be done. This article is not the private property of Promenader and Shrocat. Metropolitan (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, FFS, more trolling by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about? (And that's about what ownership is, not about the choice of image) I claim no rights over this article at all, and have discussed possible changes to the montage above, disagreeing only on the angles of some of the images used. If you are going to be so uncivil (and yet so terribly wrong) in your opening sentence, you say more about yourself than anything else. As to "insist"-ing on anything... This is a discussion to reach consensus, not somewhere for you to insult others and insist upon anything. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL it's so obvious the canvassing which has gone on off wiki. That they're even commenting when the image is not going to change and think they can force something is quite amusing. It's an image. Why the big fuss? Move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'skyscrapercity.com members, most all of them, save their wily ringleader.
Funny that we're not expected to notice that they are all on a mission (and, just by coincidence, all at the same time) to put that one low-quality and rather unattractive picture there (there are ~millions~ of others to choose from), and no other. Why? THEPROMENADER13:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per the MoS, section titles need to be neutral. As per the comment from an administrator's comment below: desist with the personal attacks, or take it to ANI if you think you have any evidence at all to do this.m- SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RESTORED MESSAGE - Thanks for your tips. I'll indeed take it to ANI and I've neutralized the title without completely changing the nature of the topic (which was the purpose of your action). Metropolitan (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
To reiterate: what's being thwarted here is an aggressive off-Wiki campaign effort to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Mkay?
I almost feel badly for the skyscraper city.com people (and whoever else was off-wiki called here): they've been played like a fiddle. THEPROMENADER14:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may start issuing warnings or even go straight to blocks if this behavior persists. First, stop edit warring over the section header. The non-neutral header was that way I believe before my comments below. I don't see what difference it makes at this point. Nor do I object to changing it to Eiffel Tower, but I won't tolerate battling over it. Second, ThePromenader, stop with the attacks (lies, etc.). This is not the forum for it as I said below.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll tone my earlier writ down a bit, but I felt the need to make clear what's really going on here. I have nothing more to add, and I'd only be repeating myself, anyway. THEPROMENADER14:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that nobody is addressing Metropolitan's fourth point:
A city cannot and should not be reduced to the strict administration managing it under its name. According to Wikipedia a city is defined as a relatively large and permanent human settlement : city. It is under that definition that city's article should be elaborated. This has been the rule on Wikipedia since its origins.
No, the crux of the matter is his edit warring (despite an admin saying "stop edit warring over the section header"), and the fact that the section header is fundamentally untrue. If it had one tiny, microscopic shred of truth, he would, could nd should have gone to ANI. That he hasn't is more than enough proof that it is not a serious accusation, but just an excuse to throw out yet more untrue, incivilities round. Enough is enough, and this needs to stop. – SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then in this case the article should be renamed "City of Paris", and the "Paris" name should be left for an article about Paris in a non-narrowly-administrative sense. This is exactly what has been done for Brussels. There is the City of Brussels article for the narrowly-defined commune (municipality) of Brussels proper, and there is the Brussels article for the city of Brussels in a larger sense. This is also the case for Sydney (compare City of Sydney and Sydney). It would be ridiculous if the Sydney article contained information and pictures only about the narrowly defined "City of Sydney". Yet this is exactly what some editors are trying to do in the Paris article. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim by Metropolitan is quite simply false. There are a number of users opposed to showing areas outside of Paris as the main image for Paris. We are well aware of the canvassing of those from the Skyscrapercity project with their agenda to impose images of skyscrapers regardless of whether they are representative or not. Nobody requires you to like how Paris looks, but it's a simple matter of fact that there are next to no skyscraper in Paris. Tour de Montparnasse is very much the exception. This is something a large number of users have commented upon, not just the two users Metropolitan mentions.Jeppiz (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then can you explain me why the Tour Montparnasse markets itself in its own advertisement as offering "the most beautiful view of Paris" illustrated by a picture offering the exact same angle on the Eiffel Tower:
Why would they do so if "no one considers this image as picturing Paris", maybe they are bad marketers? And similarly, can you explain me why the official magazine of the City Council of Paris also use an image from the same angle on its cover:
Current versionFile:Montage X.jpgFirst of Sesto's suggestions up for consideration
Can we go back to some of Sesto's montage suggestions for further discussion? At least he was trying to be constructive with his suggestions—many of which had merit—although some of the angles of buildings I didn't agree with. If we can possibly look objectively at one or two of his suggestions along lines that we can all agree on. I hope that, despite people ignoring what admins have to say, we can possibly get through this without any more stupidity from any party. Can we start with File:Montage X.jpg, shown on the right? - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's not anything wrong with the current one though, not to mention it looks more striking. The top image makes it looks like Athens! All of the landmarks in my montage are very well known worldwide. Why anybody would remove the Louvre beats me.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, I also think your montage, the current one, is the best option. I don't think Sesto's is bad either, but I do prefer the current one.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I generally prefer Blofeld's montage overall too, although there is one image I think you should consider dropping: La Défense. It's just too small for a montage; nothing is discernible in it unless you click on the image to enlarge it, and you have a large spralling image of the same area in the economy section. Each landmark should ideally be identifiable by just glancing at the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's a nice image, but in the montage at small resolution not really helpful. Open to updating that one image with a different one.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I think 'instantly recognisable even when small' is capital here. For 'Long' images like that, I'd say the Pont Neuf, panorama of the Champs Elysées (arc de Triomphe small in centre), the Louvre image (already there) I like a ~lot~... but that Madeleine image, one would say Greece ; ) I'm not particularly against having a La Defense distant skyline in there (if there is room for it after priority), just don't try to make it look as though it's ~in~ (or ~is~) Paris - but that's actually quite a hard thing to do.
(after looking at existing montage) I really think we could keep it KISS and keep the strength of the present montage if we changed just the bottom-right and long bottom image. The 'night-pont-neuf' image is a bit... busy. THEPROMENADER18:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found this image to be particularly striking. No need to use all of it though - a central crop (with Eiffel 'in wee')?
So, Paris should be reduced to old tourist clichés, this is what do you mean? Rename Wikipedia into Lonely Planet if this is to make a tourist guide. It is not because tourist don't know or don't like the modern sides of the city that it is not revelant and should be hidden ! This is an encyclopedia, we don't care of tourist, what matter is the functionning Paris. (the global multicultural economic power, not the accordeon and café) Minato ku (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. The montage should have the city' best known landmarks within them. That mean tourists and any body on a world scale. The London montage for instance has three of its best known landmarks. I'm sure Schro living in the London area could think of dozens of other landmarks he thinks worthy of picturing too but would agree that on a world scale those are among the best known. ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minato ku, did you read the comment by Bbb23? If you have a constructive suggestion, please do add it and take part in the discussion. If all you're interested in is to heap cynical scorn at those who disagree with you, then don't write. There is nothing inherently better with a skyscraper from 2014AD or a temple from 2014BC. What matters is whether they are representative and illustrate the article. In the case of Paris, there are a number of well known monuments that represent the city, regardless of how well known they are by tourits. There are hardly any skyscrapers at all in Paris except Tour de Montparnasse. The current montage is representative of Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jeppiz (talk), SchroCat (talk), and the others: Please, tell me that you're joking...The image with the Madelaine is a joke You understand that ?! This montage I made is completly bullshit ! You don't even know what "irony" means ?? I put the oldest buildings of Paris I've found, I have even put the Rue Irénée Blanc, a street that looks like part of a small village, and you, you are saying "Hmmm that's very very old, I love that !" A huge LOL ! Pfff, you're completly over the top...My REAL proposition is the previous montage I've made, this one. Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sesto Elemento, I think they were ironic too. They responded to your irony with some irony of their own. A good way to bury the real debate. Now if everybody could stop the diversions... Cats and 19th century photographs of La Madeleine have nothing to do in this discussion. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those of us who are interested in discussing the article and the image have been quite unanimous. We prefer the current version in the article, but are open (and of course obliged) to discuss changes to it with serious, good faith users. If someone has a change to suggest and to argue for, I'm all ears.Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who is we? As we have no trust in each others and a consensus seems improbable, I think it would be better to have the opinion of more neutral editors. Minato ku (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When saying "we", I was thinking of the users Sesto Elemento choses to ridicule, including SchroCat, ThePromenader, Dr Blofeld, Coldcreation, Betty Logan and myself.Jeppiz (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to come here by SchroCat on my talk page. I'm not sure what brought this page to Mike V's attention, but I can readily see why he locked the article. The problem on this talk page is I see little effort to reach a consensus on the disputed images. Instead, all I see is a bunch of sniping and accusations. Obviously, if that's all you can do, then either the lock will be continued or editors may be blocked for edit warring once the lock expires. That would be up to an administrator evaluating the situation.
My suggestion is that you forget about how much you apparently hate each other and focus on the content. There are, of course, other tools besides discussion on this page that you can use.
If you believe that there is editor misconduct and you have sufficient evidence to back that up, then take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If you don't have enough evidence, then stop making the accusations in the first instance because, in that context, they constitute personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: "I see little effort to reach a consensus on the disputed images. Instead, all I see is a bunch of sniping and accusations." That's because there is already agreement on the montage and this has been hijacked by a bunch of amateurish skyscraper fanatics. It's served the article well for over a year without complaints, and it will continue to do so.♦ Dr. Blofeld06:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ernst, if you want us admins to keep an eye on this, it would be nice if you could point us to the supposed agreement on the montage. I'm thinking about closing the discussion below, after it's run its course, but I'd like to know what all happened. Please don't give me a laundry list of diffs, but rather one (or two) solid discussions with clear consensus. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: See the "consensus on the image section" below for a brief indicator for support among most established editors. Sesto Elemento, Cloudicloucha, Minato ku and obvious 2A01 are not only editors but moderators from skyscraper.com [4][5] who created accounts on wikipedia purely to stack votes and try to force this through here. See the article history. The other opposers are mainly Metropolian, who strangely turned up last July August 2013 after long being inactive to support Der Statistiker after a previous article disagreement and Cadem who of course has recently had a run in with Cassianto which I heavily criticized. I see very little evidence from established respected editors that the current montage isn't acceptable. Above all I'm concerned that no admin has stated that they've found the behaviour on this talk page suspicious nor have protected this page from being edited by newbies trying to sway a "vote". Consensus in favour of the image should be clear, especially if you discredit the editors from skyscrapers.com who are trying to push an image of Paris with skyscrapers. What I ask for now @De728631: or Drmies is an admin to semi protect this talk page permanently from brand new accounts and to leave a permanent notice at the top warning of our policy on Meatpuppetry trying to sway consensus. This page has a history of disruption from people creating accounts to try to push something, I think that's a perfectly legitimate request.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is moot now; De and I were working on this at the same time, but they were a few minutes ahead of me. I don't see the need for semi-protection, though: we have a consensus, underwritten by two admins, and attempts to either subvert or change that with some disruptive frequency will be dealt with. (Also, feel free to make fewer edits. Because of all these edit conflicts, something that should have taken five minutes has taken twenty.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the disruption on numerous occasions by Der Statisker with obvious canvassing off wiki to stray to sway consensus from sympthaizers on skyscrapers.com, currently reported at ANI with a topic ban request, Jmabel has closed that asking Der Stat to stay away from conflict here. If he interferes again in future then it will be enacted which is fair enough. My concern is that this page is a target for new editors pushing a point, so if not any blocks, at least a warning at the top warning against canvassed support and that if this happens again it'll be punished?♦ Dr. Blofeld14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that nobody is addressing Metropolitan's fourth point:
A city cannot and should not be reduced to the strict administration managing it under its name. According to Wikipedia a city is defined as a relatively large and permanent human settlement : city. It is under that definition that city's article should be elaborated. This has been the rule on Wikipedia since its origins.
Then in this case the article should be renamed "City of Paris", and the "Paris" name should be left for an article about Paris in a non-narrowly-administrative sense. This is exactly what has been done for Brussels. There is the City of Brussels article for the narrowly-defined commune (municipality) of Brussels proper, and there is the Brussels article for the city of Brussels in a larger sense. This is also the case for Sydney (compare City of Sydney and Sydney). It would be ridiculous if the Sydney article contained information and pictures only about the narrowly defined "City of Sydney". Yet this is exactly what some editors are trying to do in the Paris article. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with Der Statistiker. the metropolitan area is the WP:COMMONNAME, not the strictly defined city limits. Another wonderful example O'Hare is Chicago's most famous airport, but conveniently just outside the city borders for tax purposes. As the cities have grown to consume their suburbs, the concept of the city changes. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apples to oranges, again: nothing of the sort exists here, and nobody here knows what a 'Paris Metropolitan Area' is.
Or are you really proposing that Wikipedia rewrite French terminology and usage for them, or tailoring them for what other countries are "used to hearing" ? THEPROMENADER06:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing that this is a naming issue rather than a content issue. There will always be two articles, one for the city inside the Périphérique and one for the metro area. Right now, the former is at Paris and the latter is at Paris Metropolitan Area. If the articles are moved, all the discussion here will still pertain to the former: the city of Paris proper. --NE206:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus among established editors supports the use of the current image as a representative depiction of the city of Paris. It should also be noted that there have been several discussions in the past about this matter but it has not been the case of an arbitration. Consensus can change and as of now consensus supports using a composite as shown in revision 626969947 of the article. De728631 (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC) De728631 just beat me to it, but let me add that I fully endorse their reading of this discussion, and that in future discussion this can be taken as a yardstick. As De says, consensus can change, but for now let peace rule in the city of love. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we agree to accept the lead image as it is? It's not perfect, but it presents the most recognizable landmarks in Paris, so someone looking knows that they've found the right article. I hope we can stop the personal attacks and work together with respect and civility. Thanks!
SiefkinDR (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 2006, 2009 and 2010 arbitrations reached consensus on the Eiffel Tower single image. The 2013 arbitration reached no consensus for a change, thus confirming that the single image of the Eiffel Tower should be maintained. A decision which was overstepped by User:Dr. Blofeld on July 2nd, 2013. Here is a link to the diff [11] - Metropolitan (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would you know about consensus? Prior to this you haven't edited all year and you only stopped by in July 2013 to be a complete twat and tell me how awful the article was..♦ Dr. Blofeld12:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current composite picture is showing a completly biaised image of Paris, and does absolutly not represent the variety of the city. And now Blofeld is insulting peoples ("complete twat", just before) without hiding it...This shows his behavior when a people are not going in his direction. Sesto Elemento (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Comment at the silliness of this becoming a vote. Already it's been clearly established that two potential 'voters' are direct parachuters from skyscrapercity.com who have done nothing on Wikipedia but push one image and their 'skyscraper' agenda on this article. And a third, with hardly any editing activity since years, was obviously canvassed too. I suppose now we can expect more new 'voters'. THEPROMENADER13:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my editing list, you can see that I've done many edits before this photo problem on others pages, without any link with Paris page (what we are talking about...). So I'm surely not a """parachuter""" from skyscrapercity, as ThePromenader says everytime without any proof. I don't know Statistiker, I'm just agree with him. I can also say that Jeppiz and Coldcreation are parachuters from you, so not real "voters". Now stop lieing please. Sesto Elemento (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sesto Elemento, could we be honest here? In August 2013 you were recruited to come here from Skyscrapercity, and ThePromenaderhas provided proof of that. I don't want to be uncivil, but please refrain from such obvious lies. It's exactly that kind of irresponsible behavior that pollutes the atmosphere here. Why can't you just be honest instead?Jeppiz (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I of course like and would like main monuments to appear representing Paris (Eiffel Tower, Arc de Triomphe etc), i think we should add a complementary modern monument (Bibliothèque François Mitterand & passerelle Simone de Beauvoir may be perfect for me) and, even if indeed La Défense is not in inner Paris, could be visible at the back on a picture like a discrete appearence behind Eiffel Tower or something.
It could IMHO be a nice balance Clouchicloucha (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
@Metropolitan: Yeah, his years of experience and hard work and educated opinion are really valuable here. Pathetic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR: How about making it a condition that only established editors who have edited in the last few weeks prior to this to be permitted to vote here? Otherwise these meat puppets from skyscraper city will create lots of new accounts and oppose as if there's a consensus against. Consensus is determined by general agreement conducted civilly between established editors over time. There was never a problem with this image until the sock puppets from Skyscrapers.com arrived to push their agenda.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr Blofeld Hmm sorry how old are you? I think I may have a lot more years of education than you have my little friend especially when I see your agressive coments.
Do you have any suggestion to advance discussions or do you prefer to continue insult everybody and not being constructive ?Clouchicloucha (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my 30s. And if you met me you'd realize how amusing the "little" friend comment is. All you've done is joined wikipedia to try to force an agenda. Come back after several months editing elsewhere and then your intentions might be taken more seriously.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a problem with something called "democracy". Democracy as a principle of equality in the value of votes (no votes more valuable than the others), and everyone should have the right to vote. Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with democracy. What I have a problem with is editors being canvassed off wiki on some shoddy architectural website to push an agenda and cause people like you Sesto and Clouch to create new accounts to stack votes and try to force something against the established consensus from experienced regulars who have quite happily accepted the montage over the past year. Mark my words, you won't be able to push it.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DRblofeld OK that means we can have a discussion between adults.
FYI i joined Wikipedia to give my feeling and my opinion, am i on my good rights?
And again, i know Paris very well and live there for decades, this is why i think there is 2 parts of Paris, the historical one, as a lot of people imagine in the world, and the second one, touristic and business district as well, that should be mentioned.
I don't think it is transgressive to show a little part of this modern and new Paris in Wikipedia, an open media supposed to be the more precise as possible (this is not a touristic booklet)Clouchicloucha (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not going to be possible is it given the circumstances in which you've entered here. If you were an experienced editor who genuinely happened to stray into this without being canvassed off wiki I'd be happy to discuss it with you.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Images such as File:Paris-tours.jpg as well as reports on the controversy of new developments since 2010 (like this one) indicate that city proper (particularly the central area) is nowhere near a hub of skyscrapers. I may be able to get behind something with a depiction of the 13th arondissement, which is part of the city and not a suburb; La Defense does most assuredly not meet that criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. BlofeldFirst, there was never a consensus. I don't know where this information come from. He just had a picture imposed by a few people to everyone. Secondly, we did not create double account as you say, this is wrong. Where are my double account ?? Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be experienced in i have to start with something right? This debate is interesting, and i don't know why the fact i don't have years of experience make my coments not valuable.
Do you want me to propose a new picture you to see what i suggest?Clouchicloucha (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There were various discussion on the talk page and arbitrations which User:Metropolitan has summarized above, and they all concluded that there was no consensus for a photomontage replacing the single view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense. User:Dr. Blofeld started editing the Paris article on 23 June 2013 because it had been nominated for GA (Good Article) status, and on 2 July 2013 this editor put a photomontage in the infobox without paying attention to the previous talk page discussion and arbitrations or opening a discussion on the talk page: [12]. 5 days later, I reverted Dr. Blofeld's montage and politely pointed out that there was no consensus for a montage, and that it had already been discussed on the talk page (in case Dr Blofeld didn't know): [13]. Only 3 and half hours later, I was reverted by User:SchroCat without any explanation: [14]. Please note that after going back in the edit history of the article until 2011, I cannot find a single edit by SchroCat in the Paris article until that 7 July 2013 edit which consisted in reverting me and replacing Dr Blofeld's montage in the infobox. SchroCat came to the article apparently with the sole intention of "protecting" the montage of Dr. Blofeld. And all that has happened since then is the consequence of this original problem: forcing a montage in the infobox with disregard for all previous talk page discussions and arbitrations, and then reverting anyone who attempts to remove Dr Blofeld's montage from the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that it's now September 2014 and the montage has been perfectly stable and satisfactory for over a year?? You've edited a fair bit in that time, and have also discussed the history expansion of this article in great detail since and you didn't seem to have a problem with the montage or mention it then...♦ Dr. Blofeld20:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More bad faith as to the legitimate reason I came here. If you have suspicions over bad faith on my part, provide a diff. If not strike out the lies and innuendo. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dr. Blofeld. The montage is absolutely fine; I can't see what's wrong with it and why people are threatening each other and inadvertently causing unnecessary arguments! ☠Jaguar☠21:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current image is not fine as it is just picturing Paris with the usual cliché of old munuments, ignoring its functionning reality (as if Paris was just its monument and its history). The concensus would be a montage with mix between the monuments and the modernity, not just one option or one other option and then nobody would have win or lost. Minato ku (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia would loose what ? Nothing, quite the oposite, people would undersand that Paris is not just the usual cliché but a REAL CITY. The fact that you don't like la Défense and that you do your best to diminish its role in Paris has nothing to do with Wikipedia. La Défense is not a distant suburb as you try to claim, this area is located at 3.5km (2.1 miles) of Arc de Triomphe, infact the distance between the Eiffel tower and La Défense is almost the same than between the Eiffel tower and Notre Dame. It is by presenting Paris with only the usual cliché and trying your best to dinimish its size (all the discussion about the metropolitan area in the past) that Wikipedia would loose. This is an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide. Minato ku (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually La Défense is not several km outside Paris, it is at several km of the Arc de Triomphe. If you take the official boundary of the City og Paris, La Défense is at less than one km of the border. You can't pretend that La Défense has nothing to do with Paris. Minato ku (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can try to wheedle that down (into what?) by measuring from the closest corner of the Bois de Boulogne, but La Defense is still not in Paris, nor is it representative of Paris. THEPROMENADER07:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Representative of what Paris ? The cliché tourist Paris or the real Paris ? There is a big difference between both and this is worry to see that even in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, Paris can't escape to usual hollywood stereotypes which exclude a large part of the population. Why Paris should be always reduced to its clichés? Why this is so difficult to see that Paris is much more than that? Minato ku (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support current version, as per the above, and per Jmabel's comment at ANI "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a special-interest site, and in the case of an article about a millennia-old city, it is not surprising that the most iconic structures in the city would be ones that have been around for a while", a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About Jmabel's comment at ANI. He also said that more things should be done to present the modern aspect of Paris. This is because Wikipedia is not a special-interest site but an encyclopedia that the city should not be limited to a tourists point of view. My point have always been clear about this, I am not trying to push skyscrapers above anything else but to add the skyscrapers with the rest. Note that there is no skyscrapercity conspiracy, I haven't see or wrote anything about the current dispute on this site which is about much more things than skyscrapers (architecture, urbanism, transports. Many of its members are surprisingly against skyscrapers) there is no conspiracy to try to make look Paris as if it was full of skyscrapers but Paris is not empty of skyscrapers either. La Défense is not an invisble district far outside the city, it is very visible from many points of view, from many important places. You can't ignore it just because it is not offically inside the small city boundary.
Here in Wikipedia everything seems done to reduce many of the actual aspects of Paris. Look at the cultural part, almost nothing about the end of the 20th and 21st centuries cultures. France and Paris have a large rap scene yet nothing is said about this, a music that represent more its today inhabitants than the bal musette. Look at the cuisine, the French food is good but Paris restaurants are not limited to French foods. Minato ku (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I haven't see or wrote [sic] anything about the current dispute on this site": yes, I'm sure the private messaging system on the site hasn't been used at all, and it's just a staggeringly monumental coincidence that other members of the forum – including another moderator – have found their way to this conversation to join in on your behalf. Mind you, I'm sure the moon is made of cheese, that fairies and Father Christmas exist, and that DUCKS don't quack when there is meat around. - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose @ Promenader as i know ok La Défense in oustide PAris if you want, but who told about putting a picture of La Défense?? The picture was Eiffel Tower with La Défense at the back (or any other inner monument at the very front), so where is the problem i do not see. 2A01:E34:EEAC:BD40:1D6:BD24:1E84:59A5 (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
As Clouchicloucha has already opposed the image by name in this thread, and has now opposed for a second time, without logging in, I do hope an admin can take appropriate action in striking his opinion here. - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather late to the discussion, I'm afraid, but I am another in favour of the current image, and concur with all those supporting its retention. Tim riley talk10:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's really deplorable that every time this discussion comes to light, we see extensive WP:CANVASS by those who wants to add pics of skyscrapers and go to the website Skyscrapercity to recruit people to support their view. Clouchicloucha and Sesto Elemento are prime examples, canvassed to come here to support DerStatistiker's view. Well, Wikipedia is not a vote and it's not about numbers. Given the obvious canvassing going on, I hope some administrator would take action. This is getting close the Muhammed image controversy. Just put forward the policy that we stick with the current image and let's have an end to these constant flame wars that always involve heavy parachuting from Skyscrapercity. It's quite frankly ridiculous.Jeppiz (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like, once tried, this 'technique' is doomed to repeat itself ad infinitum until "success" is made. This is so deserving of sanction. It would be better if those involved would be forthcoming, especially the instigator, but I don't think that's going to happen. But please, prove me wrong. THEPROMENADER15:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course absolutly not a question of skyscrapercity or not.
Some of us were at first talking about putting La Défense because for me it is representative of actual Paris. OK some people do not want because it is not in inner Paris, why not.
Now i just suggest to add modern view complementary to historical pictures, as 13th arrondissement (so no skyscraper i think?) and i don't know why evrybody looks like getting mad with that point and no possible discussion.
Why?Clouchicloucha (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because you're violating WP:MEATPUPPET. You're here because another member of your forum asked you to come here and to endorse a change in image. What you have to say given the circumstances of your arrival will have little shape on consensus so believe me you're wasting your time.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not.
I came here by myself (as i know i use wikipedia services for years and i can create my account right?) and just would like to participate at discussions . I am not here to justify why i create my account a year ago now.Clouchicloucha (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proof, and site moderators to boot. You're also a regular proof. At least 3 editors from the same website turn up in the matter of days to push their agenda on urban images. It's pathetic that you think we're not intelligent enough to notice.♦ Dr. Blofeld15:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well i do not even want to enter in this kind of consideration because.. who cares? i think we all have much other things more interesting to do.
@Dr. Blofeld|What do you think me to submit modified montage you to give me your advice? Clouchicloucha (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to use one huge composite image. I changed the collage to be individual images here but it was reverted for some reason? The images look better quality, can be enlarged AND... can be selected individually. Wonderful hey? Then you can gain consensus for each image individually. I propose we remove the collage and discuss each image, starting from the top, adding them individually to the article once consensus is established for that image. Thoughts? Also I think that four lines of images is too much. Three is plenty. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that montages are the norm in articles on major cities, in fact they're encouraged rather than one photo to more fairly cover landmarks. I suggest you view our articles on places like London, Rome, Copenhagen etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind the Doctor's bad humour, Rob; he was probably still a bit heated (and rightly so) over the shennanigans this article has seen these past days.:: That's some great work, actually, and exactly what the article needed (bigger, individual pictures). I can't tell you why it was reverted, though, I came here only after the fact. Thanks! THEPROMENADER18:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nomber of pixels is not the problem of the composed picture, the problem is the content which represent very baddly the city. But now, with THEPROMENADER, Jeppiz (talk), and Dr. Blofeld, I see that representativeness of the infobox doesn't matter at all for them...Others composed pictures (with better quality than my previous pictures)will be proposed. Then, we will see if you can argue seriously. Sesto Elemento20:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't even know how to comment properly! What exactly are you trying to prove here, especially with those faux-authorative tones? And after what you've done these past days? Seriously! THEPROMENADER20:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, that message that anyone can see that didn't even mention you must have really hit a nerve... for some reason. I keep my game above the board, sunshine. THEPROMENADER20:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, it's not accusations when there is ample proof, which has been provided here. Once again, users from Skyscrapercity have been canvassed to impose their view of what Paris should be, violating about every Wikipedia rule there is.Jeppiz (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propositions of montage will be made this week end (for the third time, I hope you will not ignore them and critic in a constructive manner...). So could we just make a little break in this loop discussion and talk like adults ? I'm getting borred about talking with a wall. Sesto Elemento20:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're bored by the discussion, Sesto Elemento, you're free to leave. At Wikipedia we discuss, didn't your meatpuppetmaster tell you that when recruiting you to come here? As for proposing montages, do go ahead. Please keep in mind that we already have a montage that many users are perfectly happy with it. Wanting to stick with the current montage is not "ignoring". Nothing says the image has to change just because canvassing at Skyscrapercity had brought a number of meatpuppets to the page. Quite the opposite, the way it has been done (both this time and last year) is only detrimental to reaching any compromise.Jeppiz (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Decision on the Lead Image
By my count ten editors support the current image, and six oppose. That seems to me a general consensus, until someone can propose a better image and win majority support for it. The only alternative I can suggest is to go back to the single image of the Eiffel Tower, which would also be fine with me.
Friends and colleagues don't behave like Der Stat and his meat puppets!! It's become ridiculous. And the six opposes are hardly all valid opposes. Count only those from established editors..♦ Dr. Blofeld10:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome the intervention of SiefkinDR, and I agree with Dr. Blofeld that at least three of the opposes are obvious meatpuppets, perhaps even some sock, as they only registered to edit this page. That probably explains quite a bit of the heated atmosphere, but I concur that we should leave it behind. The montage is fine as it is, and there is a strong consensus among regular Wikipedia users for keeping the current version.Jeppiz (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an image with Notre Dame, if you add this one you should remove the zoomed picture with the Pont des Art toward Ile de la Cité. Minato ku (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Minato ku, it's a nice image but perhaps not the best we could find. I have no strong feelings on the subject, but here are some thoughts. We could add Centre Pompidou, as it's famous and more modern than the current images. Alternatively, we could also consider adding a view from some street if we want to get away from only monuments. There would be lots of options, everything from Le Marais (Rue des Rosiers could be an option as Paris has Europe's largest Jewish population) to one of the larger Boulevards (Boulevard Haussmann, Boulevard Saint-Germain) or Champs-Élysées (but then without L'arc de triomphe). Again, these are just some suggestions.Jeppiz (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best if we just stop discussing this for the time being. I have some other work I want to be doing and I don't think this urgently needs to be change.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to use one huge composite image. I changed the collage to be individual images here but it was reverted for some reason? The images look better quality, can be enlarged AND... can be selected individually. Wonderful hey? Then you can gain consensus for each image individually. I propose we remove the collage and discuss each image, starting from the top, adding them individually to the article once consensus is established for that image. Thoughts? Also I think that four lines of images is too much. Three is plenty. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^ Just extracting what was possibly the most constructive (yet drowned) contribution in all this. Rob's version is much better (clickable larger images), and he's done all the layout already; all there remains to do is switch out the photos, if the need be. THEPROMENADER15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a web-guy - do you mind if I have a look later? I'm really surprised that Wiki hasn't worked css into its code yet (css positioning directives called by a single 'class' word). Tables, really? THEPROMENADER22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moratorium on further changes of lead image, please
I would suggest we declare a moratorium on further changes to the lead image. The discussion has been going on for much too long, with very little accomplished. If people would like to add images, please add them to the appropriate sections of the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on the composite image
For the record, 11 Wikipedia editors supported retaining the current composite image. Those editors include: SiefkinDR, Coldcreation, Jeppiz, ThePromenader, Dr. Blofeld, Cassianto, Darkness Shines, Jaguar, Mariordo, SchroCat and Tim riley; far outnumbering those opposed to the image (most of who were non-Wikipedia editors, drawn here for the sole purpose of attaining artificial consensus). The fact that the dubious coercive plan to insert skyscrapers into the the article did not materialize is exemplary of the website's policies and guidelines set out from the start of the foundation. Experienced editors enforced these rules by deleting or modifying non-compliant material. However, in this particular case, Wikipedia's high openness has led to some concerns, in detriment of its accuracy of its information: contributions of new community members suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position. Such recruited members are considered analogous to sockpuppets and should be sanctioned accordingly. Finally, as a community member and active editor here at Wikipedia (and Wikipédia), it pleases me to see that, despite dubious activity, ‘reason’ used to deliberate and discuss the issue according to universal procedures established for the good of the general public at large has prevailed. Coldcreation (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough. Several admins have established consensus and encouraged us all to walk away. One user is already blocked. Consensus is established, all is said. Now is the time for us all to do something else. Jeppiz (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"in detriment of its accuracy of its information"? What exactly was in detriment of the article's accuracy? Are you suggesting there are no skyscrapers/high-rise buildings in Paris? Minato ku (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Detrimental to the accuracy of the article would have been to prominently display La Défense as if it were part of Paris: analogous to a dubious group of "green" fanatics obsessed with posting an image prominently exhibiting the Parc de Saint-Cloud at the top of the page, to give the false impression that Paris is "green". Coldcreation (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come fr:Paris uses that same image in their infobox? Perhaps fr:User:Coldcreation2 could go tell people there how "inaccurate" and deceitful they are? And by the way, Paris IS green: more than 25% of its land area is made up of parks and woodlands, something that is also missing in the current photomontage. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely the goal of the (cough) exercise these past few days: Using wikipedia renown to spread "Paris is filled with towers, just like New York!" disinformation to the rest of the world. Isn't that obvious? THEPROMENADER13:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the vile accusations, will you? Be constructive for a change. Even you, deep down, know that most of Paris is made-up of post-WW2 buildings, many of them towers of more than 10 floors, and that this is not reflected in the current photomontage. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The most annoying thing about your comment is its disingenuousity. Do you really think that your words can somehow change the obvious? And if you really had the article interest at heart (and not the disinformation drive), why would you even try to defend the nonsense over the past days? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you are the instigator of all this; even without my long experience with your antics, others seem to be of the same persuasion. THEPROMENADER14:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather surprised that most of the cultural aspect in the Paris article seems to be limited to the early of the 20th century. Espect few aspect like the opening of the Branly museum which is wrongly
depict as the newest museum of Paris (we are in 2014, this is not 2006. 8 years have happened and several museums have opened during this period) there are very few things about Paris modern culture.
-The music, France and Paris have one of the largest hip hop scene in the world ? Why nothing is said about this in this article nor in music of Paris article? Yet the rap is more popular among the population than the accordion which is pretty much restricted to tourism trade.
-The cusine seems to be too limited on french foods while Paris is full of restaurants from all over the world (and especially its former colonies), we need to make the reader understand that the food in Paris is not limited to French cuisine. The current sentence about this is not clear. It can be understood as "almost every cuisine from the sole France" because the previous sentence only speak about the internal migration and not the international migration.
-About the festivals, in my opinion too much is said about the Bastille day history but almost nothing about other festivals. No Gay pride, no Chinese New Year, no Techno parade, no Nuit Blanche, No fête de la Musique...
Obviously I just wrote few limited examples among many others and while the role of this article is not to list everything that exist in Paris, the absence of some important points is problematic in the understanding of the city. It gives the impression that Paris culture stopped at WW2.
I don't think that somebody reading the section culture of Paris could understand the contemporary culture of Paris.
This section needs an overhaul, not in its structure which is good but in its informations. Minato ku (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that a some more attention could be paid to modern cultural places and organisations (Cité de la Musique, Cité des Sciences, etc.), but I don't think their 'impact' can compare with those from years past, and yes, this article is already far too long. THEPROMENADER06:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not about the places, the culture section should not become a resume of all the museums of Paris. I don't see the need to speak about the Cité de la Musique outside a specific article about the Parisian museums. My point was about the cultural aspect of Paris in broader way. Today the rap has much more impact on the city than the bal musette but nothing is said about it.
By reading this section you have the impression that the culture of Paris is stuck in the past. This is far to the reality of this vibrant cultural hub. Minato ku (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just providing a couple examples. Another good cultural indicator is the radio stations listened to here, and the type of music they play. THEPROMENADER11:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody is quite welcome to talk about its hip hop scene and more contemporary culture, but try to keep it condensed and neatly written and use book sources in the given format if possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld17:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This appeared today - a few here were interviewed for it. The article neither asks questions nor gives answers, but it is a pretty good 'emotional outline' of what went on... it's behind a paywall, but you can see the first excerpt here. Cheers ; ) THEPROMENADER19:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propositions for a more representative Paris
As yet discussed, the current selection of photos is a very particular point of view of the city : the point of view of an (american) tourist.
This photomontage should be a little more representative of other points of views.
It should at least show :
an organ of power : Paris is a political capital. Maybe the Elysium Palace or the National Assembly. Senate can be good too (jardins du luxembourg) ;
Metro : it is not possible to avoid the Parisian subway in Paris. Maybe a metro station, or better, the whole map of the metro, that would give a good overview of the geography.
A photo with humans and/or traffic. On the current photo, Paris seems to be a desert. Maybe a photo of the Grands Magasins at 14h should give a more realistic view of the city.
Any (of a very large) list of the second part of the XX century or XXI century building. you don't like Montparnasse tower, there are a lot of other (Institute of Arab world, National Library of France, Bastille Opera, City of Science, musée du quai Branly... ). There are also several buildings from Le Corbusier, and even to the headquarters of the PCF a nice building although too much politically oriented. Note that Montparnasse tower is more seen as a monument than a classical building, and so it is the only one of the town, just as other monuments : Eiffel Tower, Arc of Triumph, are all unique... That is not the same philosophy than in New York. The same differences of philosophies applies to bridges when comparing Paris and San Francisco : in Paris there are a lot of bridges, all different, in SF, the is the Golden Gate bridge...
By the way, it is possible (but I am not sure it is a good approach) to select a photo by period : roman empire (thermes, arênes), Medieval (Notre Dame, Sainte Chapelle... ), etc.
I changed your title, v_atekor, to widen discussion to the entire article (and so I can add me two cents here ; )
Some additional suggestions for a more 'Modern' article:
History - the history section should move down in the page. Way down.
Lede - I'm not so sure the 'origins' history is so necessary in the Lede. Perhaps a single phrase inserted as the beginning of the "Paris is the home of the Louvre" paragraph - this would make for a shorter Lede, too.
Landmarks by District - 0.o - this should go to an article of its own, perhaps into a merging of the other linked articles.
Culture - Unless Paris directly influenced any artistic work, I don't find it particularly useful to indicate it here because the artist simply lived or visited Paris. I think a more 'dynamic' description of the culture today would be helpful, too.
Other stuff - just small things like "Paris is the greenest city after..." in the Economy section (?), and perhaps a rearrangement of the sections ('climate' at the top, really?). And yes, v_atekor and the French Wikipedia article had a good point, there's not much about the 'Métro' here... Paris must be one of the densest in metro lines per m2 of all the world cities. THEPROMENADER09:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I full Agree. Is there a standard organisation for English cities articles ? The one of the French article is quite standard for the French cities. I think we can translate the French article, full featured, with a gold star, maybe adapting it to English readers ? v_atekor (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's just do what's most informative ('right'). I just looked at the French version, and I am in admiration of the demography section... there are few other global cities with an administrative/demographic makeup like Paris' (no intercommunality, no 'city and area' association/organisation/administration - although they're working on it) and this should be explained in a clear way. As for translation, the English version requires a bit more 'context' explanation (that is already 'compris' by French readers ; ), but for sure, yeah, this should definitely be an FA article. THEPROMENADER10:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE your suggestions: Some contributors were working on the article, section by section, with the understanding (such was my belief) that, in order to have it "length-readable", details judged not necessary in this general article of/on Paris would, after work over, be transfered to specific sub-articles, such as History of Paris and others. To reach that goal in an organized manner, some of us were spending hours of research & editing. Now that access to the article has been denied for about one month (my last entry was on 18 September), criticism is given on what's wrong with the article: you are not telling us anything that we did not know; we are quite aware of it (please read some earlier discussions above) & were doing our best to address the problem, line by line, section by section, with as much accuracy as possible, which takes time. Consequently, at this time, talk of ever reaching FA goal sounds like a dream that may never come true. Also, the addition of pictures would be more logical when article is completed.
Hey, give him credit for caring, that sounds really dissuasive. Probably my suggestions are on the 'to do' list too, and I'm not aware of it. Why would an FA be so unreachable? THEPROMENADER
Worse things have been written on this page beside my suggesting politely - beginning with "Hello" & ending with "Best regards" - to user v_atekor that he read previous discussions on the very problems he points out. If the article had not been subjected to an edit war about the most representative picture of Paris, at which time it was impossible to add a point virgule to it, then blocked for so long, its orderly editing would be done.
As for the FA goal, no doubt that it is reachable, but there is a lot to do before it gets there, and it takes time. While to some the article seems too long... a lot is missing. For instance, the section Photography: 4 short lines & no mention of Daguerre? Literature: on the French side, only Hugo, Balzac & Dumas, père in a little over 5 lines, while Hemingway manages over 2 lines. Other foreign writers mentioned are all anglophone, not a single Russian, not even Ivan Turgenev who, in 1875, was elected vice president of the Congrès International de Littérature, of which Hugo was president.
The above just to say that adding + subtracting + editing + reviewing + discussing + warring + blocking = long way to FA.
Thank you, user v_atekor's, for your comments & please understand that, after reading your remarks, I wanted to make you aware of the fact that a lot of what you are saying has already been taken into account, that we are, or rather "were" working on it until we got stopped: I was only stating the facts.
0.o - your contributions list is not that long - mille pardons! I figured from your "adding + subtracting + editing + reviewing + discussing + warring + blocking = long way to FA" that you had been around a while ; ) THEPROMENADER15:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read the French Paris article, the more I like it. They've done an admirable job of organising the article in a way that leads to a better understanding of the city/agglomeration itself (rather than catering to international ignorance about it). It includes lengthy sections (lodging, etc) that are more 'local' in nature (and understanding) that could be reduced here, and there's a certain lack of rigeur when it comes to references, but overall it's great! Even its language is succinct; I'd be more than happy to help with translations if need be. THEPROMENADER07:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can start to translate soon. Tell me which paragrapher you will work on, and I will (try to) translate others. Because I am not a native english writer, I wont ever write on the main, on the public page. I will put all the stuff in a draft on my personal pages to be corrected before. v_atekor (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said the structure of the French article was admirable, but I was careful in my wording to avoid giving the idea that I was suggesting simply translating the article into English. The only parts where it would be constructive to do this is the demography section (minus, as I mentioned, the 'lodging' and other 'local' concerns), as it tells it exactly how it is in a rather succinct way, and it's "straight from the horse's mouth", to boot. Apologies if I gave the opposite idea. THEPROMENADER16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's right, but that make few differences. We need a base to start, and I think this article is good enough to build an English FA. It will be improved, better explained for English readers, references can be enhanced and discussed... but that will be a second step, once the English article will be at the level of the French one. Don't start by the end. v_atekor (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting that the article be un-protected
Can we begin by requesting that the article be unprotected, so we can get back to work on improving it? I agree with Blue Indigo; it's frustrating that we can't work on it, and the announcement at the beginning the the article is blocked is an embarrassment.
I believe we did reach a consensus that the existing image, while not perfect, is acceptable to most editors polled and shouldn't be changed now. The purpose of the opening image is to show that this article is about Paris, France and not Paris Texas, and to have clearly identifiable images that say 'Paris'. We can, however, discuss here, section by section, what changes and improvements can be made within the article. There are some good suggestions above for improvement which merit further discussion here, and decision by consensus here in the talk page. Can we proceed this way? SiefkinDR (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I urge people to look at the articles on London, New York, and Berlin, which I think are good models for length and organizational structure. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Paris Texas is a very small city (with no high-rise unlike Paris France), there is absolutly no way to confuse both. To go back in the subject I think we should remove the protection. Nothing can be done about the cultural section, comparing with articles of other cities I believe that it is to long. Minato ku (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no way to confuse both Paris (France) and Paris (Texas)? Please take a look at article on Paris (Texas) on fr.wiki:
The article should be unprotected on 25 October [15]. After the article published on Le Monde newspaper [16], it's been recalled on the French talk page that hiding specific dimensions of a topic is considered WP:POV[17]. The current montage doesn't even show the actual city, only a collection of lifeless landmarks close-ups. For the matter, this has raised enough concerns in France for the story to be also mentioned on a major radio, Europe 1[18]. This is why, I believe the better way to calm things out is to go for the conservative option which is to use the same image in the English version than the one used in the French version. An image which is a good consensus as it does show the Eiffel Tower, the undisputed symbol of the city, but also its urban surrounding landscape and its full dimension as a metropolis. That's the only way in my humble opinion to reach WP:NPOV in this case. Metropolitan (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) So the only solution is to give you what you want (because appeals to authority, appeals to popularity, appeals to antiquity, with no clear expression of fact?). That is not what normal editors do, it is what people with agendas do. And people with agendas corrupt constructive discussion, as you have done just now. THEPROMENADER06:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But thanks for the heads-up about the radio blurb, I wasn't aware of it. Like the article, not asking or answering any questions, just a 'fait divers' playing on the emotion of the whole thing. But thanks. THEPROMENADER07:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan, as you are already very aware, there is a consensus against the single image, and that was agreed upon by two admins, De728631 and Drmies. Although consensuses change over time, it is disruptive to start banging the same drum again so,soon after the debate has closed. If you wish to open the whole topic again—a disruptive move, in my opinion—it is unlikely that the page protection will be removed. - SchroCat (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ShroCat. The question of the lead image has been settled by consensus. We don't need to recycle the old arguments. We need to move on with improving the content of the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question of the lead image was NEVER settled by a consensus, otherwise it wouldn't have drawn the attention of various media. It was IMPOSED by Dr. Blofeld without prior discussion, and then defended stubbornly by his friends from the GA project, people who otherwise have never edited the Paris article. This is NOT consensus. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin had no idea of the entire history of this, and you, more than anyone else, are not entitled to give any advice about this, given that you are the one who triggered all of this by reverting the article in July 2013 to reinstall the photomontage of your friend Dr. Blofeld without any explanation or prior discussion on the talk page: [19]. All of this stems from you coming into this article, which you had never edited before, solely to revert it to restore Dr. Blofed's tourist photomontage. This you cannot deny. I've provided the diff. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were two closing admins, De728631 and Drmies, who reviewed the information: they closed the thread to keep the current montage. That's all that matters: move on to more constructive areas of debate for the future of the article, and try to retain some shred of AGF. If you continue to press the montage point, it is unlikely that the article will be unlocked. I find it quite sad, and rather underhand of you to shamlessly canvass on French Wiki for people to vote on the issue here, as well as to attack editors on this site. That is a rather shameful stance. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, baseless attacks from you. WP:CANVASS explains clearly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", which is exactly what I have done. I have not told anyone to vote in this or that way. Can you explain to me why you have NEVER edited the Paris article in a constructive way (as in adding information, rewriting badly written parts, updating figures, etc), and you only always appear either to defend your friend Dr. Blofeld or to attack people in the talk page here? I, unlike you, have provided lots of content to this article over the years, to the point of spending hours to design maps, create tables, etc., and I don't spend my life only on the talk pages or the administrators' noticeboards unlike some people here. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it is a lie to say you have not tried to canvass support. Roughly translated you have said: "Your help at all would be welcome to end the deadlock . We cannot accept that a handful of Canadian-English publishers impose their vision of Paris to the world". To try and claim that you "have not told anyone to vote in this or that way" is simply untrue. There is nothing baseless in what I have said: you have gone to another website and tried to get them to vote on an issue here that was closed by consensus three weeks ago. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as per WP:CANVASS: "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions". There is a handful of Canadian-English publishers who try to impose their vision of Paris, no one can deny it, and I'm not ashamed to repeat it here. All I've asked is for knowledgeable French editors to come to the Paris article and express their opinions about this, because there is indeed a deadlock since none of you is willing to compromise. I have not told the French editors what opinion to express, in fact it would be rather counter-productive given how independently minded the French usually are. All I've said is they should air their views to see if we can move from there. But as usual, you resort to the old Stalinist trick of framing your "opponent" as evil to have him liquidated. It's tactics and harassment like this which increasingly push contributors away from Wikipedia. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to step away from your lies, as little constructive comes from trying to discuss anything with you. Thanks for calling me Stalinist: I'll add that to the rest of the insults you've thrown my way, and note, once again, that there is a consensus to retain the current image. That fact you don't like it means little to anyone, as it is the consensus that carries the weight, not the POV of the most disruptive editor. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is "disruptive" about discussing things on the talk page? Talk pages were created for this very purpose. What's really disruptive is when some editors make wholesale reverts and delete the contributions of other editors to the article, as you've done here and here. As for insults, you're the king. Anyone reading this talk page can spot your "fuck off" and other niceties. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just recall that De728631 has been considered involved after he blocked me during 3 days, a decision proven unfounded and cancelled after the appeal from Caden[20]. It is cristal clear that there's nothing solved here, and I agree with SiefkinDR, Minato ku and Blue Indigo that the article has many other flaws that we could address first.
Culture: the section is indeed too big and should be thought as a glance inviting the interested reader to explore the Culture of Paris detailed article. We can also feel a certain trend to mix that section up with the more mainstream Culture of France article. I think an overhaul is necessary in order to focus more on the key elements to understand what is specific to the Paris identity: theatres, the movie industry, impressionist school, few key writers and singers, and the current state of today's Paris cultural life.
Landmarks by district: that section, currently listing 450 different buildings, is totally unreadable in its current form. It should be replaced by a more general "Monuments and Landmarks" section, if not by an even broader "Visitor attractions" section with not more than 20 different mentions. Once again, there is already a standalone article for the Landmarks in the City of Paris which is more reader-friendly for those wanting to explore a more detailed list of those.
Even if that doesn't solve ongoing conflicts, focusing first on these 2 sections is probably the best way to get back to more constructive contributions to the article. Metropolitan (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the personal conflicts out of it. I agree that the Landmarks in the City of Paris is more reader-friendly, but it indicates (without reference) that the Val-de-Seine ([21]?) is in the 15th arrondissement (!) and that La Defense is in the 17th arrondissement (!!), and the Plaine-Saint-Denis is in the 18th arrondissement (!!!)? There's nothing wrong with mentioning these, but not like that. THEPROMENADER08:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Landmarks in the City of Paris might be more reader-friendly in an impeccable presentation, but also - in addition to your mention of the parachuted Val-de-Seine, La Défense & Plaine-Saint-Denis, there are other *monumental* errors. Consequently, maybe it should not be given as a model of perfection:)
Those "monumental errors" are due to Dr. Blofeld. Before Dr. Blofeld started editing the article last year, Val de Seine, La Défense, and Plaine Saint-Denis were listed in the sub-sub-section "In the Paris area", distinct from the sub-sub-section "City of Paris" (see this version of the article as of June 23, 2013). After Dr. Blofeld's massive rewriting of the article, Val de Seine ended up in the 15th arrondissement, La Défense ended up in the 17th arrondissement, and Plaine Saint-Denis ended up in the 18th arrondissement (see this version of the article as of July 7, 2013). I then tried to correct these errors and many other errors introduced by Dr. Blofeld, but all my edits were reverted in two wholesale reverts by SchroCat who had never edited the article before and came here only to "protect" the work of his friend Dr. Blofeld whom he knows from the DYK and GA projects (see these two wholesale reverts by SchroCat here and here). This to clarify the situation for people who haven't followed the entire history of this. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These "monumental errors" were based on wikipedia's existing category system which I used to find building by arrondisement. If there are any errors it's likely due to categorization errors. I agree that the details should be in the main Landmarks article and it condensed down, but that's no excuse for continuing to behave so pettily and belligerently.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively new here & much interested in articles concerning France, I simply change what I see as not correct & refuse to go on a wild chase after culprits to put on the pillory or burn at the stake. I am neither Sherlock Holmes nor an Inquisitor. When I see something not exact, I correct it to the best of my knowledge, leave an explanatory comment, then go on to the next line. What interests me is the article. Period. It is great that such an article as Paris, France, //"Hello!" Paris, Texas :)// raises so much interest on the other side of the English Channel, the Atlantic or Down Under and, unless in a constructive manner, I will not take part in your discussions. As old buddies from previous fights, you all seem to know each other, I don't. The only time I will put in my two cents worth is to prove my correction is right or when/if someone attacks someone on a racial, religious or national basis. And if I feel that my work is a waste of time, I'll stop my participation.
Oh, I see you misunderstood my comment. It was less a response to you than to ThePromenader who insinuates (and this is not the first time) that the editors defending a broader presentation of Paris (city proper + suburbs) are the ones who put Val de Seine in the 15th arrondissement, La Défense in the 17th arrondissement, and Plaine Saint Denis in the 18th arrondissement. I simply pointed out that the person responsible for that was Dr. Blofeld, and that these three errors were defended by SchroCat in his two wholesale reverts. You're welcome to help us correct these and many other errors in the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, that is a perfect example of disruptive behaviour: you just made an ad hominem attack on a strawman you tacked to a comment about content. THEPROMENADER21:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the one *guilty* of the present size - by either length or weight - of landmarks by district, I would like to repeat what I wrote a couple of times & will not mention anymore because it does not seem to be read and/or understood: when I began editing this article last May or June, the on-going discussion was about its length, and I was careful to mention the fact that my editing would add length, but that, once accomplished, all that would have to be done would be to remove the details deemed not needed and bring these details, i.e. material already researched with references etc., to appropriate linked articles. In the case of landmarks, the material could be brought to the article on landmarks or to the respective arrondissements.
As for the Culture section, it would be good to give a definition of what is meant by the word itself, as every reader has his/her own idea of what culture is.
A question: what is meant by Literature? Is it literature about Paris (because only three French authors given)? Parisian authors? Expatriates? - and may I mention that there have been more expatriates than the Americans who *fled* the US because of prohibition or in search of a certain lifestyle :) - More of other nationalities fled their country because of political & religious persecution, and settled in Paris for a while or forever; they have been totally excluded from this article. Naturally, mentioning them would also add weight - but then, why favor so heavily the between WWI & WWII anglophone expatriates? There is a lack of balance.
It seems to have a large consensus for the French version of the article, both by francophone (FA, gold star.. ) than by anglophones (previous §) ; then better than starting writing a new article from scratch, better than trying to find another impossible compromise, we can start to translate it. That's a good starting point for everybody. For the photomontage, it will change soon or late, so don't worry ; it would be better to make purposes for others selections of pictures v_atekor (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go 'counting' consensus - it doesn't work that way. "The biggest number wins (no matter what)!" is driven by irrationality (and immaturity); consensus is a result of rational, constructive, non-fallacious discussion.
(to all) I moved my comment about 'translation' to the section above where it is more constructive. This section is more of a "he said/she said" fight. THEPROMENADER16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to replace the existing article with a translation of the article in the French Wikipedia. That article has some admirable features, but some of its statistics and facts are outdated, and it has a long essay at the end, with little attribution, which doesn't add any new information and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article.
Can we re-open the article for edits for a trial period, and see if we can move ahead with it? Editors who engage in personal attacks, re-open long settled arguments, make unconstructive comments should be blocked from this article, so the rest of us can get to work. Thanks for your consideration.SiefkinDR (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
L'article n'est pas bon à traduire car les citations sont à améliorer et les stats à actualiser. Et la marmotte... Débrouillez vous sans moi, j'ai perdu assez de temps comme ça. Ciao. v_atekor (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome in English Wikipedia where French contributors are not welcome because they have a much more urban and functional view of Paris, as the result most of the French contributors who contributed in the past have left, leaving this Paris article in such a bad state where informations are either incorrect, outdated or factual and where real important informations about the city are almost neglected because of not corresponding to the cliché.
I'd like them to stay too. Yet, Minato ku, how is it that you indicate 'a needed point of view' at the same time as you insult ("defending the cliché") everyone else involved in the discussion? This indicates a "my side, their side" mentality that has no place here. THEPROMENADER09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minato ku; you sound like a fonctionnaire de l'État, always complaining and never doing anything. Editors of the Paris article welcome editors from French Wiki, and elsewhere, to participate in editing here and/or discussing on the Talk page, as long as the contributions are constructive. Coldcreation12:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coldcreation This is maybe because I think that my English is not good enough to make major edit in the article. I don't want to diminish the quality of the article with sentences full of grammar and spelling errors that's why I am more active in the talk-page but this is maybe a wrong way of thinking. I also feel that my contributions would be deleted instead of being corrected.Minato ku (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I wrote: "The only time I will put in my two cents worth is to prove my correction is right or when/if someone attacks someone on a racial, religious or national basis." Having followed various discussions on fr.wiki - bistro & Paris talk page -, brought about after Le Monde recent publication regarding the debate on this page, whether I am an American or not, I took as a personal attack upon me, and on all American contributors, the anti-American comments, by which their author disgraced himself. I thus feel that before offering his help on en.wiki, Mr. V should give here some explanation & apologize for the comments he uttered at least twice on fr.wiki Paris talk page:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Paris&diff=next&oldid=108347309.
He also should be made aware of the fact that, when working on en.wiki, he will very likely come into contact & have to measure up with some Americans quite knowledgeable on subjects related to France, its history, cultural heritage, in addition to French grammar & spelling.
Reacting to both of Mr. V's 19 October 2014 disparaging comments, there was a "rappel à l'ordre": merci pour nos confrères américains by a Frenchman who, on 21 October, mentioned again l'antiaméricanisme primaire dans l'intervention de V ci dessus....
What changes should be made on the current photo-montages to avoid the flood of laughs critics from the Parisians and much Europeans ;
Is the current design of the wheel a good base or should we reinvent it ?
For the first point, I imagine soon or late the photo will change including several (obvious) changes I have suggested (you can easily do much better I imagine) for the second, soon or late you will conclude that although very old, the circular wheel design is very effective. Now, reread the above so called "debate", and try to understand why I leave. I am working on Gaudi and Goya, you are welcome to make them FA, based on the Spanish and Catalan pages, respectively. v_atekor (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the definition of scapegoat? According to Collins: a scapegoat is "a person made to bear the blame for others".
On 19 October, what you wrote on fr.wiki talk page were your own words signed by you, and which brought about the following reaction from a French Wikipedian: Et sinon ça va Vaketor les préjugés sur les américains ?-) C'est des attaques personelles pures et simple ton petit discours...
On 21 October, when re-establishing portion of the page which had been removed, the same French Wikipedian added: J'ai remis cette partie effacée par Seudo: en plus de l'antiaméricanisme primaire dans l'intervention de Vaketor ci dessus
When I read your comments on fr.wiki, I was flabbergasted. Then, seeing that you have the guts to come here & offer your services I had to speak my piece. To top it all off, after reading my comment bringing your defamatory behavior to the attention of the English speaking contributors of the Paris article, you complain that you are used as a "scapegoat" - and this, after you signed the most arrogant & disgusting repeated statements one could make against the Americans.
Before adding or removing a comma anywhere on English Wikipedia, you owe the contributors of this page, and the contributors of en.wiki in general, many of whom are Americans, an apology.
This should have been put on a section of its own. My apologies.
Enough with the ad hominems, please address the points made which are relevant to the article. Don't distract yourself from the collective efforts to bring this discussion back on track. Metropolitan (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I invite everyone to read again the WP:NPOV policy of Wikipedia:
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
Currently, the article is heavily biased towards a historical/heritage representation of Paris. The article is structured the same way as the article of Pompeii with most of its contents dedicated to describe past History, heritage sites, tourism, and past culture. The difference with Pompeii though is Paris hasn't been destroyed by a volcano 2,000 years ago, and here goes the WP:POV.
Facts about what is Paris today are marginalized in shrinked sections burried at the bottom. For the good of the debate, here are some facts about today's Paris we should all remember. Economically speaking, Paris is among the top 5 cities generating the most wealth in the world, it hosts more headquarters of Fortune Global 500 firms than London or New York. Demographically speaking, it is a megapolis of 12 million people inhabitated by large communities coming from all countries in the world. Regarding infrastructures, it is one of the most important transport node in Europe, with 4 airports, 6 major railway stations linked to 4 different high-speed rail lines, and hosts the second largest river port in Europe.
To know whether or not the economics, demographics and infrastructures aspects of Paris are represented fairly, proportionately in the current article, I invite everyone to compare the size of the said sections with the one of those dedicated to History, heritage and culture (which in the case of Paris ignores its modern aspects as everyone obviously agreed here [22]). I've counted words of each section (including their paragraphs in introduction), and in order to give a point of comparison, I've done the same about London, which is a similar size capital city of a similar country.
Field of interest
Paris
London
Number of words
% of total
Number of words
% of total
History
3,573 words
22%
2,048 words
17%
Heritage
4,277 words
26%
204 words
2%
Culture
2,545 words
15%
1,661 words
14%
Subtotal
10,395 words
63%
3,913 words
32%
Economy
673 words
4%
727 words
6%
Demographics
852 words
5%
1,605 words
13%
Transport
819 words
5%
1,693 words
14%
Subtotal
2,344 words
13%
4,025 words
33%
Overall total
16,388 words
100%
12,131 words
100%
It's worth being mentionned though that London's culture section is entirely dedicated to today's culture. But even putting that aspect aside, the London article, which seems well-balanced, talk about as much of History, heritage and culture than it does of economy, demographics and transports. In the case of Paris, sections about the "past" aspects are 4.5 times bigger than those about today's aspect. In reading this article, we can decently believe that today's Paris is judged not relevant anymore, which is a total distortion of the truth.
Most people who participated to the discussion now seems to agree that the landmarks by district section must be replaced by a quick summary, the culture section needs an overhaul and the history section needs to be moved down. For the new sections to be written, V_atekor proposes us to get inspired by the French version of the article, which has reached FA status. All key facts about the city are clearly mentioned in it and I think it's indeed a good base for necessary improvements.
So despite everything, I do have the feeling we're moving forward, and I thank everyone for their efforts to push the discussion back on the right track. Metropolitan (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All that to say "this article needs less history, more modern stuff?" Well, I agree! I saw what you did in there, by the way, but let's leave that between us. Fine and dandy, though. ; ) THEPROMENADER16:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Metropolitan: not surprised about the small percentage of the demographics section compared to London. This section was viciously cut down by Dr. Blofeld as a "retaliation" against my criticism of his bloated "Landmarks" section (see his edit with this crazy summary As you campaigned for me to cut the landmarks I'm cutting this bloated section again to even things out). Regarding transports, I am currently preparing some stats that I will add to the section once the article is unlocked, if Promenader & co. haven't managed to have me banned before that is. We are faced with the most vicious people I have ever seen in my life online, ready to scapegoat and request banishments against whoever disagree with them. The fact that ThePromenader, who is not an admin, recently removed the case asking for my banishment from the archives and pasted it again in the active Administrators' noticeboard speaks for itself. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only 14 minutes to respond to my comment. Congratulations! You're spending your life on Wikipedia?
Regarding "disruption", what's really disruptive is to reopen an archived case just to pursue your personal feud. That is certainly not going to contribute to calm things down here or move forward. Ask yourself some questions for a change, and drop the self-righteousness. You're as guilty as anyone here. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, this is starting again, I recall that the content in this article belongs to no one. When editing it, you sacrifice your work benevolently to the common goods, no matter how good it is or how much it sucks. That's the rule. Now about the content of the demographics section, it should indeed be increased as shown on the table. I've just read again the French version of the article and it should be a good source to improve the English version. It's probably too long to be translated litteraly but we can move here the most substantial part of it. I neither know, nor care about who has written it, only the content matters. Metropolitan (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you talking to? You sound like me five years ago ; ) I also support translating the French demographics section (with a bit less detail in 'lodgement' and other local concerns) - it's an obviously knowledgable work of art. THEPROMENADER21:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Behavioral warning
I posted this notice on ANI a short time ago, and I'll post it here too, as a notice to all parties: The flame-wars on this page need to stop. Therefore, from this moment on, this talkpage as well as all related discussions elsewhere (including edit summaries etc.) are a strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" zone. You can all continue to discuss what content should be in the Paris article, but until further notice, no contributor with a prior significant involvement on the Paris discussions is allowed, in any context, to engage in any negative remarks about any of the others. This includes, in addition to the usual forms of incivility and personal attacks: any complaints or accusations of wrongdoing, speculations about the other person's motivations or POV agendas, reminders about (real or alleged) past misbehaviour or allusions to such, talk about somebody's behaviour off-wiki, ad-hominem arguments about somebody's lack of qualifications or of editing merits, "tu-quoque"-types of responses to accusations from others. Anybody who engages in any such behaviour, on any side, will be blocked, immediately, without further warning, for substantial periods of time. This applies especially to every contributor who has been involved in the controversies over the images and the overall profile of the article during the last year (the people involved will know who they are; if in doubt: anybody with more than, say, five contributions to this the relevant threads on this talkpage will qualify). Fut.Perf.☼14:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding future unprotection
I note that people have been discussing the impending lifting of the page protection, but apparently the question of the top image is still arousing controversy. Therefore my question: are people going to accept the current status quo for the time being, or are we going to see renewed reverts over this once the page is open again? Please don't re-start arguing the case here, just answer me in a matter-of-fact way: is any of you planning to make an edit that you have reasons to think might be unacceptable to others here? (Please answer in the spirit of the behavioral warning above.) Fut.Perf.☼14:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No - I've only edited Paris twice, no intention to return to this article anytime soon. I favor the current consensus, but won't edit either way. Should a new consensus emerge, I accept that. Not editing the picture either way.Jeppiz (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it didn't look to me as if you had to "bow" to anything here, since the current status quo is the one you supported, or isn't it? I am of course most interested to hear from those who were previously not happy with this state. Fut.Perf.☼16:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't, for sure. But, in the future, should I not agree with consensus, 'still No'. And 'No', I won't be submitting anything formerly contested without talking about it first. THEPROMENADER16:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No - I disagree with the status quo but I will not revert it for the time being. It can only do good to the article to focus first on the contents improvements mentioned on the sections above; but without arguing, I feel obliged to notice that every French contributors judged that image an unfaithful representation of the actual city, which means a long term solution will have to be found, but only later. And that solution will of course not be a blunt revert. Metropolitan (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non, I didn't ever edit this article, nor will do so, I did few edits on the whole en:WP. I have proposed my help here after an article of a major French news paper and several national radios. I would have do much better to go my way. I fully disagree with this photo and status quo, but you can use a photo of the sewers of Paris if you want - they are visiting - I won't comment this article any more. Do what you want. v_atekor (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, no matter what the illustration is -single or montage-, most important is the content of the article. Once a satisfactory redaction of text has been achieved, the image should come - which no doubt will be decided in a unanimous vote (!) by the members of this most distinguished assembly :) - as the cherry on the cake. --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree with this status quo and I find the current picture horrible and unrepresentative of Paris but I will not change the image without a discussion in this talk page. For the moment the content of the article is my priority. Minato ku (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No - Thanks for your intervention in trying to calm things down. Just one question: could you tell us what's the way to proceed in the future to reach a consensus on a new photomontage or image for the infobox, given that all French editors and several French media have criticized the current photomontage in the en:WP article of Paris? Two French editors here have offered to create a new photomontage, but I'm not sure how they, or anyone else for that matter, should proceed. Thanks again. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a need for a renewed discussion about the image, my proposal would be a highly structured and tightly supervised RfC: one phase where any interested party can submit a favourite image for consideration, with just a brief paragraph each about why they think it would be best; then the actual RfC where everybody can state their preferences; tight restrictions on the amount of threaded debate inside the RfC, to avoid the thing being drowned in the noise of debate from a few people with long-standing entrenched positions and vested interests. Basically, in such an RfC, everybody with a significant involvement in prior debates should simply state their opinion once, briefly, and just let everybody else's opinions stand in the same way, without re-hashing all the same arguments in threaded debate again. But I strongly recommend to do what several others have hinted at before, and just concentrate on something else first and let the image issue rest for a while. If people wish to experiment with new versions of montages in the meantime, I'm sure they could do that quietly and among themselves away from this page for a while. Fut.Perf.☼13:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we agreed, after the very long discussion above, that the issue of the image was closed for now, since the argument about it achieved no other result than having the section blocked from editing. Please, let's not bring it up again, it's a waste of time and energy. Let's try to improve the article instead.SiefkinDR (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Not all French editors have criticized the current photomontage, and no one from French media has criticized the current photomontage. Regardless, consensus to keep it has been attained. Coldcreation (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The French media, Le Monde in particular, only brought the attention to the discussion taking place here, which it finds interesting. Besides, fr.Wikipedians are as much divided on choice of pictures - single vs montage - as en.Wikipedians are:
Personally, I see no reason to satisfy/copy the French point of view which, as de Gaulle would say, is as diverse as the number of French "fromages" - and he did not count them all! This is en.wiki: no matter what we try to do, Anglos are not going to see Paris the way Parisians do - and each Parisian has his/her own view of Paris, as every French non-Parisian does. Have a discussion on Paris with someone from Bordeaux, Lyon or Marseille & wait for his/her opinion on the French capital & its inhabitants... It might come as quite a blow!
So, let's do our best here with the contributors we have, either American-Australian-British, French, Europeans, Martians... We all have something to bring to this article. And whenever something is judged better on another wiki, let's take it into consideration.
If the previous consensus for the view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense which lasted for 5 years was superseded despite great dissent, there is no reason why a new consensus for a tourist photomontage only a few weeks old should be set in stone for eternity. Two French editors, User:Vatekor and User:Clouchicloucha, have indicated on this talk page that they intended to create and submit a new photomontage, and this is why I asked the question to the admin Fut.Perf. I will now let them know of the admin's answer on their talk pages as I'm afraid they've left this talk page due to the flow of messages. As long as they follow the suggestions of the admin, I don't see what can be wrong with it. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no block on his block log [23]. As far as I can tell, he's still an active user. He probably never bothered to fill in his user page bio, hence the red color. As for your mentions of alleged canvassing and sockpuppetry, I remind you that everybody (you included) is under a strict, no-exceptions "comment on content, not on contributor" rule from User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please try to respect it for everybody's sake. Thank you. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply stating a fact. His user page is no longer there, nor are his contributions - nothing at all, so of course no block log. Sorry, my bad. The contributions are still there. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh stop it already Der Statistiker. You are the one who mentioned French contributors in the first place, in your erroneous assumption above ("that all French editors and several French media have criticized the current photomontage in the en:WP article of Paris"). Coldcreation (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been proven Clouchicloucha was not a sockpuppet. See investigations results here: [24]
I am the first one who mentionned the fact that no French contributor agreed on the image (see my post of the 23 october just above). I have also told that we should focus first on the contents of the article. As mentionned below, considering the relatively chaotic organization of the current article, I think it would be wise to re-arrange the contents. I will probably make a proposal in the upcoming days. Metropolitan (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. As I wrote the article in Le Monde[29], and talked directly to a few of you, could I put the record straight? My article gives the arguments of both camps, as I should do as a journalist. But I think that highlighting the battle about the photo box does show that there is an issue with it. The fact that no compromise has been reached indicates that the current box is too one-sided, showing too much the "museum" side of Paris. I think restarting the discussion about it now is a bad idea, as there has been so much bad blood about it, but I feel unease to see it described as a "consensus". To my outsider point of view, it is not a consensus. Eric Albert Londres (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from here too. Actually consensus was only against the one image being proposed (and no alternative not containing that image was ever forwarded). Those of us opposing that image never really got a chance do discuss better possibilities - I actually do find the current montage to be rather 'museum-y', and the bottom image too 'busy' (to see what it is at small size) - but this has been put to the side for now in favour of article content. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And Eric, I forgot to mention that your article didn't mention that a good part of those 'proposing' that particular image weren't Wikipedia editors, but people WP:CANVASSed off-Wikipedia just for that purpose, which is quite against Wikipedia rules. THEPROMENADER✎✓09:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Eric Albert Londres, for your constructive comments. I enjoyed your article in Le Monde and appreciate your point of view. We reached a consensus in order to stop the insults and aggressive messages that were being hurled by a few editors with an agenda, completely against the spirit of Wikipedia, and the way they kept trying to force the image they wanted onto the page. I'm not excited by the current image, but at least it shows some features that are unique to Paris. Personally, I would be happy with a good picture of the Eiffel tower that shows it clearly, rather than one that tries to squeeze La Defense into the background, to prove, as if it needs proving, that Paris has tall buildings. I objected to the montage which included a Japanese restaurant, the Tour Montparnasse, and some air condition ducts on the front of the Pompidou Center, which made Paris look dull and like any city anywhere. I don't see any reason to deny that Paris is a beautiful city, and not to show its most famous and most recognizable landmarks, as other cities do on their Wikipedia pages. I'm sure we'll get there, once the arguing and name-calling stops.SiefkinDR (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Eric Albert Londres, it was neat of you to come here after the storm your article produced! Thank you for your observations & suggestions... which, no doubt & as usual, will be given unanimous approval here:)
Please ensure that the bottom of every paragraph is sourced. When it passed GA everything was sourced. I've trimmed the landmarks by 10kb but it could still use further condensing and writing.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, as proposed on the sections above [30][31]. I've renamed the "Landmarks by district" subsection into a more balanced "Majors monuments and attractions". Meanwhile, I noticed some geographical aspects are missing such as a description of the functionnal areas of the city.
I've looked at other articles of equivalent cities such as Berlin, London or New York City and I noticed those are organized in about a dozen sections (as opposed to 20 sections for Paris). The major ones are generally: History, Geography, Economy, Demographics, Government, Infrastructures, Education, Culture, Sport. If no one opposes this, I believe the article will feel a lot better organized if we would target the same here for Paris.
As such, the Cityscape section would be merged with the Geography section (similarly to what is done elsewhere) which would give us the opportunity to be both more exhaustive and concise on the way we portray geographical aspects of the city. In the same way, many minor sections such as "Religion", "Libraries", "Media" or "Healthcare" should really be included in broader sections. Not to say that they could be vastly completed (I was really surprized to learn there were only Roman Catholics in Paris). Metropolitan (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in the articles of other cities there is no big section about the cityscape. The urban and architectural aspect of the city are included within the geography. Minato ku (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's physical geography (what the present geography section deals with now) and human geography that tends to bleed into urbanism (the section I'm working on) and Demography (already existing). I think limiting geography to a physical one would be the most coherent way to go.
The cityscape... hm. The title should go. Perhaps 'Major monuments and attractions' could become a section of its own, and the rest (parks & gardens, water & sanitation, cemeteries) could be simply merged with "Urbanism" - it would be perfectly coherent. But that doesn't fit well with the "Sociologie urbaine" I'm about to translate, but I could just forget about that if it's already covered in the demography section. But although urban sociology and demographics overlap (demographics is a subfield of sociology), but they are not quite the same thing. Thoughts? THEPROMENADER✎✓23:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geography is... geography, the study of lands and its features. I hardly see on which ground we would restrict the perception to physical geography only. It's not done this way in the articles of other major cities. The Berlin article is in my opinion a model of organization to follow. The contents summary is as clear as rock water: it's both exhaustive and easy to understand. It's pretty straightforward to assume cityscape and architecture being detailed in the geography section.
As for urbanism, the word is rarely used in English. It's not even mentionned by Wordreference (see test here: [32]). The wiktionary defines it as "the study of cities, their geographic, economic, political, social and cultural environment"[33]. To put it shortly, that's about all the fields to be covered by the article. Looking at the French version, the section deals with urban morphology (medieval Paris, Haussmann Paris), the metropolitan area, housing and urban sociology. I believe this could be covered in the geography and demographics sections. That's just my 2 cents. Metropolitan (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the definition (field) of geography this article already uses seems clear enough. And 'urbanism' is rarely used in English? [34]. But that answer doesn't really address my question. THEPROMENADER✎✓01:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I would use a better reference than an English-French translation site to give English lessons ; ) For that, Linguee is much better, and it gives an actual indication whether a translation is widely used or not, and what that translation most commonly refers to. [35][36]. THEPROMENADER✎✓08:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, urbanism is rarely used in English. The word doesn't even appear in the article of any major cities articles. If Google gives 8 million references for "urbanism", it gives 26 million for "urbanisme" as written in French. "City planning" on the other side gives me 212 million results, but we agree that doesn't fit with the proposed content on which you're working. But more essentially, the proposed contents could perfectly fit in "geography" and "demographics" sections. Creating another section in between could only bring confusion about where informations can be found in the article. It doesn't harm to be more German, let's do it the Berlin way. ;) Metropolitan (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, appeals to 'other article' popularity are not argument (unless they are references, and Wiki articles are not this), and I don't understand how you can tell an architecture student and google results (and the other links I provided) that 'urbanism' is 'hardly used'. And I don't even care about 'what we call it', my point was about the section content. THEPROMENADER✎✓22:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that considerations about architecture, cityscape, and "landmarks" should be moved to the Geography section, as is done in most other articles I've seen about large cities. They should also be kept as short as possible (this article should not be a dissertation about Haussmannism), and they should not fail to mention the architecture and the cityscape in the outer arrondissements and the suburbs (instead of being limited to the 11 central Haussmannian arrrondissements). Meine zwei Pfennige.Der Statistiker (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any mention of anything 'just inner arrondissments' or anything 'Haussmannian'.
I'm not so sure about geography, though, as I prefer reason to argumentum ad populum... and it's slightly troubling that the common usage of "geography" has veered from its original "geo" (earth) meaning (largely due to ignorance); man and his constructions has little to do with that. Let's see how it all fits together though. THEPROMENADER✎✓14:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In our common struggle against ignorance, I invite you to read both the geography and the Urban geography articles. Geography has always been about describing spatial distribution of features, no matter if there are natural or human. If it's about being wrong to describe human features in geography, then that means we are wrong since Ptolemy located Athens on his world map in 150 BC. Metropolitan (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to make of that (especially the Ptolemy part), it isn't constructive : I cited the geography article already, and made a point of underlining certain parts of it. My point was that a global 'geography' would bleed overlap/repeat the demography and urbanism info... unless we lump it all into one big "geography" section, which would be unfortunate if that is motivated only by what other people are doing or because of a 'preferred' meaning of a word. Call it "physical geography" for precision, then (although this article hasn't since its very beginnings, and has dealt only with the lie of the land). My entire question is about how to arrange the article so its sections don't overlap or repeat each other - and taking care of that would make it shorter, too. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fr: Urbanism section translation
FYI, I'm working on translating the "Urbanisme" section from the French article. It is quite well done, and contains things missing from this article (Street info, Paris' strict building laws, # habitations, typical lodgings, etc). It stlll needs some work though (outdated statistics/dead links), but I'll leave a link to it here when it's presentable. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it still needs some work (post-translation language refinement, references, other stuff) and there's notes in there, but hey. The opening speaks of the same things the "architecture" section does here, but in a better way (I only translated it), so it would replace it. I just grouped the other stuff from here to show the flow. The housing section could use a few more details about number of people per apartment, and the morphology part could use some new architecture-to-old architecture ratios and modern quarter renovation plans (Moulins, Bibliothèque Mitterand, etc), but I'll be only getting those tomorrow (thanks to my work with the APUR). Oh, and by the way, I made a new map today (showing the overall wealth distribution) - it's in there. Cheers. THEPROMENADER✎✓20:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be filling out the housing section with new data tomorrow, also reorganising the structure, according to the 'Structure!' section below; there were some rather good ideas in there. Cheers. THEPROMENADER✎✓20:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Structure of the Article - the London-Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Model
For the overall structure of the article, I believe we should follow the basic format of the London article, which is also used, with a few very small variations, in the articles on Rome, Tokyo, New York, Berlin, and other cities. That is: History, Government, Geography (Urbanism could go here, or under Demography, or Cityscape -Tokyo adds Environment after this); Demography; Economy, Transport, Education, Culture, Sports. Rome adds a section on religion after Demographics, followed by Cityscape, before Economics. Tokyo puts Cityscape last.
Our article is already pretty much in this model, and I think it works, and allows people to make comparisons fairly easily between cities. Is there any reason to modify this structure? Any other suggestions? SiefkinDR (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too think it works pretty well the way it is. The only thing I'd like like to do to the structure is to bring it some coherency... it's a 'little bit here, a little bit there, back to here again' now. I guess a merging of the architecture, city structure and demographics into one section... whatever it's to be called. Please have a look at my work in this direction (link in section above).
I do have another silly suggestion, though: Merging the 'monuments' into the 'history' section. That would both put them in the context of their history, and we wouldn't have the restraint of mentioning 'too little' or 'too much' of them - and they wouldn't need a section of their own (as monuments on their own are neither tourism-only or architecture-only or anything 'city workings'). Yes, I know other articles don't do this, but so what? Let me know if you think it's a good idea. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Economy - some unclear claims
In the economy section, there is a sentence that seems to contain several unsourced or wrongly sourced claims "[Paris] is not only the wealthiest area of France, but has one of the highest GDPs in the world, after Tokyo and New York,[107] making it an engine of the global economy." So that makes three claims
1. Paris is the wealthiest area of France. There is no source for that claim, and it's unclear. What does area mean? Are we talking about départements? And how is 'wealthiest' measured, is it GDP per person, or is is the median salary. In short, the claim may well be right (it probably is right unless we define area very narrowly) but it's not defined and not sourced.
2. Paris has the highest GDP in the world after Tokyo and New York. This is perfectly clear in terms of meaning and it's sourced. The problem is that's it's less clear whether it's right. The Wikipedia page on the GDP of cities contains three different rankings, all of them from good WP:RS sources. In one (from 2008) Paris is ranked 6th. In another (from 2010), Paris really is 3rd. In the latest (from 2012), Paris is also 6th. So three different rankings, two says 6th and one says 3rd. How does the article conclude that Paris really is third?
3. Paris in an "engine of the global economy". This is a subjective claim. Any major city with a major economy is of course important for the global economy in some way. An "engine" should drive the global economy. Some (e.g. The Economist) argue that Paris is a brake on the global economy (not just Paris, and not just France, but most of the Eurozone). My point is, whose opinion is this, what does it mean and where is the source?Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct. The GDP figures and wealth figures are unclear and questionable, and the "engine of global economy" needs to be more specific and sourced.SiefkinDR (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll tag the claims and hope for a source, otherwise they should be remvoved. At least some of them should be possible to source.Jeppiz (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll work on that tomorrow. This section used to be much better written and sourced, before the 'upheaval' that took place last year. 'nuff said. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking the source, the two about the 6th place are PPP (purchasing power parity) GDP figures while the source about the 3rd place is nominal GDP figures. PPP are pretty dubious when it comes to the cities as PPP are definied on a national national basis. Note that most ranking about the largest economy by countries use nominal figure rather than PPP which is more useful for "per capita" figures.
This would be an error to not write that Paris has a huge economy and one of the largest of the world. This is not a small resort town (contrary to its image). Paris is a huge economic center (larger economy than Netherlands), this should be highlighted like in the articles of other cities.Minato ku (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm in two minds about this. Either we keep only the source which lists Paris as 3rd based on nominal (exchange rate) values, or we say something like "is the 3rd or 6th largest..." and we list all sources including the ones based on PPP, which can be indeed a bit dubious. I'll wait to hear from other editors on this. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I found out that Eurostat lists the Paris metropolitan region as the largest metropolitan economy in the European Union: [37]. That we can certainly say since the source is homogeneous, and based on nominal (exchange rate) values provided by the national statistical offices to Eurostat. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ranking of Paris as second-largest city in EU
I have added to the lead that in March 2014 Eurostat ranked Paris as the second largest city in the EU, after London. Here's the quotation: "Across the whole of Europe, the most populous cities were London (data are for 2011) and Istanbul (data are for 2000), they both recorded resident populations of more than 8.0 million persons. In 2012, the next largest cities across the EU included Paris (6.5 million) and Berlin (3.5 million), while Madrid, Barcelona, Milano and Napoli each reported 3.2 or 3.1 million inhabitants; this was also the case for Ankara in Turkey (data are for 2000)." I know that its hard to compare different metropolitan areas, but it seems to me that Eurostat is a respected and objective source. Any comments on this? SiefkinDR (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really really hard game to play (although many '(my) city is bigger than (yours)' fans on Wiki are trying), and the result of any attempt to do so is often WP:ESSAY or WP:OR. Every country has its own statistical measurements and definitions: English statistics a 'built up area'... exactly that (see London urban area), and its London metropolitan area a 'commuter belt', with their own methods of calculating each (so the first can affect the second)... France calls its built-up area an "urban(ized) zone" and this with a commuter belt an "urban area" or "large urban area", and its methods for calculating each includes areas a bit 'sparser' than many standards.
You're right to point out Eurostat, though: they seem to be the only inter-country organisation continuing the effort to create a unified system, as the UN threw in the towel a few years back [38][39] after an initial attempt around the year 2000 [40]. And Eurostat uses 'urban cluster' ('built-up-area'), 'urban_center' (the city on which it is centred), and 'urban area' (including the commuter belt) [41][42], so any comparative mentions should also mention the source cited. THEPROMENADER✎✓09:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's the quite glaring omission of Eastern Europe in the quote from Eurostat. Moscow is competing with London for second place after Istanbul in Europe, and St Petersburg (while certainly much smaller than Paris and not relevant for this article) is much larger than cities such as Berlin or Naples. So it seems quite obvious that Eurostat's figures as for some countries in Europe, not Europe as a whole.Jeppiz (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm just showing how it is between countries. Every one makes their own cocktail (even in Europe alone), so comparing is often apples to oranges from the get-go, that's all I was (perhaps over-extensively) saying. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have time to write something here earlier today since I wasn't home, but as I already explained in my edit, this Eurostat ranking of Larger Urban Zones is just one ranking, and there are many other rankings, in particular the ranking of Largest urban areas of the European Union. All sources I've ever seen agree that Paris has the most populated urban area in the European Union (there is a UN definition of urban areas, so it's easy to establish international comparisons, you only need some satellite pictures and census figures at a detailed local level; Demographia.com has done such a job for all the urban areas of the world for example). Regarding the Paris metropolitan area, there is no single worldwide definition of metropolitan areas. Each country have their own definitions, and in fact many countries don't even have a definition of metro areas and do not compute data at the metro area level (the UK doesn't for instance). Eurostat, with their Larger Urban Zones, tried something like a European-wide concept of metropolitan area, but in their own admission, their concept is not really harmonized and varies from country to country: "there were also exceptions and departures from this which limit the overall comparability of the larger urban zones to some extent. (...) defining a perfect functional urban area — based on a perfectly harmonised methodology across Europe for which no statistical information is available — would be completely in vain."
So based on the fact that Paris is #1 in terms of urban area in the EU, and has an unclear ranking in terms of metropolitan area given that there is not really a uniform definition of what's a metropolitan area, it's best to leave the population unranked in the article as was the consensus until now, instead of claiming that it is the 2nd largest "city" in the EU behind London (in terms of administratively-defined "city", #2 would be Berlin anyway, but that makes little sense on the ground, as anyone who has traveled to Paris and Berlin can easily tell after having crossed the urban expanses of both metropolises). Der Statistiker (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your explanation. I appreciate that there are differences of methodology and different rankings, and these need to be taken into account. but I think we can be can be more specific than "one of the largest cities" . I think we have the ingredients of a compromise text. The Eurostat ranking should be given, since they're the official statistical agency for the EU, but we can mention there are different rankings. and cite them. I propose that we say:
"According to Eurostat, the statistical agency of the European Union, Paris is the second-largest city in the European Union, after London. Demographia.com, using a different methodology, ranks Paris first." (with citations).
I think you have it in a nutshell - to cover it fairly, you'd actually have to include all sources, or a summary of all of their results... way to much space dedicated to a phrase that basically amounts to a boast. The usual way around this is to use a 'between' phrase like 'one of the largest' and reference it with a few sources... voila ; ) THEPROMENADER✎✓20:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit wars begin again
I am sorry to see that the edit wars have begun again. The editor called Der Statistiker is again deleting any text that disagrees with his own point of view, without discussion or consultation with other editors. I wish we could find a way to move beyond this. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any edit wars. The last edit of Der Statisker is about the previous discussion in this talkpage about the ranking of Paris population in Europe. Minato ku (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not only this is a false accusation ("is again deleting any text that disagrees with his own point of view"), but it infringes the rule set out by the administrator Fut.Perf.: "this talkpage as well as all related discussions elsewhere (including edit summaries etc.) are a strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" zone." Please let's not reopen the cans of worms by making all sorts of accusations against other editors. Thank you. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the 26th and 28th Der Statistiker made two large deletions of well-sourced text; one giving the population of the Île-de-France, or Paris region, the other about how Euirostat, the statistics agency of the European Union, ranks Paris against other EU cities. I think it would be useful if he discussed those matters first with other editors, and tried to reach a consensus before deleting other editors's work. That's what this talk page is for.SiefkinDR (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OWN and WP:FIVEPILLARS (in particular: "any contribution can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed"). These two edits you mention were not "large" deletions (in each case, only one sentence was involved), and they were not a matter of contention or dispute on the talk page. If we have to ask for prior permission/consensus/vote on the talk page for any uncontroversial sentence modification or deletion in the article, frankly we're going to spend decades to make any progress in this article, and in any case this seems to be against the Wikipedia policies. As for content, which is the only thing we are now supposed to talk about in this talk page (remember?), the Île-de-France population figure belongs to the Île-de-France article, not to this one, for the same reason that the Bavaria population figure belongs to the Bavaria article and not to the Munich article (besides, your sentence was factually wrong for reasons indicated in my edit, i.e. Île-de-France includes more than just the suburbs of Paris, and not all of this region is included within the Paris metro area), and as for the EU ranking, see my long comment in the section above. Thank you. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing WP:OWN at a rather recent contributor is anything but civil, and never mind the condescending tone of the rest. But by that logic, the 'metropolitan area' figures should be in the 'Paris metropolitan area' article. THEPROMENADER✎✓20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And it is possible to just edit to correct instead of outright reverting - and, better still, to leave a note of explanation on the talk page so that that contributor can learn from their mistakes (if there were indeed mistakes). Reverting (whether it is 'hidden' over several steps or not) makes a contributor not only feel stupid, but is offending and condescending: not only can they not learn from their mistakes, it's telling them that they're not even worthy of the few seconds it would take to explain. THEPROMENADER✎✓20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent contributor? SiefkinDR has been an editor at Wikipedia since earlier than me: [43]. Anyway, I won't comment further as this is against the rule set for this talk page. Regarding the metropolitan area figure, I notice that the New York City article mentions the New York metro area population figure, but not the New York state population figure. Same for many other cities (São Paulo mentions the São Paulo metro area population but not the São Paulo state population, Barcelona mentions the Barcelona metro area population but not the Barcelona province population , etc.). It's standard that a city article mentions the population of the metro area of which the city is the central nucleus, but not the province/state/region within which the city is located. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent to this article, of course. But for the rest, perhaps it would also be useful to mention that hardly anyone in Paris, or in France for that matter, has any clue what an 'aire urbaine' is. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "aire urbaine" and "aires urbaines" are more mentioned at lemonde.fr than "Calgary" (see [44] and [45] vs. [46]). I wonder whether anyone in Paris or in France has any clue what Calgary is... ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tongue-in-cheek aside, seriously, a Le Monde article such as "Le soutien au FN dans les aires urbaines des 3 plus grandes villes de France" ("Support for the Front National in the metropolitan areas of the 3 largest cities of France"), published in the heat of the municipal elections last Spring shows that the notion of "aire urbaine" is now well enough known by the French public to deserve a coverage in the most renowned French newspaper at a time of far-right surge in the elections. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing a (Canadian) town's mention in a French newspaper to... people not knowing something about the very city they live in? I really don't see the point of this comparison. I'm sure it's possible to find some mention of it if one really looks for it, but in all my twenty-three years living here have I heard anyone speak of it, and not even the Le Monde journalist who interviewed me knew what an aire urbaine was. The public here does not know what it is. There's no point of arguing further with me about this, because we both know the truth of it. THEPROMENADER✎✓22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not because many people have no clue about something that this thing is not relevant. This is an encyclopedia, people come here to learn information, not to confirm their ideas or stereotypes. Aire Urbaines or metropolitan area in english are based on commute pattern, so the place where the people work. Provin while located on Ile de France is less dependant on Paris and its suburbs than many areas located outside the Ile de France Minato ku (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty good description of WP:NOTESSAY. Wikipedia is quite the opposite of that, but, because of its popularity, many try to use it as a soapbox.
The aire urbaine is a single-purpose (analysis) INSEE-created statistics tool, and can only used when talking about what it was created for (because that's the only place it can be referenced): demographics, and perhaps when describing 'area of influence' in other sections. If the public here doesn't even know what an 'aire urbaine' is, this article can't pretend that it's a 'common thing' that everyone references and cites every day. THEPROMENADER✎✓06:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is several definitions of the area, several ranking, changing in the time, don't put an exact ranking at all, but report the definition problem. "Paris is one of the major cities of Europe / note : ranking is between 1 & 6 (for X and Y, respectively in 20XX and 20YY) depending of definition taken by the institution. See institution criteria for more informations / note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatekor (talk • contribs) 08:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
21th century history section
I really wonder if the budget deficit of 2014 is really relevant in this section? In my opinion, it is not. Nothing else has been writted about the budget of any other years. We almost all agree that the history section is already too long.
If increasing the size of the modern time history and reducing a bit some of the older time is not a bad idea, we don't need to write such irrelevant facts.
About modern time even if it is not about the 21th century, I am rather surprised that nothing is said about the creation of the Mayor of Paris in 1977 in the history section. This is a a relevant information of Paris modern history. Minato ku (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Paris deficit is of some importance, because it's the largest Paris has ever had, and it may have a large impact on the future of the city.
As to the first modern elections of the mayor of Paris in 1977, they're mentioned in the section on city government. They're also mentioned in more detail in the articles on the history of Paris and the Timeline of Paris. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion either way about this budget deficit (I'm sure there's a Wikipedia policy somewhere out there regarding "current events" for those who love WP tags), but what's certain is this very very très très long history section needs to be considerably shortened. Metropolitan with his table somewhere up this talk page neatly showed how the history section in the Paris article is way way outsized compared to the London article. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is outsized and this is why only the most important informations should remain and I think that the first election of the Mayor of Paris in 1977 is much more important than the budget deficit of 2014 and many other facts in the history of Paris section.
non sense to put this information that is mostly an internal politic soup than an encyclopedic info. Think you are in 2214, what should you write about the only first 14% of the 21century ? "Grand Paris project officially start in 2007, to be achieved 15 years later. Main stream architecture for monumental areas changes with the growing presence of glass, curves, and metal (Fondation Louis Vitton (2014), Philarmonie de Paris (2015), etc) -in what was then was an eclectic and international style. With this movement, monumental areas reaches the fronter of the old 1860 administrative limits". Then you can write about the remaining 86% of the century, about the Grand Paris done (2025), the underground farm (2045), Parixelles (2075) when merging Bruxelles, Paris & Luxembourg... v_atekor (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While the Grand Paris project is relevant in the history section because of its huge scale, I don't think that the history section should be about the constructions but more about the event and major change (why the opening musée du Quai Branly but not the riot of 2005? ). The current version looks a lot like what you see in tourists guide where they love to point the presidents and "their monuments" in the 20th century when there are much more important informations or events than this. Minato ku (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: how can "Grand Paris" be in the history section if it hasn't happened yet? Perhaps have a 'future projects' section (of its own): there you'll have carte blanche; not only building and political projects, but things such as social issues and events (Olympics, World Cup, etc.) can be mentioned too. THEPROMENADER✎✓07:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a so future project, it has started on 2007, and much work has been done, at political, institutional, and administrative levels, which are the key and the first goals of the Grand Paris. Much has been done at € level, for metros & cie, all that will take more time to be constructed and enhanced, but that is not the very goal of the project, only a consequence of changing the administrative limits of the town. It will take more time to create has much metros in the grand Paris than in the centre of the city. The official fusion of the town with its neighbours is on 01/01/2016, 14 months so.
Btw,
Raw budget deficit as given, is absolutely irrelevant, in all conditions, if not compared to anything else. It should be discussed and contextualised, as for any raw number.
the architectural citations I did are in the 1860 limits ; buildings are or released (October 2014) or about to be released (January 2015)
In the 1860 fronter, Paris has exactly no airport at all, but the 3rd port of France, after Le Havre & Marseille. This said, If you give a rendez-vous to any one in France in a large city, with a large port surrounded by a catholic church on a hill, and agitated neighbourhoods in the north, people will probably wait you in Marseille next to the Bonne mère, than in Paris & Sacré-Coeur, even if your description is factually true. v_atekor (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to avoid confusion, the Grand Paris of Sarkozy is not the Métropole du Grand Paris (the administrative projet).
Grand Paris of Sarkozy is a large urban development project (with no administrative change) and its scale and ambitions are huge, there is no other development project with a such large scale in European Union or even in the so called Western world (North America, Western Europe and Australia/NZ). Even if works have not yet started, the mere announcement of this project represents a significant change of urban policy in Paris area. It must be mentioned because for the moment this is most important thing that happened about Paris in the 21th century. Minato ku (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might make sense to have a "modern Paris" subsection end the History section... but I don't know, really. Isn't that what all the other sections are all about? THEPROMENADER✎✓20:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Metropole du Grand Paris & and this article
Given the consequences of the merge of Paris with its neighbours on 01/01/2016 (14 months), I think that is really relevant to think with this date in mind, because the article will still be locked, on heavy discussion when we will have to fully rewrite it.
If we need 4 months to achieve an FA, it will be irrelevant 10 months latter. At least we should think an article easy to change on this date, or wait some month to end with all this discussions (aire urbaine, in particular...). Well, do has you want v_atekor (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, I think that a simple sentence or paragraph in the administrative section is enough. The project and the competencies of this new Metropole du Grand Paris are not yet well defined. Metropole du Grand Paris is the creation of a new big intercommunal administrative structure for the the City of Paris and the inner ring departements, the current municipalities will not disappear or be merged.
That is the same case than other communautés de communes for large cities, but that make few differences than a larger city with new arrondissements. I saw that in Toulouse Métropole, peripherical cities works as new arrondissements of the town. It records me a lot of Barcelona/Gracia/Sant Andreu by 1900... v_atekor (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Structure!
This morning was the first time that I really had a look at the article since a long time (years, maybe), and there are issues, issues everywhere... but I have to second Siefkin's suggestion that we discuss structure first before detail - a structure change would change that anyway (context), so there's no point in doing the same job twice, right?
I think it would be a good idea to structure things for coherence, that give both content and context to each section. I hear 'other article' examples cited often, but I see this more as an obstacle than anything: Paris is not like 'other cities', and many of those other articles have the same problem this one has (coherence, flow, structure). I also made an effort to split the 'tourist-y' stuff between sections (and not make it a centre of attention on its own). So forgive me if my proposition seems 'different', but please let me know if it makes sense in itself.
Lede
Toponyms
History - Origins (prehistory), Middle Ages, etc, etc
I'd like to suggest integrating the monuments that each era brought to the city. This gives them context, makes the article seem less 'tourist-y', and means them not having a section of their own.
Land & Climate - Land (rise & rivers), Climate
Cityscape - Urbanism: Urban Morphology, Architecture, Housing; Key Quarters: yadda yadda
function and location of each quarter. Market, Business, Touristy (good occasion to locate/integrate the 'things' they come to see), and yes, La Defense ; )
Infrastructure (?) - Infrastructure: Streets, Parks, Water & Sanitation, Communication, Cemeteries; Transport: Metro, Bus, Air, Rail, etc.
Administration - City, Regional, National administration (roles)
Economy
Culture - Perhaps a 'lede' describing the different 'high point' eras where Paris was famous (Belle époque, Dadaism, etc.), then have this give context to the individual 'arts' (Music, painting, etc)
Human resources - Healthcare, Education, Libraries, Police, Firefighting, sports, (associations?)
Maybe relevant to had here an under ground section, not for metro but because Paris is one of the most excavated cities (Métro, égout, catacombes, mines, fleuves... ). Maybe with geology or anything similar v_atekor (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Suis cataphile. Regardez mon profil ('gallery' ; ) - but this article is long enough, no? Perhaps a mention in the 'urban morphology' section - Paris grew over its (formerly suburban) carrières, true. THEPROMENADER✎✓09:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thought and good work on this, Promenader. I think this structure is pretty comprehensive and solid, but I do think that the history section should be close to the top, as it is in all the other major city articles. If a consensus of editors thinks the history section its too long, I can shorten it, but Paris does have a very long and eventful history; trying to condense the history of Paris during the 19th and 20th centuries into two paragraphs is quite a challenge.SiefkinDR (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
have shorter history sections for the capital of their respective country, maybe it is because the country does not have much history to talk about or... lacks wiki contributors :)
In my opinion, Paris article should not have more than 10 big sections. (Not including the References, Further reading and External links in these 10). This is inside these big sections that we will have subdivision like cityscape, administration, transports and etc .
I don't see the necessity to have so much sections when other cities like New York City, London, Berlin and many others regroup Land & Climate, Cityscape, key quarters and adminstration in the single Geography section? by example and I don't see what are differences about Paris which would prevent it.
Infrastructure and transport could be merged.
A slightly different note to end. This is not just the history section which should be reduced but also the culture section, it is way too long. Minato ku (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the 'human resources' section in the New York article (Health, education, libraries, police, firefighting), that's another problem solved, thanks. But where that article is bloated is in its sub sections. And again, I wouldn't remain fixated on 'Geography' - we could put anything under that title (excepting culture, history, economy and administration) if we wanted to - but I don't see the point, it's just a word.
As for the history, it need to be reduced a lot and not just the 19th and 20th century. We don't need to have a long resume of the French revolution. Further informations should be in the history of Paris article.
I note that the history section of London is much smaller than history section of Paris yet nobody can say that London has a much shorter history than Paris. Minato ku (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put down London, but Paris is three hundred years older and was a much bigger and more important city in the Middle Ages than London. You can't ignore the French Revolution, since many English speakers don't know much about it. London has been much calmer; Paris had Napoleon, The Revolutions of 1830 and 1848. the Paris Commune. The London article describes both the First and Second World War in single sentence! You can't do that with Paris. The section can certainly be reduced, but not to make it like a comic book. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the older times or Middle Age where Paris has a much longer text than London but the rest 18th, 19th, 20th centuries. Industrial revolution is a major time for London yet there is not a long paragraph about it unlike Paris for the revolution. If people want to know more about the French revolution, they need to read the article about the French revolution but I don't see the point to make a list of personalities murdered during this time in Paris here. Same can be said for most of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. A simple sentence is enough for describing Haussmann works, you don't have to add that he created hectares of parkland and created XXX km of new streets and etc.
Haussman works are very important for this article, because the city before and after Haussman is different. But that can be easily a separated an detailed article, see fr:plan Cerdà for an example of such major urbanism plan that fundamentally changes the city. v_atekor (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does "shorter" always mean "better"? Could it be that those among us who find the history section too long simply do not like history & are more interested in the not yet reached future of Paris accaparating the suburbs of Brussels and Oslo? - a Paris which may never exist in 2100. As I pointed out above, there are other cities on wikipedia with extensive history sections - NYC for instance, born in 1624 (the year Richelieu began the construction of Palais-Cardinal, at a time in the history of Paris when a lot of water had flowed under the bridges over the Seine! Quote from en.wiki NYC article: "New York traces its roots to its 1624 founding as a trading post by colonists of the Dutch Republic and was named New Amsterdam in 1626..." I do not see any critic of the length of the history of Paris here rush across the pond to shorten that of NYC.
Currently it is not does "shorter" always mean "better" but does "longer" always mean "better"? In my opinion, no. Because it is too long history section of Paris is not really understandable. It looks more like a list of some detailled events than a real resume of Paris history. (for further information, there is the History of Paris article) Minato ku (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So? Would not it be nice if someone wanting to have a quick everything about Paris be able to read this article & when thru reading it feel that he/she has learned something, without having, if no time available, to go read the whole of the French Revolution, which could be read later at leisure? As to not seeing "the point to make a list of personalities murdered during this time in Paris here", so far I see the list has only 4 personalities, the king, the queen, the mayor & Robespierre. A short list when one considers that there were 16,594 executions by guillotine, not counting those killed in massacres.
It sounds as if you are looking for a skeleton of an article, in which case what needs to be done is keep only the titles of the sections with links to respective articles.
The point is about a summary of the history of Paris and not the history of the French revolution or other major time.
Just look this paragraph, there is not much about Paris, it is more about the French revolution history.
On 6 October 1789, Louis XVI and his family were brought to Paris and made virtual prisoners within the Tuileries Palace. On 21 June 1791, the royal family fled Paris, was arrested in Varennes and brought back to Paris on the 25th. On 10 August 1792, mobs of the most militant revolutionaries, the sans-culottes attacked the Tuileries Palace. On 13 August, Louis XVI and his family were imprisoned in the Temple fortress. Between 2 and 7 September, massacres took place in the prisons, which was the beginning of the Reign of Terror (la Terreur) imposed upon France by the new government. On 21 January 1793, Louis XVI was guillotined on the Place de la Révolution, the former Place Louis XV. Marie Antoinette was executed on the same square on 16 October 1793. Bailly, the first Mayor of Paris, was sent to the guillotine. During the reign of terror, 16,594 persons were tried by the revolutionary tribunal and executed.
Everything here could be described in one sentence that I put in bold, obviously the sentence could be better arranged and the name of some people and details could be added (especially, the king Louis XVI, the dates and the guillotine) but the rest is superficial and not necessary in this section. Minato ku (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When important historical facts are made to disappear from a history section... why bother having a history section?
Same argument can be used with all sections; then why bother writing an article?
P.S. May I remind you that the French Revolution, with repercussions throughout France & Europe, was not limited to the reign of terror (Sept. 1792 to end July 1794), but went on from 1789 until end of 1799. How about Napoléon? Drop him too? After all, what trace did he leave in Paris?
The difference is that the history section is way oversized compared to most other sections in Paris article as Metropolitan showed in Talk:Paris#Restoring_WP:NPOV_to_the_Paris_article. Paris is a not a museum whose history and function are stuck in the past, Paris is not just history it is also a real and modern functioning city.
The size of the history section whould be reduced while the size of other section about the functioning of the city should be increased.
What is the point to know the date of the Robespierre's death in Paris article if you don't have any information (or very few) about how the city works ? Minato ku (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that how the city functions should be described, but why at the expense of its history - or any other section? There is another point: shrinking to only a few words events that occurred in Paris within a decade, then linking for further reading to the article on the French Revolution, leads to the belief, for those who do not know French history, that the French Revolution was a "Paris-only event".
Disagreeing with you on your comment: "Just look this paragraph, there is not much about Paris, it is more about the French revolution history", which you followed with paragraph describing events that happened in Paris during the revolution: that paragraph does have to do both with Paris & the French Revolution, describing events that happened in Paris with name of places listed: Tuileries Palace, the Temple, Paris prisons (no names), place de la Révolution. Are we supposed to put a muzzle on or send the history of Paris to the guillotine?
An encyplopedia that does away with historical events on the subject it is treating is not an encyclopedia, but a magician performing vanishing acts.
I see a lot of not very realistic 'limits' being set here, and a lot of references to 'other articles'... but I really think the only worry here should be looking at it from a reader point of view, and keeping in mind overall article length.
When it comes down to it, we should prioritise the concrete and referencable, and no 'sacrificing one section for another'. I know that it's kind of boring, but there is no room for hypotheses or opinion pieces, and wikipedia is not about that anyways. There is a move towards the future, but all we can do for now is give an overal synopsis of the general direction it's taking. Anything further than that would be overly long (presenting all 'sides' of the argument) and borderline (if not outright) WP:ESSAY.
Just write it out and see how it looks, then decide what can be cut without losing context or coherence later. I really think we should be paying attention to structure first, though, before getting into details like that. But that's just my own way of going about things. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I don't think anyone will complain if the history section is longish. Au contraire, actually - just glossing over things will bring complaints (in the form of later additions from people filling the 'missing' parts, and this will make it longer anyway in the end). If it balances out with the rest of the article, people will be less inclined to 'fix' it. But who's stopping them from doing that, anyway? No version here is ever 'final'. THEPROMENADER✎✓20:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Promenader - if I understand what I think I understand in what you wrote above, I should tell you merci beaucoup. I am of the opinion that this article should not give the history of Paris in all its details, since the article History of Paris exists; however, if we have a section here on the history of Paris, we must give enough details for those who will not be able to go read the whole history or the long article on the 1789 revolution & others. And, as you say, what will keep readers in the future to add details they have read about in the history or the revolution articles? We certainly cannot "forbid" future readers/contributors to do anything.
You also wrote: "There is a move towards the future..." - this is good, and it should not mean at the expense of the past. Both have their place here.
Yes, simplistic talk-page clarity is not my forte even at the best of times, and I'm dead-tired from work. But about the history: Paris' history is long. It could be written in a 'how history affected the city' perspective... and leave all the minor 'it was decided in Paris' (just because it was the capital) to the History of Paris article. I'm also getting tired of the 'Amélie' side of Paris, but I'm not about to make this article deny that history is a major reason for its existence and popularity. And I spoke at great length of the "Grand Paris" (that has been 'almost here' since... after WWII) and its goals (integrated with Paris), but none seem to have noticed. More modern Greater Paris info would fit in fine there, it's directly linked and integrated with Paris and its urban structure.
I must repeat that I really don't see the point of comparing to other Wikipedia articles (especially down to 'chart-comparison') - other cities are not like Paris (in history nor in structure nor in function), so it's rather apples to oranges. And the authors of those other articles are Wikipedians just like us (but that's not saying they don't have good ideas). Why can't we do... what's best for Paris? THEPROMENADER✎✓22:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed
I agree Promenader. the lack of major event will create critics. the first point is not to determine the size of the canva but the size of the pencil to draw. You cannot have in one hand a very anecdotal citation for the budget and on the other lack the Terror period was really well named. So, I think the important point is to know the size of the event. If we opt for Terror : 2 sentences & Haussman => 1 sentences that mean XXI century disappears XX century is reduced to WWII and belle époque. That may be correct, but it should be coherent on the whole article. v_atekor (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak to delete major events but to reduce the description of those major events.
It is because some events are too detailed, some others are not even mentioned. We don't need a whole paragraph about the terror or haussmann's works when a single sentence would be enough to describe those events.
In reading through the entire day's messages, I see that they all could easily be merged into a repeated "Greater Paris, shorten the history section. Why?" ; ) THEPROMENADER✎✓21:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on the structure proposition above? Another proposition? Make one of your own if you like - it's a better way to concretise opinion into something easily understandable. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Minato & promenader : I was not clear enough. Well, I try again : what should be the historical event(s) less significant to be mentioned in 1 sentence ? That will be our standard measure for the rest of the event. Mai 68 ? Surrealism ? Traité de Paris ? v_atekor (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's possible to make a single solution for all cases. Different events had different importance, I don't think we can set artificial 'one sentence' limits ahead of time just for the principle of doing so. THEPROMENADER✎✓22:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is not a strict rule but more like an objective that should be understood as "being as short as possible". If the section is too long it becomes unreadable. It is difficult to have a clear overview of Paris history by reading this section because there are too much informations about little details.
"L'information est noyée" as we say in French. Having full details in the main article is important but it is counterproductive in a summary. Minato ku (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Minato ku: Because there are too many details in en.wiki section on history, *"L'information est noyée" as we say in French.*
Has Minato ku looked at the article on fr.wiki & measured the size of the history section? Too many details? Too many words?
La Révolution française débute à Versailles par la convocation des États généraux puis le Serment du Jeu de paume. Mais les Parisiens, atteints par la crise économique (prix du pain), sensibilisés aux problèmes politiques par la philosophie des Lumières et mus par une rancœur à l'égard du pouvoir royal ayant abandonné la ville depuis plus d'un siècle, lui donnent une nouvelle orientationf 12. La prise de la Bastille le 14 juillet 1789, liée au soulèvement des ébénistes du faubourg Saint-Antoine, en est une première étape. Le 15 juillet, l'astronome Jean Sylvain Bailly reçoit à l'hôtel de Ville la charge de premier maire de Paris. Le 5 octobre, l’émeute, déclenchée par les femmes sur les marchés parisiens, atteint Versailles le soir. Le 6 au matin, le château est envahi et le roi doit accepter de venir résider à Paris au palais des Tuileries et d’y convoquer l’Assemblée constituante qui s’installe le 19 octobre dans le Manège des Tuileriesc 19.
Le département de Paris comprend alors 3 districts : Paris, le Franciade et Bourg-de-l'Égalité.
Le 14 juillet 1790 se déroule la fête de la Fédération sur le Champ-de-Mars, lieu qui sera le 17 juillet 1791 le théâtre d'une dramatique fusillade. Occupés à partir de mai 1790 après la mise en vente des biens nationaux, le couvent des Cordeliers et le couvent des Jacobins, hauts lieux du Paris révolutionnaire, marquent la toute-puissance des clubs parisiens sur le cours de la Révolutionc 20.
Dans la nuit du 9 août 1792, une commune révolutionnaire prend possession de l'Hôtel de Ville. La journée du 10 août voit la foule assiéger le Palais des Tuileries avec le soutien du nouveau gouvernement municipal. Le roi Louis XVI et la famille royale sont incarcérés à la tour du Temple. La monarchie française est de fait abolie. Après les élections de 1792, les représentants de la Commune de Paris, très radicaux, s'opposent à la Convention nationale au groupe des Girondins (représentant l'opinion plus modérée de la bourgeoisie des provinces) qui sera écarté en 1793c 21.
Les Parisiens vivent alors deux années de rationnement. La Terreur règne sous la coupe du Comité de salut public. Le Tribunal révolutionnaire, avec l'aide de la mairie, s'emploie à incarcérer tout ce que la ville compte encore de nobles suspects, de prêtres réfractaires et d'opposants jugés contre-révolutionnaires. La création de la charge de Préfet de police par Napoléon, otera à la municipalité tout pouvoir de police judiciaire, de sorte que le maire de Paris est, aujourd'hui encore, le seul de France à en être privé57,58. Le 21 janvier 1793, Louis XVI est guillotiné sur la place Louis XV, rebaptisée « place de la Révolution ». Il est suivi sur l'échafaud par 1 119 personnes, dont Marie-Antoinette, Danton, Lavoisier et finalement Robespierre et ses partisans après le 9 Thermidor an II (27 juillet 1794)c 22.
La Révolution n'est pas une période favorable au développement de la ville (peu de monuments sont édifiés) qui n'a plus que 548 000 habitants en 1800. De nombreux couvents et églises sont rasés et font place à des lotissements édifiés sans plan d'ensemble, ce qui aboutit à une réduction des espaces verts de la ville et à une densification du centre. Sous le Directoire, des immeubles de rapport, de style néo-classique, sont élevés.
And did not that long article (280 379 octets) with a long-detailed-throughout-the-centuries history section win an Wiki Oscar? I see a little golden star by it.
That is long for a 'city' article, and goes way into detail. I would say that an event in a top-level article should and the event, its authors (often the ruler) and the effect it had; once one starts mentioning individual details (chronicling), it's hard not to mention them all - the above is a good example of that.
But just repeating 'it should be shorter' and 'only a single sentence' sounds both vague, impossible and can even seem dissuasive and intimidating. If one has a criticism of how something is 'wrong', that means that they already have an idea of what's "right" - so provide an example! Otherwise it just troubles the editing atmosphere. THEPROMENADER✎✓06:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't noticed already, I've made the Education, Libraries, Healthcare, Religion and Sports sections subsections to a new 'Human Resources' section. I also added a new 'housing' subsection to the 'Cityscape' section.THEPROMENADER✎✓18:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Social housing map in demographic section ?
I don't see what this map is doing in the demographic section ?
This is rather unclear, nothing is said about social housing and the descripiton is wrong. "Social housing in Paris as of 2012: the lighter colours are also indicative of greater wealth."
The percentage of social housing in an arrondissement is not necessarily proportional to the wealth of its inhabitants. This kind of preconceived ideas should not be in an encyclopedia.
The 14th arrondissement has a higher ratio of social housing than the 10th or 11th yet its population is wealthier. Same for the 15th a rather bourgeois arrondissement with a wealthier population than the 2nd arrondissement.
The use of an imcome map by arrondissement would be better and this map should be located in the income part of the economy section.
Minato ku (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Social housing is relevant in the demographics section, it's true however that a general hierarchy rule is to start with general considerations than getting to more specific data. I've changed the order of the images. It's true however that a text should escort that map as we don't talk about social housing for the moment. Metropolitan (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually nothing about housing in this article at all - I'm working on that (pointing up) - but for now it gives a fairly good idea of wealth distribution in the city. But no, it's not exactly demographics. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Better hierarchy rule: starting with general data than going to more specific": better according to who? This is an article about the city of Paris, so by logic it should be the other way around. But never mind. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General Note: If you think your comment to your edit to a just-contributed addition needs a word like 'better' (and the 'because' is not something evident like alignment, grammar and syntax, etc), than it's a topic for the talk page - the user just spent time working on that contribution, and they're still around to listen. This too preserves the editing atmosphere. THEPROMENADER✎✓06:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article work, length note, lede.
If several people are actively working on an article, it's normal that it's going to be longer for a while, so there's no point is setting up artificial 'contribution limits' ahead of time - let's all contribute and examine the result together when it's done. If you're working on the same section as another contributor (in a sandbox of your own), it would be polite to inform them (and everyone else) here.
I suggest merging Toponyms and history - The toponym description would be the introduction to the section. Anything bracketed and questioned are (missing?) possible additions to the article.
Lede
Toponyms & History - origin of the name; origins (prehistory); Middle Ages, etc, etc
I'd like to suggest integrating the monuments that each era brought to the city. This gives them context, makes the article seem less 'tourist-y', and means them not having a section of their own.
Geography & Climate - Land (composition, elevation & hydrography), Climate
Urbanism - Architecture; Housing; Paris & its suburbs; Urban sociology; Key Quarters (function)
Like the French article. 'Urbanism' is the best (save better suggestions) catch-all phrase for grouping descriptions of the city, city trends, and its function. Sure, the other Wiki 'big city' articles don't use it, but it's common English [48].
Infrastructure - Streets (& bridges?); Parks; Water & Sanitation; (Communication?); Cemeteries; Transportation - Local Transport - Metro, Bus, etc.; International Transport - Air, Rail, routes and autoroutes
Human resources - Health Care, Education, Libraries, Police, Firefighting, sports, (associations?)
Economy - sub-sections concerning each economy sector (services, manufacturing, tourism, etc.?) would be helpful here (none existing)
Administration - City, Regional, National administration (roles)
Demographics - regional statistics
Culture - Perhaps an introduction describing the different 'high point' eras (Belle époque, Dadaism, etc.), then have this give context to the individual 'arts' (Music, painting, etc)
Thanks, Promenader, for your ideas and good work on this. I think "urbanism" is a perfectly acceptable title grouping these topics together. I'm not too excited about "urban morphology" instead of "architecture?" I would prefer the term "Health care" instead of "healthcare," or even just health." It wouldn't be a bad idea to mention the most prominent monuments from each historical period, either in the history or in the architecture sections. And I think a lot can be done to add images that illustrate the sections; far more people will look at the pictures than will read the text. Please keep up your good work! SiefkinDR (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir! But yes, sorry: save 'urbanism', the sub-section titles were just off the top of my head - it's the logic of categorisation I'm thinking about here.
Do you think it is a good idea to integrate the monuments into each historical section (like you (all) did for the Luxembourg Palace, for example)? But perhaps each historical section could end with 'that era' monuments if they don't apply to any date of creation or events (the place de la Concorde has a creation date, but the obelisk that is its centre is from a later period, for example). THEPROMENADER✎✓11:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except if the place has a really big prominence in Paris history, I am againt this idea to include some monuments in the history section. I would prefer to see the history focused on the events and the major changes that have occurred.
Not only this idea would make the article even more touristy but this would send a wrong idea of Paris, Paris as "disneyland" (a succession of attractions rather than a real city).
I will even say the same for the section about the architecture, urbanism, cityscape or anything else names, while there is nothing wrong about the mention of some monuments, this section should not be focused on monuments as this is often too much the case in the descriptions of Paris urbanity. Think about the function before the landmark.
The latter idea to merge demographic with urbaninism is ridiculous, this article need to be consistent with the other articles about cities in Wikipedia. Minato ku (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear (this is common ; )? The monuments would be integrated with the history text (meaning just highlighted). What you're proposing would mean that they would have to have a section of their own, making them more prominent in the article. I don't want to mention them in anything 'urbinity', either - they're more of an obstacle to city growth, if anything.
How is it 'ridiculous' (I wouldn't have used that word)? Again, 'other wiki articles' are not a reference, and there is no 'standard' here. Doing what works best for the article is what's 'best'. And wouldn't it be ironic if they copied us ; ) ? I made a 'streetbox' template that was considered 'radical' when I made it, but now it's all over Wikipedia and even other Wikis. THEPROMENADER✎✓13:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a sec, you mean merge demography with 'urbanism' - yeah, that's arguable, and that's why I didn't integrate it into my example. But is the idea so 'ridiculous'? THEPROMENADER✎✓13:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Paris/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I promoted this article to GA last year, but since then it has been significantly degraded. The text is now a mishmash of English and American spellings (though – cf WP:ENGVAR – it is specifically stated to be in BrEng), the lead is excessive in length, the overlinking is grotesque, and there are "citation" and "dubious-discuss" tags at various points. This article now fails GA criteria 1b, 2b, 5, as well as falling foul of the Immediate failure criterion 1. Tim riley talk14:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
0.o - I'll be helping to improve things for sure - I'll start by fixing the one 'citation needed' link I know of (I've just begun contributing after a break of almost five years) and having a look at the British-American English problem. Cheers. THEPROMENADER✎✓14:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting And I say this as a major contributor and the person who promoted it originally. I'm glad to distance myself from this one. Not to mention the sentences which have been added haphazardly in parts, how many paragraphs now which don't end with sources. The core of the content is still pretty solid but it's had too much traffic and editing since which has affected it. I'm not prepared to fight to save it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld14:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why so quick to throw in the towel? I've already fixed the English-American spelling issues, and removed dubious claims (as I could find no reference for them). THEPROMENADER✎✓15:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, Can you give us some examples of the 'overlinking'? The definition in the explanation is... vague at best. I'm having a hard time deciding the 'level' to adjust to. THEPROMENADER✎✓15:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WP rule is no more than two links from any article to another page: one link from the lead and one from the main text. There is a handy device for checking duplicate links here, which I find very helpful indeed. Tim riley talk16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Way too much maintenance, way too much time needed discussing "issues", just not worth it. I've felt this way for a long time on this. It wasn't even my decision to select it for improving in the first place, I was simply helping out Gilderien who had nommed it and I thought it worth trying to help promote it as I didn't want him to fail. What I've encountered over it since is quite extraordinary, it's a lot of bullshit I don't need on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld15:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll do what I can to improve the English and layout, but it really would be helpful to know what the most glaring errors are. And I'm not going to go through a year of page history (or longer) to find out who did what, so sorry in advance if I step on any toes. Still, if you can leave any clear directions on what to improve, I would be much obliged. Cheers. THEPROMENADER✎✓16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly sad to see that only one editor has expressed an interest in remedying the deficiencies identified above, and he has been blocked for his efforts. In my judgment the article has been so degraded as to require a root and branch overhaul to get it back up to GA standard. This is improbable while we have the current manifestations of WP:OWN and persistent edit warring. Together with the widespread absence of citations for substantive statements I think they disqualify the page for GA status, failing criteria 1b, 2b, 4, 5 as well as the immediate fail criterion 1. Now delisted accordingly. Tim riley talk15:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Oh they're all interested in the article, but not one of them appears to be working to meet GA or FA criteria and want to edit in a way which they personally think is an improvement. So with conflicting interests and one editor doing one thing, another doing another it's headed in the wrong direction rather than the right direction!! I'd have restored it to the July 2013 version, minus the big landmarks section if I'd thought it would last...♦ Dr. Blofeld16:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is that no-one there, not even me, really knows what the GA or FA criteria is. My 'improvement suggestions' may seem quite naive for someone familiar with Wikipedia standards, but I'm looking at it from a reader, almost in an art direction way, point of view - trying to arrange it into an article that people can read and understand. Its being pleasing to the eye would be an added bonus. That's why I need you around, Blo, not only for your experimented help, but also to show me the error in my ways. Is there really a 'fast-track formula' for GA/FA status, though? THEPROMENADER✎✓17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give Wikipedia:Good article criteria a read. I think everybody is worrying too much about intricate details and that which don't really matter a great deal to non Parisians and can't what is more important from a global perspective. Yes, we want the article to be as good as possible, but not if it affects the flow and sourcing quality/consistency of the article which is more important. If you want it to regain GA status all you'd have to do is largely restore the July 2013 version, update the large landmarks section with the current condensed one and ensure than every paragraph is sourced and then try to improve the parts of the article you believed give a dated view (culture etc) which I acknowledge not being too familiar with the current city I know little about. I'd have done it myself if I didn't think that it wouldn't last long. Then you could try to follow the sourcing and layout as much as possible and give it the corrections and tweaks needed to get it to FA. But to pass GA an article has to be stable, which this is currently far from being.. As far as I can see there's way too much active interest in this article from editors who in all honesty don't know what a good or featured article requires and can't see that some of the edits made in good faith are actually making it worse from a concision/sourcing perspective.♦ Dr. Blofeld17:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll read that, thanks. I think what's going on is what I mentioned earlier - it's only natural that a broken article motivates people to fix it. I really have no idea what's changed since it got its GA status (I only noticed after the fact that it had even got one, I left last year's 'lede image' nonsense as fast as I could when it was over), but I'm of a mind to suggest putting it back to that state if it's an improvement... but that means going through all the edit history to see if there were any real improvements made by other contributors... sigh. How did it get into that state, was anyone around to see that? THEPROMENADER✎✓18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(after reading above and GAC and checking article) Wait a (expletive) second, it had 'citation needed' tags... again?! I fixed those! And since they were reverted to, they've been sitting there since two days without being corrected?! And I was told - lied to - that the revert was to a version only a 'little hour' before - it had been almost three hours between my fixing that tag and its revert. And our dear admin was reassured many times that all my edits were replaced: none of them were, so I guess it was understood from the get-go that he would never look. (super-long sigh).
So now we have on one side a bunch of contributors who don't know how to bring the article up to GA status, and on the other a group of bully contributors who just don't care. I really think I'm going to propose reverting to the 2013 version. And I'm off for tonight, I'm already getting steamed again. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's frustrating, but we can't give up. It's a good thing in many ways to review an article periodically and bring it up to standard. I'll be glad to help making sure things are properly sourced. We just need to improve section one by one. Learning from setbacks is the only way one really improves. Though now it seems I finally have to learn British spellings Use of American spelling in some parts seems to be the greatest fault of the article.SiefkinDR (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I just suggested going back to the GA-award version on the Paris talk page. Broken is broken, and all the work it will take (and all the opposition it will meet along the way) to get it back to at least GA is too much for anyone. Since no-one will listen to or even look at the article's dilemma, I think this is the only way. Please do leave your thoughts on this there, in case my suggestion is a bit too drastic - laters, guys. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it is not only the wealthiest area of France[citation needed], but has one of the highest GDPs in the world, after Tokyo and New York[dubious – discuss],[1] making it an engine of the global economy.[dubious – discuss]
What is dubious was only the "after Tokyo and New York " and "making it an engine of the global economy", there were nothing wrong about the rest andit is proved by reference and even by the Wikipedia article about the city GDP. No matter third or fifth or six depending the calculation by nominal (exchange rate) or PPP (Purchasing power parity) or the size used for the metropolitan area, it is still among the highest. I put back the "one of the highest GDP" Minato ku (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine! It's actually good to use that sort of phrasing, as 'who's first' is always changing (and always different according to sources). BTW, other wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources (and similar claims between them are often written by the same person). THEPROMENADER✎✓17:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the reference is not the Wikipedia article, I was meaning that it was consistent with the Wikipedia article linked (it is not always the case). Minato ku (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shortening the Lead
I agree with Promenader, it isn't a huge task to fix the problems. I believe the lead can be shortened considerably by taking out some of the history and the museums, which are both covered in detail in the article, and by eliminating some duplication. I'll take a shot at those changes.
SiefkinDR (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, by example we don't need to have a detailled description of the biggest museums or monuments.
A simple summary with the names would be enough.
Look at this
Paris is the home of the Louvre, the most visited art museum in the world, with outstanding collections of European and ancient art; the Musée d'Orsay, devoted to 19th century French art, including the works of the French impressionists; the Centre Georges Pompidou, a museum of international modern art, and the Musée du quai Branly, a new museum devoted to the arts and cultures of the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania; and many other notable art museums and galleries. It also is the home of several masterpieces of Gothic architecture, most notably the Cathedral of Notre-Dame-de-Paris (12th century) and Sainte-Chapelle (13th century). Other notable and much-visited landmarks include the Eiffel Tower, built in 1889 to celebrate the centennial of the French Revolution; the Sacré-Cœur Basilica on Montmartre, a Neo-Byzantine style church built between 1875 and 1919; and Les Invalides, a 17th-century hospital and chapel built for disabled soldiers, where the tomb of Napoleon is located.
There is a way too much detail, somthing like that would be better.
Paris is the home to many notable art museums and galleries including the Louvre, the most visited art museum in the world; the Musée d'Orsay, the Centre Georges Pompidou and Musée du quai Branly. It also is the home of several major landmarks including the Eiffel Tower, the Cathedral of Notre-Dame-de-Paris, Sainte-Chapelle, the Sacré-Cœur Basilica and Les Invalides.
Almost as much is said and you can add other important places. I have keep "the most visited art museum" for the Louvre because the lead is a bit like "I have the biggest". Minato ku (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, there are basic rules for organizing any content:
The different sections should be clear enough to make sure they don't overlap each others. This is the key principle to avoid redundancy and make it clear for the reader to know where to find what he's looking for.
The number of sections should be limited to both avoid redudancy and improve readability. If even more sections are necessary, then it should be structured on two levels.
Contents should be spiraled out. We start with the most important ideas, and only afterwards we optionally develop some specific aspects in details.
As explained in the article size guidelines. If an article is starting to get too long, contents should be divided into specific articles. In an article such as Paris where a large variety of aspects should be explored, it's important that sections of the main article should be kept brief, and explored in details only in sub-articles.
Finally, in order to respect the neutral point of view, the article should representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published on the topic. So we should make it sure that no aspect are excessively developped compared to others.
I have restructured the article in following those guidelines. The current structure makes it much easier for the reader to understand the scope covered by the article. Major work is still needed in the text itself, as it seems a large number of sections in this article are approached through a historical or heritage perception of it (see example with healthcare[49], education[50] or religion[51]) of the topic. This should be cleared out. Metropolitan (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just did. You know, we've been discussing this since over a week now, so I suggest you list what you want to change here before implementing it. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked your recent edits. What's the point of removing La Défense from the article lede? Or mentioning the global influence of Paris? Are you questioning those? Metropolitan (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no single rule, and one's 'best way' is not another's - I've been announcing my changes here well ahead of time, and those ideas are evolving as discussion goes on, so I can only expect others to do the same. And still, my changes until now are an added section and a section re-structuring, I would never attempt to rewrite the whole article. Patience, and think of the work (and views) of other contributors. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Holy (expletive) ! It doesn't matter if you were working on the side without paying any attention to the editing going on, you can't just trounce over it to keep the 'bits' you like! Work from where we left off, thanks. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have announced my changes on 26 October [52]. And there's been no argument expressed against those. I have not changed the contents, I've only cleaned up the contents organization. If you're not pleased, feel free to express what you find wrong in it. Metropolitan (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is the second and last time I will revert - You've had time to read my piece since, and if you revert again, that means you're ignoring it. One can't remain outside of all discussion and just impose their will over the entire article like that. Come to reason, please. And threatening an edit war isn't helping. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why you're starting an edit war on this. Please explain me what you find wrong in the new structure. It seems much clearer to me. Metropolitan (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's some things I like in there too, but he just ignored/reverted all of our work to impose it. Wikipedia doesn't work like that, that's the worst possible example of editing behaviour. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I needed a small hour, only an hour to reorganize the contents. I couldn't know you would edit it so massively during that timespan. As you were obviously editing the Lede, I have already restored it back to the way it was the minute before my edit. I'm not in your mind and I can't know what is missing; with diffs, you should be able to find back your things. I'll do my best to keep your work, but please be constructive and help us out. Metropolitan (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why haven't my layout or link dedoubling edits returned? It must have been longer than that, because it's all gone. Aside from the 'Human Resources' wrapper regrouping several sections (that you steamrolled over), that's basically all I've been doing all day. I can't believe that I'm being asked 'to cooperate' after what's been done to my work today. THEPROMENADER✎✓22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You even reverted my English corrections! The admin who advised me about how to save the article's GA is now correcting them for me - because he thinks I didn't do them! Great. THEPROMENADER✎✓23:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All my layout work and link de-doubling work is still gone. Am I really to do it all again?
What is the Media section doing in the Economy section? How is 'Religion' (Paris' churches?) part of Demography? Why is 'housing' in 'Geography' (a section treatment I had very clearly questioned a week ago - until today)? All of the 'rules' indicated above have nothing at all to do with what was done today. This all seems very WP:POINT to me. THEPROMENADER✎✓20:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Media is on the economy section as it is the case for New York City and London.
The demography section is about people. As religion and housing are related to people, it makes sense to have them described in that section (housing is demography, not geography). I agree the religion section is badly written as it doesn't make sense for it to be yet again describing heritage sites. Its purpose should be to explain religions in Paris. I agree there's still a lot of work to be done to make this article encyclopedic again.
The rules I've given are quite standard academic rules about how to organize contents. I've sourced them with Wikipedia guidelines links. There is only one question to be asked, is the article clearer as it is now or not? If you don't believe it's the case, please explain us why. Metropolitan (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
London economy has no 'media' section. This article's media section was about the culture, not the economy sector - has it been modified for that? Religion in demography - as statistics, yes, but not like that. That's quite a stretch in both cases, just to justify an 'idea'. Sure, those errors would have been pointed out in discussion, but what's the harm in that? But instead, our hasty unthoughtfulness is out there for the entire world to see, 'ourselves' because what's in the article speaks for all of us working on this article, and most of us, I'd like to believe, are people with a real concern about reader understanding. THEPROMENADER✎✓23:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I really don't see the point of citing them, as none of the work here today has anything to do with any of them. I'd like to see the encyclopaedia that groups things like that, and that would be a reference I'd pay attention to, and again, other Wikipedia articles are not an example - unless they have gold stars. Why doesn't this article have one, either? Perhaps it would if more worked together in the interest of the article instead of making a point of imposing their own ideas (without seeking the advice of others) about what's 'good'... and having only other unadorned big-city articles to cite as... 'justification' for that (not reason). Imposing something (especially when one knows others don't agree with them) begs protectionism, and that's exactly the type of editing atmosphere we don't need. THEPROMENADER✎✓22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm discovering the new article structure tonight (largely the work of Metropolitan from what I understand). A few comments. Broadly, I find it a better structure than the previous one (it compares more favorably with articles like London or Berlin for instance). Some welcome changes, which had already been largely called for on this talk page, have been introduced, such as creating an "infrastructure" section merging "transport" with "water and sanitation", "cemeteries", etc. I find the following points still needing some improvements though:
"Toponymy" is was still a separate section, but I've put it in the "History" section, as several editors had already suggested, to conform with most other city articles on Wikipedia
"History" has two many subsections, but that is linked to the excessive length of this section, something which has already been pointed out numerous times
"Parks and gardens" in the "Geography" section... it could also be in the "Infrastructure" section. There are pros and cons either way.
"Housing" in the "Demographics" section is a bit odd... This subsection currently contains some information that belong to the "Architecture" subsection of the "Geography" section, and other information that could almost belong to the "Income" subsection of the "Economy" section. Nothing in this section, as of now, is truly demographic.
"Media" in the "Economy" section... I found that odd at first, but I see they do that in the New York City article, although the Chicago and Los Angeles articles have a dedicated section for Media. There are pros and cons either way.
"Administration" should definitely include a "Metropolitan government" subsection between the "City government" and "Regional government" subsections, informing about the current process of creation of a Métropole du Grand Paris (the law has already been passed in Parliament and enacted, time to update this article!). The "National government" subsection is too long and outsized compared to other Wikipedia articles about capital cities. Tokyo doesn't even mention the national government institutions based in Tokyo in the article. At the very least, this subsection should be shortened.
"Infrastructure" is a very good move, but I think there should be only one subsection for transport, called... "Transport", and not two subsections ("National and International Transport" and "Local Transport"). That's the case in all other articles I've seen. Actually I'm going to work on merging these two subsections.
"Culture"... this section still bugs me, but its components couldn't be put anywhere else I guess. This section should be shortened though. It's too long compared to the rest of the article (plus the fact that it's only about classical, White, formal culture, and fails to mention contemporary, ethnic, informal subcultures; let's keep in mind that Paris is a living plant, not a dried dead plant in an herbarium).
Overall, a rather good job Metropolitan. In particular, I found putting "Museums" in the "Education" section a very interesting change (it certainly puts museums in a different light). Geography is also restored to its true dimension (physical AND human). Der Statistiker (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So even you see the error in that blanket edit (and revert to my work), yet here it looks like... a pat on the back. Cheering for 'your team' does not show a real interest in the article; it's rather WP:BATTLEGROUND, in fact. THEPROMENADER✎✓00:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it took me a long time but I've scanned every single edits from the afternoon and I took good care to implement them back in the article, here's a link to the diff: [53]. It was not my intent to revert those, I couldn't know you would work in the article at the same time as I would. Sorry again for that. Metropolitan (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 2nd thought, about the "Administration" section, I think it should be renamed "Government", because that's the way this section is named in most other city articles at Wikipedia. This didn't occur to me earlier. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick word about Transport, I'm not really convinced that merging back "national and international transport" with "local transport" is a good idea. I think the divide as edited by ThePromenader is good the way it is. The very nature of both sections are different enough in my humble opinion to justify two different subsections. I would be glad to hear others opinions about it. Metropolitan (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Der Statistiker makes several good points, including the need to shorten the history section. I've tried to address it, not really removing much content of value but at least trying to say things shorter. Some things were repeated in several sections, so then I've removed it from one section but leaving it in another (e.g. the name Lutetia which was explained in detail in two different sections). If you don't agree with my edit, do feel free to revert and change any part of it, it's just a suggestion. I haven't removed any subheading, so part of the problem remains. Not saying this is the final and best version, just an attempt to get it a bit shorter.Jeppiz (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The shortening of the history section with the removal of very important events begins to amount to systematic amputation, which will leave the reader who is trying to learn something about Paris with the impression that nothing happened.
not even three filled lines for the 17th century (!)
no reason given for Louis XIV's move to Versailles
in the 18th century, the removal of the Royal-Allemand's charge on innoncent Sunday strollers in the Tuileries gardens, in favor of keeping the peaceful demonstration place Louis XV: the happening at the Tuileries gardens had much more impact on the population than the dispersing of the demonstration.
I am not going to list all the facts that I feel should be kept because it is a losing battle. However, I will say that this continued indiscriminate removal of important facts for the sake of... what? is turning the history section into a clinically disinfected and sterilized piece.
The reader who knows about Paris will think that the redactors of the article did not know that much about the subject.
The reader who came to the article in order to learn something will have learned not much in the end, and will not even have been made curious to know more. So much is being removed that he will not know where to search for events about which he is and will remain ignorant.
Blue Indigo, I agree that the writing in the history section is 'clinical'. Not sure I agree with the other points. Most of what I removed was simply meaningless lists of "This king built these streets", "This emperor oversaw gaslights constructed on these streets". I don't think that is of much relevance to Paris as a whole. Likewise, the reasons for Louis XIV moving to Versailles are relevant in the article on Louis XIV, but I'm less sure it's of much relevance for a section in the article on Paris. Remember, we have History of Paris. The idea here is to give a relatively short overview of the most important aspects of Paris's history, not to provide a detailed history of Paris. The reader who comes here to read about Paris history should find the main events and a link to History of Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jeppiz. Yes, we do have an article on the history of Paris but, if we are going to have so little here, and to the point of making that history misunderstandable, why bother having that section at all? I agree that we must summarize, but summarizing has to be done in such a way that there is still something left for people who are curious & may then go on to the reading of a more complete article on such or such subject. Also, some events are important because of their impact on the future. For instance, the move of Louis XIV to Versailles, which was a voluntary escape from Paris & its darned Parisians *frondeurs*, had a direct impact on the 1789 revolution when the women from Paris went to Versailles & came back with the royal family. Had Louis XVI's great-great-great...-grand daddy not moved to Versailles, the king would have been closer to its people in Paris. That would not have kept the revolution from happening, but it may not have built that hatred toward the royal family - who knows? Whatever, that move of L.XIV had repercussions. So, I maintain that too much is being removed from the history section.
Good points, and please edit as you see fit. As I wrote, mine was an attempt to shorten a section that most users, apparently, want to see shortened, but (needless to say) anyone if free to change my edit in any way they want. It's definitely not intended to be the final word in any way, just a small effort to help.Jeppiz (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Most users"? What do you mean by users? Some of the contributors to this page, i.e. this very talk page - about half a dozen persons who, for whatever reason, have decided that the history of Paris should be taboo in an article about Paris, or readers, who may be in the thousands and who have yet to come here and complain about the length of the history section? Readers pick what they like & skip the rest. The history section as it stands now looks bâclée - a botched job and, from what I see happening here, it is & will continue on being impossible to work on it: someone will always come & undo what has been done.
I will not put back what you took away because someone else will remove it. A total waste of time.
All the work done by others this past weekend was removed, which caused another controversy & ended up with the "house arrest" of the one who worked the most.
This article does not need the participation of historians, or professionals in certain fields, it wants executioners, and I do not mean you :)
Although I do not (obviously) agree with you, I thank you for explaining.
I agree with Jeppiz (things happen!). There is already a History of Paris article if people want to know the detailed events that happened in Paris. I would be totally against deleting/removing any information from the History of Paris article. The longer the better. But here, it's the "Paris" article, and the history section needs only be a short summary. If this was Paris, Texas, of course we could list all the events that took place in the city, but this is Paris, France, former Lutetia, and the entire length of the article wouldn't be enough to list all the events and important things that happened in this metropolis in the past 21 centuries.
And last but not least, keep in mind that the longer the history section, the less likely people are going to read it entirely. So if you want readers to leave this article with a gist of the Paris history, keep this section as short and synthetic as possible. Only the great historical trends and how they shaped the city, and the world, should be mentioned, with not too many details. For example, a "In the 16th century, Paris suffered from the French Wars of Religion, with notably the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of Protestants in 1572 and the occupation of the city by the Catholic League hardliners leading to the Siege of Paris by King Henry IV in 1590." sentence is better than a lengthy paragraph listing all the many events and horrors that took place in Paris during the 16th century (this is just an example, I haven't checked whether there is currently a lengthy paragraph about that in the history section). Der Statistiker (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Indigo: regarding your comment about the 17th century, I think the "History" section should only mention the following things about the 17th century (structured in one or two sentences highlighting the historical trends, not as a non-contextualized list of events): 1- the demographic recovery of Paris in the early 17th century after the end of the Religious Wars, and construction boom (the city doubled its population and footprint in just 40 years), 2- the Fronde during the minority of Louis XIV, and subsequent departure of the adult king from Paris to Versailles, 3- the destruction of the city walls by Louis XIV (wary of the Parisians), and building of the boulevards that replaced them, which greatly shaped the urban structure of the city. Regarding the French Revolution, it should be described briefly and distantly, in terms of 3 or 4 main events during the Revolution (such as Storming of the Bastille in 1789, insurrection of 10 August 1792 which toppled the monarchy, Thermidorian Reaction in 1794 which ended the active phase of the Revolution, no more). Details such as demonstrators on Place Louis XV or in the Tuileries Gardens are out of place in a synthetic summary of the history of Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Blue Indigo, the 17th century section proposed here is much short, and reads like an outline rather than a history. It shouldn't ignore the reason why the King left Paris, or the major landmarks he built. The section on the French Revolution should also give enough information so that readers who don't know anything about the French Revolution can get a sense of what happened where without having to read another article.
By the way,What is the desired end result of these deletions? What length are you trying to attain? What city article are you using as a model?SiefkinDR (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to have detailed information in the history of Paris section but just a brief summary. I agree with Der Statistiker, if this section is too long, most people will not read this part, it will likely have the oposite effect that what you want.
I think that London is a good example of how the history section of Paris should be in length and informations. By reading it, I understand better how the city grew, the major change that happened over the centuries. This is pretty much unlike in Paris article where I get many informations about things like when and where was imprisoned Louis XVI but very few about the urban history of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Indigo : that is why I had proposed to define the less important event to mention. Let say that's Mai 68 (can be other, don't mind), then obviously the riots that made Louis XIV to leave Paris are to be mentioned and then we can had few words to explain he wants his while court in Versaille, with link to specialized article for more details on Louis XIV politic.... v_atekor (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
btw, that can be also done for the art area. Gothic, Impressionism & surrealism should be obviously mentioned, but then, which movements ? v_atekor (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read the current art §, I think it is not relevant for Paris article, and should be moved to the France article. Mentioning only French artists (with works not so much linked to the town) while XX's movements heavily related to the town are not mentioned is not relevant at all. Things are much more complex, with imbrications of several arts. Also, this paragraph starts with Renaissance, that is one of the less relevant period for Paris (much more in Vallée de la Loire, for ex...) it do not mention Gothic not surrealism... Nothing about music, sorry for all from Rameau to Boulez & Jolivet, with some very related with Paris as a town, indeed v_atekor (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For fear of bringing them bad luck, there are a couple of sections I will not mention but which, nonetheless, I predict will fall victims to the scalpel scraping their flesh to the bone. In the end, we are going to be left with an article from which all that is attractive to read will have been removed, leaving the readers to an article filled with numbers, statistics & charts: GDP, tourists, bus stops, metro stations & the price of hotdogs on the Champs Élysées, but (fortunately) so thankful to have learned that Paris, aka Ville lumière, Panam, is inhabited by Parisiens AND Parisiennes called Parigots AND Parigotes (thanks Heaven for little girls!), that their favorite musical pastime is dancing the bourrée and play the accordéon at Sunday bal musette. By the way, the argot explanation of Paris fills one and a half line, just a bit below the not even three of 17th century section. That really shows where our priorities are and will, no doubt, bring this article a golden star.
Readers will also have learned from the Religion section that, since there is no mention of a single Protestant temple, Jewish synagog or Muslim mosque, the extremely religious Parisians, who fill churches on Sundays, are all Catholic.
I'm currently working on the religion section. This section is indeed currently crap, to put it politely. I'll add other religions one by one. Yesterday I worked on a text about the Jews of Paris, but it's too long for the article. Perhaps we should create a dedicated Religions in Paris article to put the long stuff. I'm trying to make a very short summary of my Jewish text now, for the Paris article. Summarizing 15 centuries of Parisian Jewish life in 3 or 4 sentences IS hard. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About religion, that's indeed a good move. It's particularly surprizing to read that Parisians are exclusively Roman Catholics just below an immigration section detailing the diversity of the city. I agree also about the idea of a specific article. The mainstream Paris article isn't the place to detail the History of every single religions in the city so please make it short. Few facts coming to my mind: Paris is the city hosting the largest Jewish community in Europe [54]; as for Islam, I think it would be important to mention that the Mosque of Paris dates back to 1922 and has been built to honor the 70,000 Muslim soldiers dead under the French flag during WW1 [55]. Sorry I don't have much time currently to help, I can only support all of you for your hard work. :) Metropolitan (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with new History section
The new history section has some real problems. The new shortened and "improved" text has the completion of the Pont Neuf in the wrong century, and for the 17th century, has just four lines. No mention of the Luxembourg Palace, Les Invalides, Place Vendome, Moliere, Comedie Francaise. The London article, given as a model of brevity by one editor above, gives the 17th century 11 lines, and manages to include Shakespeare. You don't have to delete all the history of Paris to make room for more text about Paris today, there is plenty of room for both. Instead of slashing the history and culture, please add more about modern Paris. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those are exactly the kind of things I think we should not have in the article. An endless list of which king oversaw the building of Luxembourg Palace, Les Invalides, Place Vendome etc. strikes me, at least, as largely irrelevant. The history section here is already much longer than the history section for London, and on par with Rome although Rome has a much longer history. And worse, it's a boring read, exactly because it's far too much listings of who built what.Jeppiz (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident most people are able to tell the difference between finding a topic and finding the writing about an interesting topic boring. Instead of violating WP:FORUM by commenting about other users, how about addressing the actual points I made. Why should the history section include long lists about who built which monument, which square, which street and which building?Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR:, I attempted a slight rewrite of the first passages of the 18th-century/revolution section, but you're working on it so I'll put it here. Just as an example.
Between 1640 and 1789 (note: why these dates?), Paris grew in population from 400,000 to 600,000. A new boulevard, the Champs-Élysées, was built as far as the Étoile.[1] The Faubourg Saint-Germain on the left bank became the most fashionable aristocratic neighbourhood, while the eastern working-class Faubourg Saint-Antoine became Paris' most densely-populated and boisterous quarter.[2] By the 1720s, the cafés that had began appearing throughout the capital from the late 17th century had become popular meeting places for exchanging opinions and ideas; these were central to Paris' role in the Age of Enlightenment.
Parisian dissatisfaction with the crown turned public meetings into demonstrations, and on the 12 of July 1789, an attempt to disperse a peaceful demonstration at the Place Louis XV (today's place de la Concorde) triggered rioting that marked the onset of the French Revolution. Revolutionaries had occupied the Hôtel de Ville by the next day, and on the 14th of July, they seized the Invalides arsenal and attacked the symbol of crown repression of Parisians, the Bastille prison. A meeting in the Hôtel de Ville on the 15th of July created Paris' first Paris Commune city council and elected Paris' first mayor, the astronomer Jean Sylvain Bailly. [3]
...it leaves the 'particularity of people' out of it, and serves more to outline the general ambiance/effects the event created on the city. Paris' first mayor is 'city-important'. THEPROMENADER✎✓10:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^Paine 1998, p. 453. sfn error: no target: CITEREFPaine1998 (help)
Is the history section too long? Comparing French and English pages
Some editors have complained that the history section is much too long, and these editors have made drastic cuts in the history section, It's useful to compare the length of the history sections now in the French and English versions.
Early history- 20 lines in English, 19 in French
Middle Ages - 20 lines in English, 49 in French
Renaissance - 2 lines in English, 15 lines in French,
17th century - 4 lines in English, 15 lines in French
18th century and Revolution -28 lines in English, 49 lines in French
20th century - 42 lines in English, 61 in French.
21st century - 11 lines in English, 4 in French.
Total: 153 lines in English, 245 in French
In all categories except the early history and the 21st century, the English version is now much shorter and less complete French version. The English version has lost much of its information and value because of the recent cuts. Less is not better, it's just less.
Conclusion: There's no justification to keep cutting and cutting the history section. It needs to be strengthened, not cut more.
The French version's section is too long. But I agree, I don't know why the 17th century section was shortened. Apparently the assassination of the king in Paris isn't notable enough for this article... Rob984 (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, shss... Don't you know the rules? No history in the history section: Verboten! Too boring!
The details you are mentioning used to be there with a few more, but we want to cultivate ignorance, and the only reason why the 17th century is shorter is because the others have not been hacked yet.
Rob984, you're more than welcome to add it back. My point is that the history section should not be too long, then few people will bother reading it, this is not History of Paris where you go to read about the history of the city. Comparing to London (a very comparable city), the history section here is much longer, and used to be even longer. Far too much of it, I think, was taken up by just listing which building, which street, which square etc was built when and by whom. It's not very engaging writing and not that relevant for what should be an overview of the main aspects of Parisian history.Jeppiz (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Rob984, please read up on the rules. Removing content to disrupt is vandalism, removing content with the intention of improving the article, based on discussions, and with an explicit statement that anyone is welcome to revert is most certainly not vandalism. What is more, accusing others of vandalism for edits made in good faith is considered a personal attack (WP:NPA) and I suggest you strike it. Also surprised to see you restore a comment that consisted of nothing but snide remarks about other users, not a word on how to improve the article. It certainly violates WP:FORUMJeppiz (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reckless editing in good faith is disruptive. I'm entitled to my opinion. Policy distinguishes between disruptive editing and vandalism quite specifically, so I'll modify my accusation accordingly. Rob984 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you're perfectly free to edit, not to attack other users. Could you please try to comment on the article instead and explain why you feel long lists just saying who build a certain building, street or square is so important it should be in the overview of Parisian history?Jeppiz (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, Jeppiz. Please, have a cup of coffee, calm down, and enjoy the day. We're all here for the same reason, to improve the article. I think the history section is too short now. London and Paris aren't comparable, because London didn't have the Revolution, Napoleon, the Commune, Haussmann, the Belle Epoque and the German occupation. The French article is a better comparison, since its covering the same territory; it has thirty lines on the Renaissance and 18th Century, while our article has just six, which isn't enough. I think it's important that the article tell something about who built the major landmarks of Paris, and why. They didn't just appear out of nowhere. I know that some people find history boring, but some of us find it really fascinating. best wishes, SiefkinDR (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other proposal
An other option is to make the history § ... longer, and to merge much of the art and other sections into it, at that is usually done for biography of people, relating both life and work at the same time. That Will result in a much longer chapter, but that won't be a such problem.
For each century (or period) we should write about most important event in the city, most important architecture changes (given the fact Paris is a town changes of architecture over the time should be related) and then art & sciences changes. The hard point is to correctly link all the fields of town by the time, we can not separate this fields : political power is generally linked to art. Paris is a town and a political capital then, these fields are often linked.
This approach implies to not enter in details of each fields, only mentioning it and the links that exists at each period, otherwise we will write a 3 tomes 290 pages book collection... v_atekor (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paris has acquired a reputation as the "City of Art" only by the XIX century, before it was Rome (or a disprutive position by the second part of the XVIII with Paris, Rome & Vienna). v_atekor (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear V Atekor,
I think it's a good idea to integrate the architecture section into the history; mentioning the most important buildings and landmarks in each period, and the most important scientific or other cultural developments. It will make the history section a little longer, perhaps as long as the section in the French article, but it will allow the shortening of some other sections. It makes a lot of sense to put landmarks into their historical context. I think other editors who are specialists in history and architecture will also be glad to help Thanks for a good suggestion and have a good day. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It makes a lot of sense to put landmarks into their historical context. No it doesn't, at least not among a history section in which the reader wants to a concise summary of the history not architecture. Do you even have a basic understanding of article structure on here Siefkin as I'm not seeing any evidence of it. Good lord, I can just imagine all the discussion of theatres and stuff in the 18th century history. What a mess!♦ Dr. Blofeld10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History, yes Origins and archeological finds pointing towards evidence, founding and early wars/developments, growth as a town and then you can mention a few thins like citadels or churches etc, prosperity, more wars and government changes etc to World Wars and modern developments as a city. You can't reel off when every building was built in the history and discuss architecture in it as it would end up hugely bloated. The history section was already a decent concise overview. Why Siefkin doesn't gear his efforts into something like Medieval Paris, 18th-century Paris etc where he can write in great deal beats me. There he can mention all the buildings he wants to amid the history. I support his work on history, I think it's good, but he really has some bad ideas on how to improve this Paris article which are frankly worrying.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first point : If you want to have War-only section, that is not an history section, that is quite larger. Wars are much related to France (Gaulle, Europe... ) than to the town of Paris, governments changes too. There were implications on the city, but Paris act as the capital of France, but much of these event did not pass in Paris because it was Paris itself. There were some (Commune, for ex.). Much of the Revolution events occurred in Versailles & in Provinces (except Bastille day and the return of the king in Paris, that occurred in Paris because it was Paris). Second point : about architecture & art, I am not speaking about describing all monuments date by date, but the main cultural movements (involving architecture) giving the close relation between this moments and the other events. You are speaking about Theater in the XVIII century. Well, le Mariage de Figaro is closely related to Enlightenment, and usually considered as warning signs of the revolution... v_atekor (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dr. Blofeld, goodness, you must be having a bad day to write a message like that. I'm sorry if I worry you. All I really want to achieve is a history section that's well-written, clear, well illustrated, and which gives you in a short space a good idea of how Paris got to be what it is. It should not be, in my view, like a comic book, or an outline, or just a list of links. it should not be six lines that cover both the Renaissance and the 18th century, or, like the London article, one sentence that takes care of both World War I and World War II. It should be a stand-alone, with easy access to more complete articles if you want more. It should be about the same length as the one in the French article, not just a sketch. I think we've already pretty much got it, we just need to stop cutting and chopping so that it n longer makes any sense. I'm welcome your ideas how to do this; I'm sure we can find common ground. Best wishes, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not having a bad day, I just see this article going from bad to worse that's all. I just think you're focusing way too much on this article when the bulk of your good work would be best put into detailed history articles by period of Paris. You've overedited this article over several months as have many others and the fact that it is now at GAR says it all. If you genuinely want to improve it to FA status, just look at how concise articles like Trichy which I contributed to are. We need less in this article, not more.. Detailed discussions about architecture and buildings have no place in history, they belong in a cityscape/landmarks section. At best the history would mention the date that several of the core buildings in Paris like cathedrals or universities were built and that's it. The idea to merge architecture and documenting all of the buildings covered in chrono order in history with details too is a really bad idea which it seemed you were pushing for. ♦ Dr. Blofeld14:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Goodbye GA - back to GA
Whatever's been going on here since this article got its GA status a little over a year ago [56], it hasn't been an improvement, because this article lost its GA status today. User:Dr. Blofeld suggested putting it back to that state without the "landmarks by district" section (incorporating the one taken from here instead) and working from there (hopefully to FA standards), and I see sense in that. But I wasn't here for the duration, or for the original GA drive for that matter, so I leave it to you to compare that version[57] to this one (History, etc), and let us know what you think. Cheers. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that my version was way off "perfect" and had quite a lot of issues which are obvious to locals needing work, but aside from the sourcing which I was still working on when it passed, at least it was relatively technically sound. I don't want people to be wasting their time editing this and having work reverted, and I even mean Der Statistiker. I'd genuinely like to see this further improve but not done sporadically by multiple people each doing their own thing with little regard to the FA/GA criteria. Concision and quality is of most importance I think. It only needs a very basic history outline Siefkin. You can go into all the details you want in article by period as I suggested. Tim riley knows what he's talking about. We need this to develop to a point where everybody is relatively content with it and its stable. And that's not going to happen in the present environment and why I'm distancing myself from this until something changes. I'd argue if anything that the article needs to be cut considerably and for the outline of Paris to be kept as basic as possible given the size of the city. We already have some sub articles with more detail started. Keep things simple and clean I say.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've put something similar in User:Dr. Blofeld/Paris with the current cut and write of cityscape which I think is one of the few positive changes to be made but again the sourcing is an absolute shambles and would need sourcing and writing properly before it is restored. I'm open to Der Stat's suggestions for demographics and updates as some of the additions he made to article were decent, but please (Siefkin in particular) compare the paragraphing and sourcing to what we currently have in history.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you guys start working on shortening the history section, instead of reverting to a 'golden age' version of the article that was never golden in the first place anyway? Trying to revert the article to its July 2013 version will only lead to disaster again. PS: I'm also all in favor of shortening the culture section. Both sections are bloated. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who says the history section has to be shorter? I don't hear any 'goal' arguments, just 'shorter, because other article', and the 'other article' is often about a city not at all like Paris. "It has to be shorter" is just an authoritative-sounding affirmation backed by an empty appeal to popularity and phantom authority... and what if they're copying us ? ; ) But for sure there's no chance of that anymore. In short, there's no indication of anything forward, so of course people are balking. Shorter in favour of what ? THEPROMENADER✎✓00:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how GA is given, I am sure that it is not on the quality of the information because it would never has had the GA. This was more like a tourist guide than an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia should present Paris on functionnal way (like it does for other cities) and not on heritage like would a tourist guide.
The history section need to be shortened and rewritten. It is too long and we Learn a lot about details like the place where Louis XVI was jailed but few about the urban history of the city. When I speak of urban history, I don't speak of the opening date of some landmarks. Minato ku (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with the "functional" part, but the city's history is not to be glossed over, either, and that is a major part of the city's attraction. Oh, and the 'touristy' part is only an opinion, so keep in mind that others have theirs too. But if you want to be clear in your propos, it's best to give an example. THEPROMENADER✎✓07:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know where to put this link, here or in the above section, but here will do as well.
Arguing over the length of the history section is still going on and, if I understand, next will be culture, literature, art & whatever makes Paris the unique city that it is.
Comparisons with the article in French are not acceptable as there are two camps here, with the one in favor of less history, culture etc. slowly winning out. What strikes me in that argument is that, by hatching into the history & soon the cultural history & aspect of Paris, we are going to end up with an article so summarized that it will really be a "touristy" article, i.e. purposeless.
Now, if we do not want a French Paris-like article, and before turning this into a monumentless & history-gone Paris, why don't we take a look at the article in deutsche wiki? I don't think it is necessary to know German to understand how our friends across the Rhein have handled the matter - very organized and, in my eyes, maybe closer to what we want to attain.
Again, I don't think comparison to other articles is very helpful, as if one does one section one way, that probably is intertwined to how the rest of the article is written. A prime example of 'part aping' is in this very article, with museums now in the 'education' section, 'hostpitals' in 'infrastructure', and churches in 'demography'. Well, "just cuz I sez it's good" has a lot to do with it, but you get what I mean.
Before anyone can start working on any individual section, we all have to have an understanding of what the entire article will look like, how the peices will fit together. For now it looks like an aimless pulling in five different directions.
I've already voiced my (totally ignored) opinion on this several times... but perhaps I can sum it up in an analogy (that I already made to you, dear Blue Indigo): Imagine a satellite taking stop-motion photography of the city, one image a year, since prehistory, and watching the resulting 'normal-time' film. We won't be able to see individual details, but we can see that the city is growing, sending out tendrils, growing brighter in places at times, we'll see a flash here or there (revolution, explosion?)... only the most visible/remarkable changes we see in that film would be elaborated here. That movie would look like almost like a living creature, so its lifeblood, circulatory system (and what makes it thrive) could be described as well. Was that too abstract? THEPROMENADER✎✓10:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Promenader, I really like your analogy and believe that seen from a satellite, Paris would look - and probably does - like a twinkling star.
Repeating my suggestion again: why don't you guys actually WORK on shortening the history section, instead of endlessly debating here? ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precision: by "shortening" I don't mean deleting things here and there, but summarizing the section by building synthetic sentences that encompass the major events and historical trends. I gave one example above: "In the 16th century, Paris suffered from the French Wars of Religion, with notably the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of Protestants in 1572 and the occupation of the city by the Catholic League hardliners leading to the Siege of Paris by King Henry IV in 1590." One sentence covering 40 years. Only 40 such sentences would be needed to cover 16 centuries. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like an (oft-repeated) order than a suggestion. And answering my question would help a lot to give people direction and motivation. THEPROMENADER✎✓11:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but note that you are three to repeat the same thing again and again and again with no further elaboration. Between you, what is your goal for this article, what do you have in mind? I sense a common agreement, as none of you all are answering any repeated questions about this. THEPROMENADER✎✓11:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Crap" oder Scheiße, sourced oder nicht, it may be interesting to look at the way the Germans have handled their history section.
Their article also got a GA award, just like this article did... which may be saying something about the way awards are awarded.
We may also be better off adopting a more humble attitude toward articles in foreign wikis, as the recent debacle we are still experiencing does not fit with "We're the best" or "Take example on us".
Although the French "Paris" is much more concise and factual (I can only speak for that version), it is much more "loose" with challengable claims and sources. The readership of most other other-than-english WP is nowhere near that of English wiki, so the quality-control and GA/FA requirements are much less strict. THEPROMENADER✎✓13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleagues,
As some of our editors have requested, I have made large cuts in the history section, from 161 lines down to 116 lines. That is about 25 percent shorter, and makes it only a little longer than the London page (100 lines) and considerably shorter than the French-language page. I would really welcome the comments and suggestions from other editors about this edit, or if you see important errors or omissions. Wishing you all a good afternoon! SiefkinDR (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this section is now shorter than the history section for New York City, 146 lines), though NYC was only founded in 1624.SiefkinDR (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again again, don't even bother considering other-article history section length (unless it has a similar history (which would mean that you would have to know that 'other article' history too)) let alone 'comparing' - but you just said this yourself quite nicely: New York is a young city compared to Paris (a toddler, even), and London had many of its historical architecture and monuments ('things to reference') destroyed in several fires. Paris has been unscathed by anything but 'natural' urbanism and the wear of time... and Haussmann ; ) THEPROMENADER✎✓15:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paris unscathed? Paris is one of the cities that has suffered the most from destructions. Ok, these destructions were mostly not due to wars, they were due to city (and national) authorities, but they were destructions nonetheless. Of all the churches that existed in Paris in 1789, about three-quarter of them have been wiped out. The vast majority of convents and nunneries have also been wiped out. Several palaces and large mansions have been wiped out (for example the Tuileries Palace). Entire neighborhoods have been wiped out by 19th century urban planners. The Île de la Cité has been almost entirely destroyed. The most ancient part of the Right Bank, from the Seine River to the Rue des Lombards/Rue de la Verrerie was demolished. All the ancient bridges of Paris have been demolished. And the list goes on, and on, and on. Paris today may look "old" because it is made of stones, but it is in fact for the most part a sterile late 19th century urban landscape. The pre-1850, and particulary pre-1789 city is largely gone. No other European city has suffered as much as Paris, except those totally destroyed by wars. Even London has more of its pre-1800 churches still standing than Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All cities have undergone 'destruction' (that I called 'urbanism') like that. Yes, religious properties were destroyed after the Revolution - thanks for the reminder, that is very worthy of mention. Oh, and the Hôtel de Ville (and other governmental property) burned during the Commune. But obviously Paris is way way way older and better preserved than most of the world's cities, beaten in this by only by ancient cities like Athens or Rome. I really don't understand the long attempt to convince to the contrary - an appeal to ignorance? Sorry, but Paris' 'graceful age' is an appeal to obvious. THEPROMENADER✎✓17:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless cities in Europe which are older and better preserved than Paris. In fact, from where I come from, Paris looks very very new and eerily devoid of the past, as if it had been erased in the 19th century. Tabula rasa of sorts. Der Statistiker (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From almost all Europe point of view, Paris is mostly a XIXe-XXe century city, including France. Staying in France, given a period from Roman Empire to XVIIe century you can have examples of better conserved cities. Factually, Paris is one of the better XXe century architecture example in France... If you want Roman examples, better go to Vaison la Romaine, Arles, Nîmes, where you want, but Paris.
Usually, the larger a town is, the worst it is conserved. The key point are not the wars, but the people living and changing the city. People usually want better heating than the Romans, better lighting than the Gothics, cars better than horses. v_atekor (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: some quick comments skimming through the current history section:
There are still too many subsections. 18th and 19th centuries should be merged in one subsection, 20th and 21st centuries should be merged in one subsection. London calls that "Early modern" and "Late modern and contemporary". Berlin calls that "17th to 19th centuries" and "20th to 21st centuries". I prefer the London way.
There is no certainty the Parisii actually built their city on the Île de la Cité. Archeological evidence point to Nanterre instead. No Gallic remains have ever been discovered on the Île de la Cité. So this should be reworded.
"gallicised to Lutèce" is a bit ambiguous (since we discuss the Gauls). Better say "a name written Lutèce in modern French"
"Bishop of the Parisii" should be replaced by "Bishop of Paris". At this time the Parisii didn't exist as a tribe anymore. The place of burial of Saint Denis should also be mentioned, since it is as important to Paris as Westminster Abbey to London.
In the next paragraph, there needs to be a sentence about Sainte Geneviève, the patron saint of Paris, who organized resistance against the Huns.
Hugh Capet was more properly "Duke of the Franks" (dux Francorum), and possessed several other counties beside Paris. In fact Hugh Capet spent more time in Orléans than in Paris. Paris was under the authority of his faithful companion Bouchard de Vendôme.
The royal palace on the Île de la Cité was not new, it was already the site of the palace of the Roman governors in the late Roman Empire. Robert le Pieux added new buildings there in the early 11th century which were still standing in the days of Philip Augustus and St Louis. By the way, it's "Philip Augustus" in English, not "Philippe-Auguste" (there is no coma in French anyway, unless it's a street name).
"guild" is improper for an organized body of students and professors as far as a know. "Corporation" should be used instead. "Guild" is used for bodies of merchants and craftsmen ("the guild of drapers", etc.)
The University corporation wasn't formed to train students in theology only. There was also medicine, law, and liberal arts (four faculties in total, "faculty" back in those days meaning what would be called a "department" or "school" in modern American universities). A mention of the 4 nations making up the Université would also be nice here, to reflect the force of attraction of Paris at the time. You have this "excellent" map of the four nations made by a certain Der Statistiker here which you may or may not wish to add on the side of the section to illustrate it.
a league of WATER merchants (water should be added). The name in French wasn't "hanse parisienne" but "hanse des marchands de l'eau", or "hanse des marchands" in short. It should be mentioned that the office of "provost of the merchants" ("prévôt des marchands"), head of the "hanse des marchands", appeared 1260, after which the "hanse des marchands" became known as "prévôté des marchands", and more and more simply as "la municipalité" ("the municipality"). In Paris there was a Provost of the King, and a Provost of the Merchants. Two different authorities. But this is too detailed for the article. What should be mentioned, however, is that the famous Provost of the Merchants Etienne Marcel bought a house on the Place de Grève in 1357 which became the seat of the municipality and is still today the Paris City Hall (the Medieval house was demolished in the 16th century and replaced by the current Renaissance building, burnt in 1871 and rebuilt in its original style in the 1870s, but much enlarged; all these details in parenthesis shouldn't be mentioned).
Philip Augustus DID NOT build the 1st city walls of Paris. This is a very big factual error. The city walls built by Philip Augustus were the 3rd city walls (the 1st ones, on the Île de la Cité, were built in the first half of the 4th century; the 2nd ones, on the Right Bank, were built towards the end of 10th and beginning of the 11th centuries). The walls of Philip Augustus, however, were the largest ever built around the city so far, and encompassed the Left Bank, which no previous walls had ever encompassed (although the Saint-Marcel suburb on the Left Bank had its own wall since the 8th century, and the Saint-Germain-des-Prés abbey on the Left Bank also had its own wall since the 870s).
the sentence "replaced the two wooden bridges over the Seine with stone bridges" is totally factually WRONG. There were only two bridges in Paris back then. The Grand Pont had its pillars built of stone by the grandfather of Philip Augustus, around 1140, but the deck was made of wood. Destroyed by a flood in 1296, long after the death of Philip Augustus, it was then rebuilt entirely out of stones. As for the Petit Pont, it was entirely made of wood, and it is only in 1409-1410, almost 2 centuries after Philip Augustus, that it was rebuilt entirely out of stones (after several floods and destructions of the wooden structure).
It took longer to write all that than to fix those simple errors... and your writ is quite belittling. Fixing mistakes is fine, but having a different opinion is quite another matter. By the way, the marchands de l'eau was a river tradesmen/merchant guild; they didn't sell water. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But just a couple notes on the University, too - it most certainly began with theological roots - the universitas magistrorum et scholarium Parisiensis was a corporation made for the Notre-Dame theology school. What's more, Philippe-Auguste, with his 1200 university edict, made students and teachers subject to ecclesiastical law (and immune to civil law), making them clerics (I don't know when that ended, though). Only theological law was taught until Roman and civil law was authorised by its ecclesiastical leaders, and medecine wasn't authorised until much later. Oh, and there is no factual evidence of the Ste. Génévieve story - Attila did attack Orléans (a more important city at the time), only that is certain.
But for the petit point, the Parisii on the Cité island (but don't forget boats were found at Bercy too), and the first city walls, you are of course right, but there is no need to get all condescending and shouty about it. The rest amounts to nitpicking, and I won't comment about the map. And the merging of the sections is only your desire; it is in no way a necessity, and there are other views already expressed above. And I have yet to see an answer about why the history section 'should be' shorter. Sorry, even shorter, now.
Such a big block of text for a few easily corrected errors doesn't seem to have the errors themselves in mind, especially with that tone. But, FWIW, so Siefkin doesn't see this as an obstacle or dissuasion, I'll correct what needs correcting myself.
BUT, Siefkin, one should be especially careful when writing about things "first" and "origins"... and the opinions on these often vary, too; the Parisii is a good example. THEPROMENADER✎✓20:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Had an edit conflict with The Promenader whose words express better what I had written, so I am not going to add my lines here.
However, I will express a concern of mine: Sietkin is nobody's "larbin", and suggestions to him should not sound like orders. Instead, we should thank him for taking on the task, and not give him only criticism in return.
Thank you, Der Statistiker, for your comments. Now we have a discussion going, rather than some editors simply deleting entire sections which they didn't like, which unfortunately happened rather often in the past. A lot of things in the section are simplified because of demands from some editors that the history article be shorter and shorter (I recall you called my additions "berserk" not long ago), and there's disagreement between sources on some points. but these are good points I will also work on your suggestions and make some fixes.SiefkinDR (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I see you understand me better than the two guys above. I will comment on the rest of the history section later tonight if I have time. Obviously it's only criticism since I'm only discussing what need/should be corrected, not what is already fine. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Statistiker, whether we agree or not, I would like you to know that I do appreciate/value your knowledge. We probably should have a link to this talk page as there is a lot to learn about Paris that will never be in any article, but that you laid out so intelligently. I am very serious saying that: I mean it... but you do sound "herrisch" sometimes:) Mit freundlichen Grüßen from one of the two guys above.
Question: What will happen, say, six months from now & probably sooner, when someone totally stranger to this discussion reads the article and, feeling the history section is missing a lot of events, starts doing his own thing with it? It is bound to happen. Will that contributor's edits be reversed?
As to new additions, I suppose it will depend upon what they are; if they really are important, they should stay in. If they're not, we can suggest that they go into the History of Paris or Timeline of Paris articles; or move them there ourselves. Wouldn't that work? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could not there be a problem doing that? It would not bother those who have participated in shortening the article & those of us agreeing to it more or less willingly; however, would not that be interpreted by the new contributor as if he/she is being pushed away from a certain circle who "owns" the article? Are those discussing here a sort of Board of Directors or rather a Board of Censors whose say is the only one acceptable? Do some ten to twenty at the most persons on this page have the given power or the right to discourage or enrage newly-arrived contributors by reverting their work or moving it somewhere else? That is or could be interpreted as dictatorship! Is that allowed in Wikipedia's chart?
That's certainly something worth thinking about. In theory any editor who proposes verifiable, neutral and relevant text should have it included, but then you run into the problem of length; the article on Paris could run to hundreds of pages. As Dr. Blofeld suggested, we need more sub-articles, like history of Paris and timeline of Paris; the section in the Paris article will be just a summary of the content of the sub-articles. Also, there's plenty of room for new editors to contribute on subjects which aren't well covered at the moment in the Paris article, such as contemporary music, theater and culture, city government and politics, the environment, new industries, etc..SiefkinDR (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Statistiker: Concerning your suggestion that we redo the structure of the history section yet again, and merge the 18th and 19th century and other changes, I'm afraid I'm really against that. The sections now are about the same size and easy to edit and illustrate, and they match the format of the supporting articles on the history of Paris and the Timeline of Paris. I think we need to focus now on the content and not rearrange sections any more. Thanks for your understanding. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I avoided looking at the history article beyond the few details mentioned here to let you guys sort it out (without the talk-page burden of 'wordy me' ; ), but now that I have, I am totally against it getting any shorter. I think some context and flow would help a lot with what's left. Is that because of all the cutting? Reason is the leader here, not bullying, and I have yet to see any answer to why the history section should be shorter. I really think you all should stop cutting until the damage can be repaired. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless considered a historical & cultural must, and since we are still on the shrinking binge, is it really necessary to preserve this most valuable argot information at the time 90 percent of the history of Paris has been removed? Old-fashioned argot is practically gone from the French language, being replaced by banlieue-originated verlan - thus, what's the purpose in keeping these three lines:
"Since the mid-19th century, Paris is sometimes also known as Paname ("panam") in Parisian slang.[17]
Inhabitants are known in English as "Parisians" and in French as Parisiens ([paʁizjɛ̃] ( listen)) and Parisiennes, pejoratively also called Parigots ([paʁiɡo] ( listen)) and Parigotes-.[18]"
Is this earth-shaking information?
Also: while bal musette (mentioned twice), bourrée & accordion are given about five lines, there is no mention of a single concert hall: have salles Pleyel & Gaveau been razed? Chopin is also missing in action.
But, with 170,024 bytes (NYC has 263,683, and no one is complaining), we have surgically removed 100,000 since the beginning of this carnage.
I've asked that question around, oh, nine times now. Still no reply. I would have waited for an answer before even... whatever. Did you say 'surgically'? ; ) THEPROMENADER✎✓14:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Indigo: Bal musette, bourrée & accordion are Blofeldian edits from the summer of last year. They should indeed go, as they are just some tired old clichés not representative of today's Paris. "Paname", on the other hand, is a contemporary slang term that is very used and should be mentioned. It's not an old slang word used in 1900 and not anymore today, in which case I would be opposed to have it in the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least the POV in that is clear. The pasttime may no longer exist (and the thought of it does make me cringe), but it and the places where it happened played a big role in giving this city the reputation it has. Are we really to be expected not to make any mention of them, and the fact that some of those places still exist even today, even only for tourists (which itself is worthy of mention)? This explains in a nutshell the "cut the history section" orders being given left and right.
But let's do cut everything historical and popular from the city and area and see what's left: the Montparnasse tower, La Defense and a bunch of statistics standing in a the middle of an aire urbaine that no-one here has ever heard of. That's about what the article looked like when I came here ten years ago. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Statistiker! You obviously know Paris very well, and I imagine your French, "argot" & "verlan" to be perfect, but where do you hang out to hear "Paname" a lot? Please read last sentence of the article below:
On the other hand, "Lutèce" can also be heard, and even "Soixante-quinze", since Paris is department 75.
Anyway, you do what you want: I was only suggesting the removal of details that seem weird, minor details being kept in an article that has lost so much flesh, while a composer like Chopin, who did most of his composing & concert playing in Paris, the only town where he lived during his adulthood, he was 21 years old when he arrived, died there 18 years later, and was honored with a funeral worthy of a stateman, is left out of the picture. There is not even a link to him & other artists - French or foreigners - who had such an impact: they are removed, no trace left, "disappeared". Where do we look for them when we are not even aware that they existed?
Is this article to be only about statistics? Readers will pick what they want to read and I am pretty sure that most will want to read about history, monuments, even about cafés etc. than spend hours reading about statistics on population, stuff about aire urbaine & other rebarbative language, no matter how well written. On the other hand, economists, bankers, heads of multinationals, politicians, urbanists and the like get their information in last minute-updated publications or directly from the horse's mouth, not from a Wikipedia article whose numbers will be obsolete the day after they have been included in the article.
Well, Blue Indigo, "Paname" gets 67,100 results on the Skyrock blogs ([58]), and "Panam" gets 30,600 results ([59]). The Skyrock blogs are some of the most youngish, ethnic, 'informal French' blog platforms in France. "Lutèce", on the other hand... gets only 1,840 results on the same blogs ([60]), and "le 75" gets only 1,730 results ([61]). Vox populi, vox dei. ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chopin can be mentioned in the middle of a sentence in the 19th century/early modern subsection: "In the 19th century, Paris was the focus of artistic and cultural life in Europe, attracting artists from all over Europe such as..., ..., Chopin, ..., ..., etc." Brief and neat. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've lived here for going on 24 years, and the only (rare) common use of "Paname" I've heard is as an almost derisory ironic adjective used to refer the antiquated quaintness of something in or of the city, but perhaps it is a term commonly used by Parisians who know what an aire urbaine is. Google results turn up exactly what you want them to (the entire point), and an argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, not an argument (and this is not a debating forum). Perhaps that would seem convincing to someone ignorant about Paris, but I had to interject... and I've seen this "argument" many times before. THEPROMENADER✎✓06:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Statistiker: "Results from Google hits": Thus the new Évangile has spoken! There used to be a time when, upon getting up, the routine was: open the window, stretch up & down touching toes: now, we must turn on our computer & do google hits, getting our brain in tune with the new Parisian linguo. My way of life is not based on google hits, but on mingling with people who speak - French citizens from Paris and the province, both in Paris & in the province - and I maintain that I can go a whole year without hearing "Paname", as well as "Parigot" & "Parigote", on the endangered species list together with the "titi parisien" who has become "un jeune". Outside of Paris, when "provinciaux" speak about their "compatriotes" living in the "capitale", they say "Parisiens", putting their lips a certain way & with a certain accent & tone of voice qui en disent long!. Also, when planning a trip to Paris, you will often hear them say going to "le Soixante-quinze" for business. And, by the way, when in "Panam'", if you run into a Parigot wearing a béret, it probably is an American tourist.
@ThePromenader: in your own admission, you live in the 5th arrondissement of Paris, which is one of the most elitist and bourgeois parts of Paris. You probably don't mingle a lot with working-class Parisians, and obviously you're not going to hear "Paname" very often among the stuck-up Latin Quarter/St Germain des Prés crowd of wannabe "intellectuels" and "elites". Der Statistiker (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I never dare to leave my bourgoise elitist sanctuary because of those (shudder) commoners.
Hee hee hee 'the idea is funny though ; ) But since you again make it about me: I'd lived in the suburbs and all over the city before I moved here, I'm very into the Belleville music scene (I play bass sometimes), my office is at place de Clichy, and I have clients all over the city. And I love to photograph abandoned factories and I'm a Cataphile. Oh, and I cook, too: there are men who would kill to have a wife like me ; )
Seriously, I don't even know what you're trying at here - why the reality-bending attachment to one word? We both know that what you're saying is not true - "Paname" is almost as antiquated as the history you'd have us remove. THEPROMENADER✎✓13:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Latin Quarter, Belleville, Place Clichy, the Catacombs... yes, the very bobo Paris, not the working-class Paris. Thanks for confirming my impression. Mingle with people at Flandre or Place des Fêtes in the 19th, at Porte de Clignancourt or Marx Dormoy in the 18th, talk with the black people at Gare du Nord, and you'll see Paris can be a very different place. In any case, this discussion is pointless because it is absurd to deny that "Panam(e)" is a very frequently used term today. Just step away from the bobo/elitist crowd and open your eyes: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], etc., etc. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Belleville = bobo? Kataphile = bobo? Place de Clichy = Bobo? Do your select quarters, where I've never heard that word, either, speak for all of Paris? It's absurd to insist that it is commonly used, and we are two to tell you this. Again, google gives you exactly what you're looking for (cherrypicked examples), and those examples are the ironic use (that even itself invites ridicule) I mentioned earlier. Again, I see a dependance on "foreign ignorance" to get a POV across, although I don't see the point of that POV - it's just a word. THEPROMENADER✎✓14:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Belleville and Place de Clichy are pretty bobo, it is where the bobo move even if Belleville still retain its working class feel. Cataphile is also pretty bobo or hipsters in my opinion, it is not something that young working class Parisians do.
Anyway non matter who use this term, Paname is still used among people. This is not obsolete and I think that the use of this term is increasing, especially among hipsters and working class youth). When you look the music using the term Paname in the French wikipedia article, many are pretty recent https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paname . Minato ku (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting removing it or anything, just refuting the suggestion that it is commonly used in everyday conversation. I see it mostly in advertising and revue names and titles (probably because "Paris" is over-used). It's no big deal, really, and I don't understand why what I just said wasn't used as an argument. Much ado ; ) THEPROMENADER✎✓16:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quality, not quantity
The discussion about the history section (sometimes even about the article as a whole) seems to be a little too hung up on length. It's just my personal opinion, but I don't think quantity (either shorter or longer) is as relevant as the quality of the article. My main issue with the history section was the poor quality of the writing. I think it has become better, but I'm sure it could still be improved. Jeppiz (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jeppiz,
Thanks for your comment. Considering the number of times this section has been deleted, reverted, cut, enlarged, shrunk, slashed, attacked, killed and brought back to life in the last few months, it's amazing that it can be read at all. What surprises me is that there are very few editors who actually are willing to research and to add new material with good sources, and very few who are willing and able to work smoothly with other editors.. There are a lot of strong egos out there, and not so many who know how to work collaboratively. But luckily there are a few who have the gift, and little by little, the article id going to get better. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jeppiz,
No one is going to contribute with the apprehension that their work is going to be discarded, and ridiculed. Getting references takes time & once you write something with sources, but your work is removed because it is adding length to the section you are working on, because an unseen authority has decided what length this particular article should be, then you do something else. Those who work on this article have had the courtesy to bring to the talk page the changes they made or plan on making. Whether we agree with them or not, we owe them a big thank you for their time-consuming contribution.
The ones I have in mind are Siefkin, The Promenader & dear Herr Statistiker.
1 French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers > 1 km2 (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries.
I've been working on a template lately (the wiki-wide {{convert}} template so we can convert per-area currency figures - working, yay!), and this drew my attention to the infobox template - its population was pushed way down to the bottom (under the urban/'metro' area population) making it hardly recognisable as Paris' population at all. I'm surprised this problem wasn't noticed.
One of the improvements I made was the ability to show the type of settlement (Paris, for example, is both a commune and a department as well as being a city), but this defaulted to 'total' if no 'settlement type' was presented in other articles (a trifling problem easily fixed with a single update). Yet I saw upon returning today that the contributor who had helped me with my changes (the template is locked and guarded because widely used) had been presented with that 'problem' with a completely incoherent explanation, and with that managed to get the template locked into displaying 'commune' with no other possibility (probably to prevent 'city' from being shown).
After yet further work because of this, the infobox now will display 'population' if the 'settlement type' is other, as Paris is, than a simple commune. This is a problem even more trifling, and other solutions are being worked on (and the 'urgency' shown today is odd (even ironic) in light of the months it spent broken). I'm not pleased with the manipulation that went around that work today, and I expect there will be no further similar attempts. Any further reverting is without cause, so if you have any further suggestions, please state your case clearly. THEPROMENADER✎✓22:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple other changes: The references after the city/unité urbaine/aire urbaine were 'breaking' the template's 'population density' calculation - it was commented there that the dates were 'already noted' (and the date shown was wrong: the numbers represent 2010 population; it was only published the year after (under the title "x area 2010 population")), but this made it impossible to leave a reference in the proper spot. There was room enough to do things correctly. Cheers. THEPROMENADER✎✓23:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update update: numbers will now appear on same line (no title) as "Area" and "Population" if "total type" not provided; "commune status" will show banner if filled, defauts to empty (no banner). Just waiting for some testing and inspections and then c'est bon. (buffing fingernails on shirt) THEPROMENADER✎✓14:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You LOVE controversies, don't you. This template is about more than just the commune/department of Paris, so it's best not to have any banner below the name "Paris". And the population figures ARE from the 2011 census (which was published not in 2011, but in 2014). Der Statistiker (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now the problem that still remains with the template is "Land" should be replaced with either "Commune" or "Municipal", and "Population" (the 2nd one) should be be replaced with either "Commune" or "Municipal". As it stands now it's pretty ambiguous. I've asked Frietjes to make those changes 3 times already. If the template wasn't locked I would have made those very simple changes long ago already. Templates didn't use to be locked in the past. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(looking to previous comment) I just noted that I had just fixed those problems (and provided examples on the template talk page), and they would have been fixed without your intervention, and you seem to be forgetting that you were completely ignoring the population 'squashing' problem (urban/metro population on top). I didn't see any attempt to fix anything anywhere, just demands - and some of those were asking that things be removed or made permanent (not an option) for incoherent reasons.
I see that my modification has been reverted yet again. Paris is both a commune and department, quite a particular status (and I provided links to both articles there) and I don't see any reason to 'hide' this. My bad for the statistics date - the unité urbaine and aire urbaine are indeed from 2010, though. Apologies. I'll deal with the template when my changes become 'live'. THEPROMENADER✎✓15:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we are not going to rehash things indefinitely. This talk page is turning into a soap. I'll repeat for the last time: this infobox is about more than the commune/department of Paris. It is about Paris as a commune/department, Paris as an urban area, and Paris as a metropolitan area (hence the three set of figures in the infobox), so it's best not to have any banner that says commune/department on top. But I'm all in favor, of course, of saying "Commune" or "Municipal" inside the infobox to specify clearly to the attention of the readers that the 105 km² and 2.2 million figures refer to the commune/municipality of Paris. Right now the wording "Land" and "Population" is ambiguous. People see a "land" area figure, and then an "urban" area figure. They can only be confused. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A simple thank you would be nice - the examples are there just to the right. But I'll answer all the same.
What, still that POV? We've had this discussion thousands of times before. There is a Paris Metropolitan Area article, as well as a Paris urban area one. No, wait, the latter links to the first now (?). Anyhow, this article is about Paris, which is a commune and a department. The suburbs are extensively mentioned here (although not in a very straightforward way), but they are not called "Paris", and we can't pretend they are. The French article doesn't, and there is very good reason why, but perhaps most English wikipedians don't know enough about Paris to know the difference (especially when we invent a familiar use of terms familiar to them to try to sell them this) - I see ignorance taken advantage of a lot here, and there would be no need for bullying and subterfuge if those behaving like this were promoting fact.
Blue Indigo brought up a damn good point - even if those trying to use Wikipedia's popularity to convince the world that "Paris" is "really" a skyscraper-filled metropolis manage to dissuade and bully any contributors daring to touch the article into submission to get their 'message' across, its divorce from reality will always draw people trying to fix it. How long is this to continue? It's been ten years under several names that this has been going on already, isn't that enough? And even when Grand Paris comes about, it still won't be called just "Paris". Enough already. THEPROMENADER✎✓17:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't see anybody trying to convince the world that Paris is a skyscraper-filled metropolis (even if it does have high-rises and even inside the city limit; so Paris is not a metropolis full of skyscrapers but it is not a metropolis without skyscrapers) and anyway skyscrapers are not the point here. Please stop to use this argument to discredited the editors who don't agree with you, this is ridiculous.
You can't act as if Paris and its suburbs were two different things which have nothing to do with each other, putting a strict border almost as impassable as Berlin wall in your mind. In reality you can't distinguish Paris and its suburbs because many things in Paris city limits can be only explain because Paris has suburbs. If you remove full mention of the suburbs and you can't make a good article about Paris because almost all the current functions and all the modern history of Paris can't be explained without the suburbs. So please, don't act as if the suburbs of Paris were a different world with no relevance in Paris article. Minato ku (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's pretending that the suburbs don't exist - they are largely covered in this article - it's a question of using the correct terminology. There's a certain resistance to that here. THEPROMENADER✎✓16:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see flame-wars are flaring up again. There is evidently a very long-standing POV difference here between two individuals or small groups of editors, and what I'm seeing is that neither of the two sides, in all these years, has shown much of a willingness to consider the possibility that the other side might have some point. If that doesn't change, and you guys turn out to be unable to have a rational discussion about this that involves taking the other side seriously, then more blocks will probably be unavoidable. What I suggest is, if you can't let go of this issue, formalize it into an RfC and then stand back from that and let others decide. However, since the core of the disagreement is apparently so abstract and keeps fanning out into various side issues (as seen last year in that fight over the infobox image) that before such an RfC can be run, you people need to narrow down and find a commonly accepted wording about what the actual core point of disagreement is. Can you formulate it as a question? Something like: "Should the scope of this article be treated in such a way that the term "Paris" can only refer to the administrative areas officially so named, with the outer districts only treated loosely as a side issue, or should the scope of the article include the entire city as a geographically defined urban area?" Is that it? I want you to come to an agreement about a mutually accepted formulation of this question, first thing. Fut.Perf.☼20:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no debate over the scope of the article, but it does try to rear its head from time to time. The exchange above was a misunderstanding of an earlier exchange, and that's quite understandable. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a debate about the scope of the article and this debate has been in Paris Talk page for years. Future Perfect at Sunrise has well resumed the core of the debate, the strict use of administrative city limit or an use of a more metropolitan view for Paris article. The question is right "Should the scope of this article be treated in such a way that the term "Paris" can only refer to the administrative areas officially so named, with the outer districts only treated loosely as a side issue, or should the scope of the article include the entire city as a geographically defined urban area?"
There is an other debate about the function or Heritage, Paris article tends to be more sided on heritage than on functionality of the city. Minato ku (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Future, "I see flame-wars are flaring up again. There is evidently a very long-standing POV difference here between two individuals or small groups of editors, and what I'm seeing is that neither of the two sides, in all these years, has shown much of a willingness to consider the possibility that the other side might have some point." Not so much POV from my viewpoint as a quality one. Did you take a look at the state of the religion section?? I want to assume good faith with editors on this but the article has without the shadow of a doubt degraded and any decent editor here would agree with me. If the quality of this isn't perked up in the next week or two I will be replacing with User:Dr. Blofeld/Paris 2 ♦ Dr. Blofeld11:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that quality issue is largely orthogonal to the POV issue I was trying to pinpoint, although there may be an interrelation insofar as the bad blood between the main POV opponents (Promenader and Statistiker) has been preventing them from collaborating more constructively on this (as evidenced in the sections below). What happened to the religion section? As far as I can see, there was a fairly brief but well-cited section at the time of the last GA promotion; by the time of the article protection last month, that had been shortened (don't know why and by whom) to a form that curiously didn't seem to mention any non-Christian religion at all [68]. Then, during the last few days, Statistiker moved that section up under the "demographics" heading and started reworking it; then Promenader decided to re-insert a duplicated new (but shorter) religion section near the place where it had been earlier, under his new "human resources" heading, then Siefkin started expanding both sections with a lot more material, in a well-intentioned attempt at adding more coverage of the non-Christian groups, but much of that material appears to have been unsourced and partly fragmentary (so I would guess what you point out as being sub-standard is probably mainly that); then Statistiker tried to re-merge these sections again (under his "demographics" heading). None of this is immediately related to the POV conflict between Statistiker and Promenader over the narrow or wider scope of the term "Paris", though the inability of these two to come to an agreement about where the section should be is probably fuelled by their old animosity; the presence of uncited stuff seems quite a separate issue. Fut.Perf.☼11:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was Metropolitan who moved Religion to Demographics (amongst many other things)[69]. Anyone would say that descriptions of Paris' churches don't belong there, and it was just left like that in spite of discussion about it, so I moved only the part of it not statistics it after a week had passed[70]. 13:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a pretty good summary of what's going on. I appreciate Dr. Blofeld's comments on quality, and I have been adding citations today and and working to make this section more representative and well sourced. most of the information comes directly from the French-language page, so I've been digging up additional sources. It's only been up in its present form for one day, so its not finished. I welcome input and text from other editors.SiefkinDR (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there was a POV issue, there would be no problem if everything was on the talk page. That is not the case. Discussing POV's is one thing, but ignoring discussion to force a POV by canvassing, reverting or moving another contributor's just-contributed work, edit-warring, bullying and belittling and dissuading and other subterfuges is quite another. The problem here is behaviour, not content. THEPROMENADER✎✓13:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fut.Perf.: about the religion stuff, this is how I can reconstruct its history (sorry if this is rather long and complex, but it's very illustrative of what's going on this article, and very interesting from a Metawiki point of view; I'm Der Stat by the way, you'll see my signature at the end if you have the courage to read all the paragraphs, lol).
Before Dr. Blofeld started editing the article last year, there was no mention of religion in the article: [71]. Dr. Blofeld then created a dedicated section about religion on July 2, 2013, but it was only an empty section calling for people to fill it: [72]. From what I can see, several editors started to fill this section mostly with a list of Catholic churches in Paris.
On July 4, 2013, User:Nvvchar from India made several edits in the religion section, and added content about non Christian cults, but his edits were merely describing the situation of religion in France at large, not in Paris or even the Paris Region, and the figures he cited referred to France, not Paris: [73]. The same day, Dr. Blofeld rewrote and shortened what Nvvchar had written in that section, but left the figures that referred to France at large and not Paris: [74]. The same day, Nvvchar added more data about other religions, but they again referred to France at large and not Paris (in fact he/she wrote in his/her edits: "data for Paris is not available separately"): [75].
On July 6, 2013, Dr. Blofeld removed the latest figures added by Nvvchar and rewrote Nvvchar's latest edit, but left the earlier figures that came from a nation-wide survey and did not refer to Paris or the Paris Region: [76].
On July 31, 2013, an unregistered IP address from the suburbs of Washington, DC rewrote parts of the religion section, but left the figures untouched: [77]. That same day, the French editor Superzoulou removed the citation from Le Monde that served as a reference for the religion figures (justification: "remove figures that are not about Paris"), but actually left the figures in the article despite the summary of his edit: [78]. 5 days later, Superzoulou realized he had forgotten to actually remove the figures, so he did remove them this time, with this justification: "forgot to remove the figures themselves (not about Paris)" : [79]. In this edit, Superzoulou also deleted one sentence in Dr. Blofeld's rewriting of Nvvchar's last edit which simply named the main religions in Paris without giving exact figures. This is the sentence: "There is a significant population of Muslims in Paris, partly attributed to the many Algerian and Tunisian immigrants who practice Islam, and a sizeable Jewish population, with the Grand Synagogue of Paris being the central location for worship." I do second Superzoulou's removal of a survey with figures that referred to France at large and not Paris proper, but he shouldn't have deleted that one sentence after the survey figures which simply named the main religions in Paris without figures (note, in parenthesis, that this sentence written by Dr. Blofeld on July 6, 2013, contained no reference/footnote at the end).
So on August 5, 2013, after Superzoulou's edit, the religion section stopped mentioning other religions than Catholicism : [80]. From what I can see, nobody bothered to reintroduce the sentence deleted by Superzoulou, and no one added content about the other religions after August 5, 2013.
Then on November 1, 2014, more than a year later, ThePromenader created a "Human resources" section within which he placed the religion section (now downgraded to sub-section of this "Human resources" section): [81]. The next day, Metropolitan, who was already working on a reorganization of the article's sections, and had talked about it on the talk page, proceeded with his reorganization of the sections of the article, and moved the religion subsection from the "Human resources" section to the "Demographics" section, as is the case in many other city articles (see for example London where religion in under demographics): [82].
The same day, ThePromenader contested in this talk page the fact that Metropolitan had placed the religion subsection in the Demographics section. Metropolitan explained his choice, and agreed that this subsection was poorly written and read like a heritage list of monuments, and should be rewritten to explain religions (plural) in Paris: see their two comments here: [83].
My attention to this subsection, which had never really interested me before, was drawn by their comments. I then started to work on that section to add the other religions present in Paris, and give some figures when they are available. So far what I've done is I've added the 1st paragraph of that subsection (see the 1st paragraph in the article, or here and here for the diffs), mentioning the other religions plus the last figures available from the 1872 census, and I'm working on some content for Judaism and Islam, but haven't had time to finish it yet.
On November 8, 2014, ThePromenader moved several subsections of the article to his "Human resources" section that he had created on November 1. ThePromenader gave no justification or summary edit for these moves (although his disapproval of Metropolitan's earlier reorganization of the article's sections was obvious on the talk page, so it's probably the reason for his Nov. 8 edit): [84]. As a result of this edit, he recreated a religion subsection inside his "Human resources" section, where he moved the list of Catholic churches, and left the rest of the religion subsection in the "Demographics" section. The article now had two religion subsections.
SiefkinDR then started to add content in the religion subsection of the "Human resources" section, notably by adding religious buildings from other creeds. On November 9, I remerged the two religion subsections inside the Demographics section, and left the content added by SiefkinDR within it totally intact: [85]. I must point out that I actually didn't know it was ThePromenader who had (re)created the religion section in the "Human resources" section, since his edit contained no edit summary and I don't check each and every edit in this article. In fact, to be honest, I didn't even know this "Human resources" section had been created by ThePromenader until doing this thorough research of the article's history that I've done now to write this. I realized there was a duplicate religion subsection after seeing the several edits made there by SiefkinDR, and that's how I then merged them.
It's fascinating really to check in detail the history of the article and to see the editing processes at work. Lots of different people with different motives and who don't necessarily understand each other, especially when a time lag is involved. What would be REALLY great is if some editors would stop questioning the motivations of other editors (i.e. stop arguing or even thinking that they have evil ulterior motives). Errare humanum est, as the old Latin saying goes. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, "I think it would be wise to re-arrange the contents. I will probably make a proposal in the upcoming days."[86] was the 'announcement' made on the 29th of October. Reverting a day's work of three contributors, and enforcing that revert, (and pointedly not replacing the work of one), is not a "proposal". There were many propositions already being discussed - all ignored. THEPROMENADER✎✓13:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to attribute the quote to its owner. I'm not the one who wrote this "I think it would be wise..." sentence or who "reverted a day's work of three contributors". If you make accusations against another editor (which, in parenthesis, is now forbidden), you have to name that editor and not imply that it is me. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a play-by-play drowning of discussion in an interpretation of events ("this is what you should see!") is very helpful: the edits should speak for themselves, if they are ever examined to any depth. What's clear is that versions were forcibly imposed while talk-page discussion was ignored. THEPROMENADER✎✓15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also forgotten in the 'synopsis': discussion about this (ignored) had been on the talk-page since more than a week, and the move was discussed and partly approved (save the sports section, now moved out of there because to discussion). On the other hand, the (undiscussed) moving of the 'religion' section back to the demography section where it had already been criticised was roundly and soundly condemned. But there it sits still, as proof that bullying works. THEPROMENADER✎✓15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Human resources section
Putting the 'museums' in 'education', 'religion' in 'demographics' and 'media' in 'economy' didn't even make sense, so I've regrouped them into a "Human resources" section (that also can be found in the New York City article, if appeals like this must be made). It just makes sense. Firefighting and Police are other possible additions to this section sorely missing from the article. If you have any issues with this, please leave them here. THEPROMENADER✎✓07:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I've left the more statistical part of religion in the demography section - the information about Paris' churches had no place there. Cheers. THEPROMENADER✎✓07:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it would be helpful to rewrite "Religion" as "religion" and not "churches" - as it is, it wasn't suitable under the "religion" title in the architecture or the demography section. The "religion" in the statistics section is quite correctly titled, as it is but statistics on the Paris agglomeration's religiosity. THEPROMENADER✎✓08:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also also, the "Media" in the New York City article is about the economic sector (it makes a sizable part of the city's economy, and many of the nation's network's head offices are there); this article's 'media' was not at all written in that context (even after its move), although 40% of the Paris region's industry is in printing and publishing[88]. If you want to talk about it there (if it isn't talked about already), rewrite it first (and don't just move it for the WP:POINT of it). THEPROMENADER✎✓08:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the general sense of what Promenader has done; media doesn't really belong under economy, nor museums in education. I would create, as Promenaders suggests, a different group that could also various urban services, such as the police. I would give media its own section, and put museums and libraries under culture. I think sports should probably have its own place. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name of the section is debatable, it's just the logic of it all that I'd like to 'bracket': "centres of human activity" or perhaps "human services". I'm not suggesting titles (those are awkward at best), I'm just trying to describe it. THEPROMENADER✎✓10:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR:, 'Sports' is in its own section now. Not so sure about the rest... if media were to have a section of its own, I think it should be expanded a bit, there's a lot of press in this town. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Median Income across France's Île-de-Francerégion, 2010Median income in the petite couronne inner Paris suburb departements of the Île-de-France.
Human resources designate workforce or manpower. There is simply no logic to group under such a label things as different as healthcare, education, media and a second religion section, different from the one of demographics. I don't understand at all how we can think otherwise, there is just no rational here. This just looks like a lazy catch-all section. Metropolitan (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's one use of that phrase; there are others. What it's called is not important as long as the name fits the logic of that grouping. See the New York City article for another example of this logic - especially since that article has been cited here as an example for everything else. THEPROMENADER✎✓15:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR:, I've just completed a map (shown here) I'd like to add to the Demography section, but with the section the way it is, it's going to be more of a mess. Do let me know when you're going to move your recent additions. THEPROMENADER✎✓10:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here I used it to illustrate how the city's socio-economic distribution/makeup extends well into its suburbs as a unique urban tissue/trend. It could be useful in many places, that's why I made it. THEPROMENADER✎✓13:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second Minato Ku. The map should be in the economy section. But wasn't the "income" subsection in the "economy" section? Also, the name of the region is "Paris Region" in English (various references for this are given in the lede of the article). Der Statistiker (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two other comments: the map is very interesting, but too large (I mean it covers a territory too large), so it's hard to see the exact dividing line between rich and poor at the center of the metro area when the map is seen as a thumbnail (most people won't bother to open the map in a separate window). 1. In my opinion, it would be better to zoon in the map, i.e. remove the rural fringes outside the urban area proper, which are not really interesting anyway because many rural communes there have no data. So it would be best to crop the map at the limits of the urban area (unité urbaine). 2. Also, the "75 Paris" text in the center hides the colors inside the city of Paris. It's impossible to distinguish the colors inside the city of Paris when the map is viewed as thumbnail. It would be best either to use different (and smaller) fonts, or to put this text elsewhere, with an arrow pointing to the City of Paris. Meine zwei Pfennige. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made it to be looked at at about the size it is (or larger), as a visual reference that it would take paragraphs of text to describe. A petite couronne map would require a more detailed dataset; perhaps at a later date. "Paris region" is fine in a colloquial or vague or in-text reference to the region, but its Île-de-France name is best suited for maps about the region itself, like this one. THEPROMENADER✎✓14:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, I would crop the map like this. Also, are you sure about your figures? Fontainebleau should have a rather high income per inhabitant, but it appears with a low income per inhabitant on your map. Last but not least, INSEE has now published the 2011 income figures, so the map should be updated and use the 2011 figures: [89]. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem comes from your color code. You've used 3 colors for above the median, and only 2 for below the median, so its gives the wrong impression that some communes above the median are actually poor. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you've copied an outdated map from INSEE. Interesting... First of all there are copyright problems. You CANNOT copy a map from INSEE. This will be reported to the admins at Wikimedia Commons if the map is not changed so as not to use the same color code and scale as INSEE. They are very very strict with copyright over there. The map should be made entirely by you, not copied from INSEE. Problem #2: the map is outdated. I pointed out to you with a link that we now have the 2011 set of figures for incomes at the commune level, something that you have disdainfully ignored. Problem #3: already mentioned above, it makes some rich communes appear as poor. If INSEE used such a crappy color scale, that's no reason to slavishly copy them and do as bad as them. Der Statistiker (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? How can one accuse me of copying and at the same time 'not copying correctly' (aka 'to my taste')? I made the data and colors match theirs to show what they wanted to show - I make maps, but I am not a statistician. You can see in my second version that I already changed the colours to make the poor less obvious (as per the 'orders' given). But sure, disrupt everyone just because it is not to your taste. THEPROMENADER✎✓07:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that data is public domain, yet all the same sourced in the map (and otherwise how could you have it?) - this accusation is disingenuous on so many levels. Yet I will modify the colour scheme, since that is monsieur's only possible point of contention. THEPROMENADER✎✓08:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you have obviously misunderstood the map - there is indeed a huge disparity in the Paris region. I'm not going to mask that. I already did by making the colors more gradual. THEPROMENADER✎✓07:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not going to cut out the poorer departments and frame the map just to show the richer ones ; )
This centres on the petite couronne (and who cares what it's called, only the visual area covered is important), and advertising for the metropole du Grand Paris, to boot! THEPROMENADER✎✓17:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why limiting the map to the petite couronne? (the borders of the Métropole du Grand Paris won't be those of the petite couronne in any case) The colors should be clearly visible on both sides of the petite couronne "border", as in my example above. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and why have you once again removed the table of countries/territories of birth? Your insistence on hiding the ethnic diversity of Paris is suspect, to say the least. I must warn you that a further removal of this table will lead to a notification at AN/I. Fair is fair. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I'm sure someone can use it, and, after thought I'll be uploading versions without titles, too, so that other languages can use them. "Your insistance on hiding the ethnic diversity of Paris is suspect" - what does that even mean, am I being called a racist? The reason for its removal was in my edit commentary. THEPROMENADER✎✓05:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And "Better placement of maps and tables"[91] isn't an edit comment that announces that the table was replaced. And, again, reverting a contributor's work (in this case, mine and Blue Indigo's) just after they do it is a stalking form of bullying. If you don't like a just-made edit, take it to the talk page; the editor who made the changes is sure to be still around, so you'll be sure to get an answer. Just reverting and complaining (in accusatory tones) post-revert is counterproductive and disruptive. THEPROMENADER✎✓06:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Urban tissue/Urban function
This article has very little about the city's urban growth, and this is where I began working a couple weeks ago (in an ignored (in light of the latest undiscussed edit-war-imposed restructuring) topic I opened Here and Here). This is the proposition I made: - this is largely a translation from the French article (with updated statistics), and it gives us a clear idea about the city's structure, urban growth and its demographic and socio-economic intertwinement with its suburban urban tissue. But, structured the way the article is, there is no place to put this information. Thoughts on my proposition? I've added a couple sections from here to show how it all fits together[92]. THEPROMENADER✎✓09:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section[93] could very well go into the demography section, but I wanted it to be closer-attached to the description of Paris itself - the architecture section here. They are complimentary, and both reference the same areas and same Paris-suburbs urban expansion past its 1860 limits. Urban sociology is pertinent, too, as it describes the overall city socio-economics situation (without too many statistics). Housing was complimentary to this too. In short, I like the clarity of the French article around this [94], and most all of the proposed writ was translated from there. THEPROMENADER✎✓16:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of this would fit quite well under an "Urban Geography" section. Therein could be the subsections "Paris and its Suburbs" (translated from French article, almost done), "Urban sociology" (ditto - wealth distribution, housing, etc) and the existing "demographics" section (pure statistics). The French article does all this under a unique "Urbanism" main section, but apparently English-speakers don't understand that word. THEPROMENADER✎✓11:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining peace, calm and respect
As Blue Indigo mentioned above, some very good editors have been reluctant to contribute recently because of the possibility that their hard work would suddenly disappear without explanation because one of the other editors didn't agree with it. A number of us have had the very unpleasant experience of looking at the article one morning and finding that another had deleted our hard and long work, without any explanation or discussion. I think it's important that we show respect to the serious work of all editors.
Therefore I propose that no major deletions (anything beyond deleting vandalism or nonsense) should be made without prior notice on the talk page and giving the possibility of discussion. . Does anyone disagree with this? SiefkinDR (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this article to stay the mess it is... with double sections everywhere such as what you did for religion (the second one being way too detailed for a lead article but whatever). It's your choice. Metropolitan (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is a temporary measure because of an unannounced rewrite/revert and another contributor's quickly supporting this by adding content that made it unsuitable anywhere else (even though it was unsuitable where it was moved to). This is exactly the type of 'editing' that Siefkin is referring to. THEPROMENADER✎✓15:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...right back to the Demographics section where part of it was moved from, where anyone would say it is misplaced (unless it is just statistics). I pointed this out several times over the past days, but this is ignored; Siefkin and I were even discussing it, and you all were welcome to join the conversation, but you didn't, and to add to it, I'm pointedly not being adressed here. Siefkin expanded the section where it was this morning (meaning that he agreed to its placement), and right away his work is moved to join the first contested move (to "confirm" it), again in ignoring all ongoing discussion and already-voiced contestation. This sort of editing is but disruptive WP:POINT, and is very indicative of WP:OWN, and even WP:BATTLEGROUND, as those tag-team 'enforcements' pointedly defy not only discussion and the already-voiced opinion of other contributors, but logic. This move had everything but article quality in mind. THEPROMENADER✎✓17:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you moved the text I had added today fwithout any prior discussion or notice on the talk page. It is about religious activity in France, not about demographics, and I'm not sure that it really belongs in the demographics section. That would have been something to discuss with other editors. The only demographic statistics in the section are more than one hundred years old, and I think they're probably very out of date now.
As to Metropolitan's comments that the text is too long, it's taken from the French Wikipedia Paris article, and it seems to be the basic information one wants to know about religious activity in a city. Again, this would have been something to discuss on this page.
I really wish all editors here would treat the work of other editors with respect, and not make large changes without prior discussion or consolation with their colleagues.SiefkinDR (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compromises have to be made. It's not entirely demographic (although it's going to become a bit more demographic once you guys leave me time enough to make the edits I was planning to make ;)), but it's better to discuss religion in one section instead of two. That's common sense. So yeah, we have a bit of monuments in the demographic section, but I'll reestablish a balance by adding more... statistical figures (hearing some people shuddering here...). As for the 1872 census, it's the last serious figures we have, and they are interesting to give a historical context (I'll build on it for each single religion with more recent data). Der Statistiker (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'hurry' here, there was no need nor call to behave like that, point. Compromise is over content (that's what the talk page is for), not so that discussion-ignoring contributors will stop reverting/maligning/moving other-contributor contributions at their whim. Especially when that contributor just finished working on them. That's disruptive, and look at the result. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who on earth wrote the demographics section, the religion in particular. It's an absolute shambles. Entire sub sections with just a few stubby unsourced words. If this article isn't whipped into better shape within the next 2 weeks I'll be restoring to July 2013 version without question. Can you all just please STOP making a hash of things until we can decide the best course of action here? It looks to be getting worse, not better. ♦ Dr. Blofeld20:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editing of this new section on religious life in Paris today had just begun and was there for less than a day when Der Statistiker moved it, without notice, to his own section on demographics. The text here comes from the Website of the Archdiocese of Paris and from the French language article; it is all sourced, but the citations hadn't been added yet when it was seized and moved. This section is not intended to be historical overview of religion in Paris (that would be a good article by itself); it's going to be a brief overview of the religious life and institutions in the city today. I propose that it be moved out of demographics back to where it was.
Der Statistiker, again I would ask that you consult with other editors before, rather than after, you make major changes or move their work.SiefkinDR (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section seems quite less statistic-y than it was before, it could be moved as a whole (and actually be quite informative as a section), but this is up to you: I can comment on any bad behaviour, but we're no tag-team, and this is your call. THEPROMENADER✎✓08:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need a summary of the religious buildings in Paris divided by religious ? The presentation of the religious buildings could just only be few paragraphs. PS: Panthéon is not a church or a religious building. Minato ku (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the religion section (save the statistical part that can be merged with the rest of the statistics there) has no place in the demography section. Please remove it from there. THEPROMENADER✎✓10:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved to its own section until it's decided where it's going - anywhere is better than where it was, and I'm not the only one who was complaining about this. THEPROMENADER✎✓17:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Placing of images
Right side vs left side: to pick the right spot for an image, we must pay attention to details in image itself so that it does not look weird.
1. Infrastructure:
Metro at rush hour should be placed at the
left: where it is now, the crowd seems to be pushing right out of the article.
2. Literature:
Victor Hugo & Jean-Paul Sartre:
right: VH should be put back on the right, where he used to be;
left: JPS should go to the left: right now, he is looking outside the frame of the article.
3. SportsTour de France, same reason that given for metro crowd & Sartre:
I'm going to hijack your thread, Indigo Blue, to bring up a question raised with Siefkin earlier: What is an 'ideal' image size, does anyone have any clue? The difference between two of my laptops (a difference of ~200px resolution) already makes a difference (as is those vast fields of white left by 'hanging' images and the TOC). I imagine that Wikipedia for mobile devices takes care of this itself, so I'll only worry about 'real' computers here.
I've "schmoozed" (sticking to without really doing it) to an infobox-width-size for righthand images (285px wide) and 450px-wide for horizontal images, and the lefthand images I've made slightly smaller, but have no idea what a 'good' size for that is... the only ideal I've kept in mind is keeping things uniform within a visible section so that things seem 'homogenous' while scrolling through the article. THEPROMENADER✎✓22:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics section
I was sourcing the 'Urban Sociology' and 'Paris and its Suburbs' sections I'm working on in my sandbox (already mentioned mainte times above) when I looked at the demographics section I had pasted there (from the article) for flow/structure purposes: Much of its English was repetitive, over-wordy or simply didn't make sense, its writ often didn't correspond to the sources provided, unneeded linguistic acrobatics to highlight a certain term almost doubled the text volume, many of its affirmations were unsourced, and a graph there (made by a certain Hardouin ; ) didn't have sources either (there was no aire urbaine in the 1970's!) and is probably WP:OR. I speak in past tense because I made a first wave of corrections: I didn't look to see who is the author of this, but whenever I get around to inserting the rest, if it is not corrected, I will be inserting the corrected version too, please find it here.THEPROMENADER✎✓21:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you've mentioned them "many times" doesn't mean they are accepted by other editors. Every city article has a "Demographics" section, and now suddenly you want to downgrade this section as a sub-section in an "Urban geography" section of your own. That plus some vague insinuations of original research, threats of removing charts and tables from the article. Promenader, you're at your worst again! With reams of edits here and elsewhere every day that other editors don't have time or patience to follow. I swear I will open a complaint at AN/I if you don't stop with your antagonistic and bullying attitude that is most of all detrimental to this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about something in my sandbox; I was done with it and about to delete it when I noticed it. What's with the inventive tu quoque accusations? Please do open an ANI ! THEPROMENADER✎✓05:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And why no comment about the revisions I called attention to and linked to? Oh, a "have a look here" would have been more inviting for sure. I'll fix that. THEPROMENADER✎✓05:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm not in the habit of eliminating other contributors work without announcing my intentions well ahead of time - that's what the talk page is for, and personal accusations disrupt it - if it's personal, take it to ANI. And again, please do. THEPROMENADER✎✓05:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to observe that Der Statistiker a few days ago removed all of my text about the current religious life in Paris from the section where I had written it, and moved it, without notice or discussion, to his section on demography, though it was not about demography at all. I respect the very much the work of both Der Statistiker and Promenader to this article; both have made great contributions. I hope we can bring dispute to an end without any more name-calling. Please, everybody, do not make major changes without previous notice and chance for discussion by other editors. Respect the work of others, stop the name-callling and lets get on with improving the article,SiefkinDR (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SiefkinDR: none of the religious content you wrote was deleted, and you know it. Promenader DELETES content from the article, and intends to delete some more, including useful tables and graphs that nobody else has a problem with. This is a major difference. There would be no "dispute" if he didn't display such an antagonistic behavior. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to make such direct accusations, that's for ANI, not here. Not only is that not true, that's disruptive. But please, go ahead. Please. Really, please.
In a normal editing atmosphere, a lack of reply to a proposition means a lack of opposition, especially when past contributors have been invited to the discussion if it is a major major rewrite.
Only in a twisted, corrupted bully-ruled editing atmosphere should contributors fear having their work deleted/reverted "because it's still being discussed" (after no reply to their talk-page proposition) AND fear having their work reverted "because it wasn't discussed first" - people who make proclamations like "The fact that you've mentioned them "many times" doesn't mean they are accepted by other editors" are creators of that type of atmosphere... especially when they don't partake in talk-page discussions for reasons other than to "justify" reverts (and add insult to the anger at them) and to attempt to slander other contributors who 'dare' question them.
Der Statistiker: I never said you deleted it, I said you moved it without notice or discussion to a completely different section, where I didn't think it belonged. but I'm not going to get into a long and pointless argument with you. I just wish this kind of bickering and accusations would stop; no more of this: "you do this, and you know it..." I just want to work on the article in a calm atmosphere, update outdated statistics, add new information and sources, links and sources, and improve the quality of the what we're giving our readers, without fear that anything I write will suddenly be deleted or moved somewhere else without any notice or chance for discussion. I don't see why we can't do this without all the bickering and accusations. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promenader and Statistiker: stop it, immediately. I ought to have been blocking you both by this point, for the renewed climate of hostility that has erupted again over the last two-three days, but I still thought I'd hold off to see how things develop. Now, you need to stop hacking on each other again and just work out how to solve the content issue. Just do a freaking RfC, will you? Or better still, two seperate RfCs. (And then, for heaven's sake, stand back from debating the issue yourselves. After you've posed the question to others, let others answer it and then go with that.) So, what are the questions? I see one very simple editorial one for which opinions ought to be easy enough to gauge: How should the demographics section be structured, where should it stand in the article structure, and where should the treatment of religion be? The other one, judging from what Promenader says about his planned re-write of the remaining demographics parts, seems to be another reiteration of that private POV feud between just you two, which few other editors have shown much interest in but which appears to keep bringing you two to the edge of war continuously: the conceptural question of what the term "Paris" stands for. If I compare the most recent version of the Demographics section here, and Promenader's sandbox version, I see that the most salient differences (apart from some added refs and unfortunately also some added grammar mistakes and poor diction) mainly consist of Promenader omitting several instances of the qualifier "city proper", as if to drive home the point that the term "Paris" alone can only be understood in that sense. So, are you two going to disagree about that? If yes, I expect you two to do nothing else but to work out a mutually acceptable wording for a question to be asked about this in another RfC, from now on. Fut.Perf.☼16:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you misunderstand. I'm not proposing a rewrite of anything, I'm pointing out problems to be corrected, and inviting whoever wrote that section to fix it and provide sources - this has to be done, one way or another, and if my motives were any other, I wouldn't have announced it here for discussion. I was even about to eliminate the one I had put in my sandbox (I had put there to avoid repetition in the section I am working on) when I noticed those problems and half-assed highlighted them (it's my sandbox, not the article!). My contention is with editing behaviour, and I'm not the only one to complain. Please, by all means bring content issues to the talk-page - that's what everyone is asking!
My edits to the article (remaining) are next to nil [95], and my intervention here has been practically talk-page only, and yes, complaining about the treatment of other contributors. Perhaps after years of flame wars (most of them during my absence) and two topic-ban reqests from different contributors and several ANI cases to examine, there's something worthy of investigation here? But right, it's my fault for sticking up for myself and other contributors. THEPROMENADER✎✓17:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: actually, it's nothing but sticking up for other contributors at this point. But for my pains I've been called an elitist intellectual wannabe racist plagiarist just over the past few days - please find any similar accusations or behaviour from me. And isn't it odd that these come from the very person who would come running for you for you to apply your rule against that (even when it wasn't broken)? There's something very very wrong here, Sunshine, and you won't see it if you just judge everything on its 'noise level'. The complaining is about something. THEPROMENADER✎✓17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Believe me when I say I generally couldn't give a hyena's left nipple about what Der Stat chooses to spend his time on on here, and believe me when I say I'm completely neutral on Paris, it wasn't an article I even chose to develop, it was helping out Gilderien. My main concern really is quality. Sniping on here asideand any POV issues you perceive between the others, can you genuinely say that certain interests in this article are improving it or degrading it? I trust you as an experienced editor here to know what quality writing entails.You can't honestly believe that Der Stat is being entirely productive here. There's an argument for perhaps a little more detail for demographics, but merging religion and splitting into unsourced half stub section is completely unacceptable. The article is a shambles. The best solution would be to restore to the version where it was at least technically fairly decent and lock it until editors can mainly agree on changes. Even Tim riley has said this.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, I fully respect your concerns about quality, but I see it as something mostly orthogonal to the fights I'm trying to contain here. We just had the timeline of events listed up a few sections above; not much of what you describe as "merging religion and splitting into unsourced half stub section" was done by Statistiker, was it? The quality issues could easily be worked out if people weren't at each other's throats all the time. Fut.Perf.☼18:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page - even the comments just above - is filled with complaints about the removal/modification of just-contributed edits without/in ignoring prior discussion. Often those edits were the result of talk-page discussion. I have contributed practically zero to the article; my role here has been only seconding those complaints. The issues that you are making central are not central - it is the lack of respect for/bullying other contributors that is, and this disrespect has nothing to do with me. I've been offering nothing but talk-page support, but even this is being treated as an 'invasion'... I've been article-absent since years, and I only come here only after there's a problem, and always the same one... really, you don't see a trend here? THEPROMENADER✎✓19:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To get back in the content of the article, almost every cities have a section about demography but few have a separate sections about religious. Rome has a separate section about religion because it is the mother city of catholicism, home the vatican. but I don't see why Paris should have a section about religion, especially if this section is mostly a summary of religous buildings.
This shows one of the major flaw of this Paris article, it look like too much like a summary of landmarks than a real explanation of the working structure of Paris (too touristy). Minato ku (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
French Wikipedia Paris on religion, refers to it, not as "Religion", but as "Culte":
In section n° 6 titled: Population et société, containing 8 sub-sections, Culte is 6.7:
Italian Wikipedia on Roma: religion referred to as Religione, within section 4. titled Società, is in sub-section 4.4 Religione, and treats subject very much like that in fr.wiki.
What I am driving at: could not there be two different manners to treat the subject and both be acceptable? It thus becomes a choice between the contributors to pick the one the majority rather have, the one that flows better within the article?
We often say here that we should not copy others, but we keep on referring to fr.wiki, as if it should be followed exactly. Then we turn around & criticize the size of some of its sections & amputate ours.
Also the argument that Rome has a special section on religion because of the importance of Catholicism there: Catholicism has been as important in France, said to be La fille aînée de l'Église. It is not anymore, but the buildings remain, and it is tourists who are filling the catholic churches, not so much the French dutifully going to church on Sunday. However, religion in Paris, and in France in general, is very important to those who are not Catholic.
So, the subject cannot be ignored or summarized to a point that it becomes meaningless. It has its place either in its own section, or as a sub in a main section, with mention of most important lieux du culte. The material is here!
As suggested/ordered earlier, this should be discussed & decided upon right on this page - every detail of it.
Fut.Perf., please be patient: you can't keep putting members of our crew under house arrest... while the rest of the gang watches the show.
I agree with Blue Indigo's comments above. Religion falls under demographics in several other articles because those articles have specific demographic information about church membership, complete with tables, which the Paris article does not. As Der Statistiker rightly points out, there is no current reliable information on church membership. This section is about churches and religious life in Paris today. A church, not a museum, is the most visited monument in Paris today. They play an important role in the life of Paris today, and I believe merit a separate section of the article.
If we are going by fr.wiki article which, I imagine, uses INSEE as reference, statistics on religion & race are not going to be found, because, among others, questions on religion, race & ethnic background are not allowed in census (recensement de la population), which is done by INSEE. However, such data can be obtained from organisms such as the CSA, Ifop, INED, in France, and the CIA, State Department & Pew Research Center, in the US.
Also to be noted, fr.wiki on Religion in France begins with the sentence: "La France est un État laïc depuis la loi de séparation des Églises et de l'État du 9 décembre 1905." This might be the reason fr.wiki does not have a section on religion per se, but transfers the subject to subsection "culte", with list of religious buildings (lieux de culte), treating it more like it would a list of monuments, museums & exotic restaurants found in Paris.
Religion is a personal matter. In case it needs to be recalled, throughout its long history & up to a very recent past, France has experienced harsh moments because of its imposition of one religion and discrimination against others with the use of indiscriminate profiling.
I don't agree with Minatu Ku's insistence that the article should have less about this and less about that. I don't see how taking information away improves the article. Much of the information in the article on contemporary life is out of date. If you think it needs more about modern Paris, don't criticize, please contribute! SiefkinDR (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Minato ku and Der Statistiker who both, throughout this Talk page, have used the term tourist, tourism, or touristy pejoratively in their description of the contents of the Paris article, implying there is too deep an interest in the culture or locations visited, and therefore similar to a "tourist guide" as opposed to representing the "real Paris". This was the same diatribe used above in relation to the disputed photomontage of the lede. This article remains, in my opinion (even at the present time), one of the best encyclopedic articles (GA-Class) here at Wikipedia. Coldcreation (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to leave a comment here about Minatu Ku's opinion that this article is too touristy. However, both Siefkin & Coldcreation have expressed my view much better than I could :)
With his impeccable sense of History & Tourismus, von Choltitz, even at the risk of being court-martialed & worse, refused to "remove" the great monuments of Paris.
The "tourist" section is short enough for now ; ) On the other hand, the Demographics section problems I opened this section for have yet to be corrected or commented on. THEPROMENADER✎✓13:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those answers are representative of the tourist's view, it is important to speak about religion, not because of the population religiousness but because the most visited monument is a church. Notre Dame is a major place of Paris just because it is the most visited monument by tourists. All of this reflects the idea that it is tourists who define the city of Paris and not its inhabitants and as a Parisian, I strongly desagree with this idea.
I would like to begin updating some of the statistics in the Economy section with more current data from INSEE. Comments and help are most welcome! SiefkinDR (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no more recent figure than 2012 for regional GDP stats.
Comparing the GDP per capita of Paris region with the one of Hamburg or Brussels is comparing apole with oranges. This is comparisons of a metropolitan area compared with inner part of two others. GDP are calculated at work place, smaller is the area you take around the city center and higher is the GDP per capita because of the high influx of commuters. Same about comparing Paris region with North-Rhein Westphalia, Paris is just one big metropolitan area (the rest is nothing) while NRW is a big région made of several big cities.
I have also seen that mention of Paris economic importance have been deleted. Paris has one of largest metropolitan GDP in world, we should see this information instead of apples and oranges comparisons with other European lands. Minato ku (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Paris region has one of the largest GDPs in the world - statistics for economy are taken in communes, départements, and régions, not in any aire urbaine. You have to state where the figures come from, otherwise the claim is not verifiable. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I do agree with the other-country-comparison not-very-usefulness; only someone familiar with statistics would understand that. I think there was a "if it were a country, the IDF would be the 'x' biggest country in the world' phrase in there; it's rather trumpety (but information value?), but understandable. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Minato Ku; I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear enough: The comparison between the economy of the Paris Region and North-Rhine Westphalia is not my invention, its made by INSEE, the recognized source of statistics for France. It is not "apples and oranges," it is regions in Europe. the GDP figure from INSEE in the article refers to the Paris region, that is, the Ile-De-France, not to the Metropolitan Area. There is no GDP figure for the Paris Metropolitan Area. I hope this is more clear.SiefkinDR (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear fellow editors: Actually, I'm happy to take out the comparison with North-Rhine Westphalia if other editors don't like it. As Promenader says, there's more than a little hint of boasting to compare the Paris region with different countries; it isn't a country. I just put in in because that was the comparison INSEE used. Thoughts? In or out?SiefkinDR (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between Paris region and Paris metropolitan are is quite light (IDF: 11.85 million, Paris AU: 12.3 million). Few hundred thousand inhabitants, a difference of 3.8%. The difference will be even lower for the GDP because the far-flung areas have low number of jobs and thus a low GDP (GDP are calculated at work place). This means that the GDP of Ile de France and Paris metropolitan area is almost the same. So yes, the Ile de France GDP is approximately the GDP of Paris metropolitan area.
North Rhine-Westphalia is a big region (34.084 km², larger than Belgium) made of several distinct cities, Cologne, Dusseldof, Münster, the Rurh area, Aarhen, Wuppertal... Ile-de-France is nothing more than a big centralized metropolitan area. Comparing Ile de France with North Rhine-Westphalia is like comparing apples with oranges. It is not because both share the same "region" distinction that they are comparable, at least not in this section and not without serious explanation. It is better to have no comparison than a flawed comparison that will mislead readers.
PS: Note that I have deleted the mention of the GDP per capita in the income part of the economic section. The GDP per capita is not the income of the population, it is the economic production divided by the total population (higher GDP per capita does not necessarily means higher income).Minato ku (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Minato ku (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how 'similar' they are, they're two completely different things. The thing to be noted here is that Wikipedia is not an essay and has strict rules against WP:OR (theorising) - just make the text terminology match the sources, that's the entire point of Wikipedia.
That aside, I think statistical comparisons are best understood by statisticians ... and if the compared-to city isn't known to the reader, that doesn't help much either. THEPROMENADER✎✓03:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, my point was for this discussion in the talk page about removing the mention of North Rhine-Westphalia because it was not comparable with Ile de France. It was not about writing in the article that Ile de France GDP is the GDP of Paris metropolitan area.
While Wikipedia is not an essay, I think that it should not be a just a simple copy past of any information found all over the web, not matter the relevance. Editors must use their brains to use correctly the information and see the relevance of sources. Minato ku (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what editors 'must' not do, please read WP:NOESSAY.
It's boring, I know, but there are strict rules about this because there are too many people trying to use Wikipedia's popularity to make personal opinions or hypothesi seem 'true'; anything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable and from a reliable source. And yes, the web can be a piss-poor source, that's why GA articles can use web citations but FA article criteria frowns on them. And the Paris article just lost its GA status, by the way. THEPROMENADER✎✓06:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After having read the Economy section, a question popped in my mind: What land area is this article supposed to cover?
Sticking to my "marotte" that this article on the city of Paris, should be on Paris intra muros, not on its suburbs, not on Île-de-France, not on Paris region, not on Grand Paris, not on Paris Metropolitan Area, why is so much information on those? Most of the statistics on economy concern the Parisian region - which encompasses a lot of land beyond the périphérique. In addition to Paris, that region contains 412 communes. Most people working in that ring around Paris do not live in Paris intra muros, but in the banlieue, in these 412 communes.
The section begins with the sentence:
"The Paris Region is France's premier centre of economic activity, and with a 2012 GDP of €612 billion (US$760 billion)[9][116] In 2011 its GDP ranked second among the regions of Europe,..."
Its last two paragraphs are:
"In the Paris Region, the major industry is the manufacture of materials for transport, mainly automobiles, aircraft and trains. In the region 800 companies and 100,000 salaried workers are engaged in aerospace; though this number has been falling in recent years as jobs moved outside the Region. Automobile manufacturing engages another 100,000 workers in 400 firms, though this number has also been declining in recent years; a major Citroen assembly plant in Aulnay-sous-Bois closed in 2014, with the loss of 3,300 jobs. Another important employer in the Paris Region is a new sector, the eco-industry, which also employs about one hundred thousand workers.[122]"
The Department of Hauts-de-Seine, where La Defense is located, is the major center for finance and insurance, as well as scientific research. 144,600 employees are concentrated in La Defense alone. the The audiovisual sector is centered in the Seine-Saint-Denis department, with 200 firms and the ten major film studios. In the Yvelines Department, automobiles are the main industry, with 33,000 employees and major plants of Renault and PSA-Citroen. The Essonne Department specializes in science and technology, while the main industry of Val-de-Marne, where the wholesale market of Rungis is located, is food processing and beverages.[122]"
Same with "Income": with opening sentence stating: "The GDP per capita in the Île-de-France region... ", details are given both for Île-de-France & Paris.
My question: Is the article with title "Paris" on the "city of Paris" or on the "Paris region", "Paris Metropolitan Area", "Île-de-France", while all of those have or should have their own article?
I have no objection of mention being made of activities beyond the périphérique in this article, but this is really too much off, too much "Paris extra muros".
I can't tell you how many times this has become an argument before. But I'll try to put it simply.
This is an article on the city of Paris. The city of Paris has precise administrative limits; France's interlocked commune system makes any alternative impossible. And the 'city of Paris' is Paris. But...
Paris' urban tissue is one with that of its surrounding communes, but this urban tissue is referred to, as a whole, as the Paris agglomeration (it is an expression very commonly used here, and the INSEE often refers to it too), or, more statistics-technically, the urban unit, or if we would like to appeal to other-country usage, urban area. There was a French agglomération Parisienne article, but now it redirects to unité urbaine... correct, but odd.
Outside of that is the Île-de-France, or more familiarly, the 'Paris Region' ('région Parisienne') called that because it actually was called that until 1968, and the name stuck... it is most commonly used to: describe the administrative région itself, or as a vague 'somewhere near Paris' (but not in the agglomeration) or 'the entire Paris area beyond its agglomeration'. Anyhow, for things like economy and employment, Île-de-France (Paris region) statistics are cited because it would be silly to say that suburban industry, finance, etc are not part of the Paris economy. And communes, départments and regions are where all data is gathered. Yet for demographic studies, commune numbers are rearranged into an area called an...
Aire urbaine, an INSEE-institute tool (or 'concept' as they call it) that measures the influence of an agglomeration on its surrounding area: it is an urban tissue surrounded by a commuter belt. Very few people here outside of statisticians know what it is.
(rant) It is similar to a metropolitan area, and in this article it is called that, but since no-one here knows what it is, it cannot be presented as a commonly-referred-to 'thing' (like it is NA countries). And there is the fact that the INSEE translates their term to 'urban area' (or 'larger urban area', and the upcoming 'Greater Paris Metropole' which is going to cause confusion with that inventive translation... anyhow this article is one of the only places on the web (and perhaps the world) that translates "aire urbaine" into "metropolitan area" [98] or vice versa [99]. I won't hide that I've always disliked how this term is pushed here, especially when it there is no need for it to be. Yay, rant over.
So let's just say this article is about Paris until it can't be. When we're talking about things like demography (especially commuter patterns) or urban growth, it's silly to stop at the péripherique, but nor is it necessary to go into too much detail, nor can we talk about the entire urban tissue like it 'is' Paris (that's a cognitive dissonance that fails as soon as pen hits paper, and it is unreferencable). To avoid confusion, there's nothing wrong with using a correct, constant English terminology that closely resembles common usage here; Paris, Paris agglomeration, and 'Paris region' to refer both to a vague 'Paris area' and the actual administrative (Île-de-France) region would do just fine, with no added invention needed.
@ all: this article is not and has never been about the administrative 20 arrondissements of Paris intra-muros. It's about the functional city as a geographically defined urban area. If you wish to restrict it to the 20 arrondissements, then as Fut.Perf. already said above, open a Request for Comments (RfC) to ask the opinion of other editors. In this case the article will probably have to be renamed City of Paris, and the namespace Paris left for the wider functional city. In any case, it's totally bad behavior and disrespectful of other editors to delete content from the article without first opening a RfC to decide what the article should be about and how it should be named. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That description is an opinion that defies every reference in existence.
Perhaps English-wikipedia general ignorance about the subject will work in its favour, so please do open an RfC. But this is is a referenced encyclopaedia, not a bar-room conversation with ignorant foreign tourists. But it's your call.
Who removed anything about this - what? And that's a pretty good description of your behaviour... or is it a threat to everyone against removing anything 'unless there's an RfC'? That's just disruptive. Since it is you both providing an alternate opinion and making threats against people who don't accept it, it is for you to present it to an RfC - and don't forget to cite your sources in your case. THEPROMENADER✎✓06:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, THEPROMENADER✎✓, for taking the time to explain. Putting myself in the seat of a reader who expects to read an article on Paris = the city itself, I still maintain my question concerning the extent with which the subject is treated in this article, i.e. way beyond the limits of the city of Paris intra muros. It hits me as strange to see the opening paragraph begin with The Paris region..., followed by Industry and Employment, Tourism and Income, all beginning with mention of either Paris region or Île de France. My first reaction was: "Is this article about Paris?" I understand that Paris as a city must be put in the context of its surrounding area; but here (and it is my opinion as a reader, hence my question) upon reading the section, I am left under the impression that it goes beyond the subject of Paris & treats mostly the Paris region.
As stated in my previous comment, this was only a question, which I maintain: If the section is to be kept as is, then it should begin with a sentence explaining why the economy of Paris intra muros cannot be treated without referring to that of the Paris region, but not with the words The Paris region: as is now, it throws the reader off.
You're welcome! I just left you a comment on my talk-page as to not muddle this page further - a writing-method explanation about 'section context' that would perhaps be useful here, but I don't have the time to pare it down right now. Wordy wordy me. THEPROMENADER✎✓10:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's an either-or question here. I believe the article has to be about both the monumental Paris and about the modern city which sometimes spills outside the center. The great bulk of the article should be about the center; because that's where the monuments, history, culture and government are; the region comes into play when talking about economics, population, and some issues such as transportation. But I would say 75 percent on the city and twenty-five on the region.SiefkinDR (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no 'decision' to make, it's like that anyway! It's the sources (economy, demography, transportation, etc) that lead us outside the city, that's not our 'choice' or 'opinion' - we're not writing an essay here ; ) THEPROMENADER✎✓19:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recap: What are you working on?
ThePromenader
Translating 'Urbanism' (now architecture - done), 'Urban sociology' [100] and 'Paris and its Suburbs' [101] sections from the French Wikipedia article.
Maps - Paris housing (done)[102], Median IDF income (done)[103], Median Greater Paris income (done)[104], Paris' hills and hydrography[105]and a map of Paris' successive walls and fortifications (and perhaps urban evolution too)
The Demography section [106], if someone else doesn't get around to it first.
I said earlier that I'd do a 'Police' and 'Firefighting' (perhaps together) section for the 'human resources' section, didn't I ?
I have been updating some of statistics in the economics section, both for the City of Paris and for the Paris Region, from INSEE. After that I would like to work a little on the section on restaurants; and at some point I think we need a section on the environment.
*if you would like to discuss anything above, please start a new topic
The 18.4% of jobs linked to "tourist" industries includes all the transportation jobs, all the restauration and retails jobs, this gives an exagerated picture of the size of the tourism into Paris economy and employments. It is not the tourists that make most of the restaurants income neither for transportation or shopping or even leisure. This is not also good to see the data from agencies which is their jobs to promote a sectors, they tend to exaggerate their impact.
The section about tourism fails to speak about business tourism, a large share of Parisian tourism is not about visiting monuments but about doing business. Minato ku (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So where do the existing numbers come from? If there are different sources, okay, but this isn't an essay, we can only cite sources here. And I think that if 'tourism-related' is made clear, that should be fine... 'tourism employment' is a hard thing to quantify... and I see that in past years they didn't count transportation (that brought the 'tourism-related' numbers to ~13%. Anyhow the numbers in the cited article phrase are -way- different, and they only seem to be sourced. This is odd, but if they just need to be updated, fine. THEPROMENADER✎✓02:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Things are odd and can be completely different from one source to an other because there is no strictly defined tourism related jobs, it depends of what people consider as tourism related jobs and how they calculate it.
The source from Paris tourism office did it easy, they have just taken the all the jobs of sectors where tourists spend money. By example, according to this source a metro driver has a job related to tourism. This is not untrue in some ways but the metro driver jobs are not more dependant of tourism than they are on banking sector, IT sector... and to every other kind of passangers who are likely to take the subway. Minato ku (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can theorise many things, but on Wiki we don't have that privilege - the text here has to reflect the sources. If those sources reflect more 'realistic' numbers, fine, but the numbers in the cited text don't come from anywhere at all! THEPROMENADER✎✓03:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I think we should not go to much into details and not put those numbers in the economic section of Paris article, especially with conflicting sources using different calculation methods. There is the Economy of Paris and Tourism in Paris articles for more detailed information. Minato ku (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ - I think the economy section needs more information (even sub-sections) about Paris' biggest industries (media, etc - and tourism is among them!). Perhaps not in the economy section, but somewhere. I still want to know how those numbers came about. THEPROMENADER✎✓06:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Promenader; since tourism is a major industry in Paris, it should be discussed in some detail in the economic section. The larger number cited by the Visitors Bureau seems reasonable to me, since it includes a broader range of activities, even if those (like restaurants and transport) are of course not exclusively for tourists. We just need to explain what the statistics include. As to business tourism, I believe it is included in these numbers, since business travelers use hotels, restaurants, transport, etc. and they might even take a little time to visit the Louvre or Notre Dame. SiefkinDR (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the most reliable sources for data on tourism in Paris itself (number of tourists) are not those linked to advertising/promoting Paris worldwide, with a tendency to inflate numbers, but those who base their findings on obvious tourist & business presence, as Siefkin noted above, and the businesses most concerned are... the hotels (and chambres d'hôtes), because visitors to Paris have to sleep somewhere - a businessman from New York, Berlin or Lyon is a hotel client just as a tourist is -, and hotels know the exact number of clients who sleep under their roof: one, two, a family of four, five etc. The official agency that takes this into consideration is the one to rely on - if allowed by Wikipedia, naturellement. What is that agency?
That would be the Paris tourism board, yet even they have difficulty discerning the jobs that 'touch tourism' - if they were to exclude any job that touches a single tourist, or include any job that does the same, the numbers would be much different. Hotel numbers are very indicative of both the tourism and business (congrés) industry in Paris, and the tourism board publication has a section dedicated to this. THEPROMENADER✎✓09:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minato ku brought up a good point, though: Paris' tourism numbers (GDP, etc) could be but a line with the rest of the economy figures (and the detail of each industry could be in the Economy of Paris article), but a good place for Tourism info for this article would be... this city's 'specialty trades', there's nothing about this here! Tourism is obviously one, but what other specialties does Paris have? I know of a lot of biological research institutions (around Kremlin-Bicêtre, and Louis Pasteur would fit into that section too)... will think about it as I work today. Cheers! THEPROMENADER✎✓09:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't forget to include Becquerel, Pierre & Marie Curie and their offsprings, and other great French scientists who did their work in Paris. Would there be an Institut Pasteur in Paris without Pasteur? There should be a section or subsection on science, with the name of scientists who have as much right to be in this article as bal musette or Rock en Seine (held in Saint-Cloud), or even Monet & Picasso.
As a part of the population that should not be ignored, there should also be a few lines on the people who camp (are they tourists or Parisians enjoying the outdoors?) on the quay of the Canal Saint-Martin in the winter.
(raising hand after looking at edit history) Um, I think Statistiker and Coldcreation are both right - the tourism part could be part of the economy section (as a, like, sentence) but not written how it is. Tourism is definitely one of Paris' 'specialties' - and for the time being, deserves to be elaborated and in a section of its own. THEPROMENADER✎✓16:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minato ku, someone just added that and it is not in error - au contraire - it is sourced, unlike than the unsourced text it replaced. It is very rude to revert just-contributed good-faith edits, especially to the person who just contributed it, and there is no call for that revert, either. I just don't like it is not a motve for reverting. THEPROMENADER✎✓17:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tourism is not more important than financial activities or "services to businesses" (service au entreprises as it is translated here) in Paris, so I don't know why it should be treated differently.
Keeping the 18.4% just mislead the reader who will believe that 18.4% of the jobs are dependant to the tourism which is not true, a metro driver is not dependant of tourism.
We should use only the data from the national statistical agency INSEE which is independant and not prone to exaggerate the importance of one industry. Minato ku (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use our 'favourite' sources, either. And there's no 'hurry', either. True that in the Economy section context (IDF), it is true that tourism written as it is doesn't fit in with the rest - yet another reason to move it into a section of its own and elaborate it (especially the fact that those numbers also include trades that only partly deal with tourism... @SiefkinDR: just contributed it, so what do you think, sir? THEPROMENADER✎✓17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "reality-defying" opinion. Tourism, despite its prominence among... tourists, is a very small sector in the Parisian economy, and the city would barely be affected if tourism disappeared. You want a city where tourism is really important to its economy? Take Lourdes, or Provins (closer to Paris), or Las Vegas in the US. To pretend that tourism is as important to Paris as it is to Lourdes or Las Vegas is what's "reality-defying". Der Statistiker (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that once again Coldcreation edits this article only to revert other editors. When was the last time I saw Coldcreation coming to this article not to revert other people but to actually contribute to it with some content? Hm... never I think. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Say the phrase "Tourism is not important to Paris" to anyone and they'll look at you like you're crazy. And comparing local tourism (well, hôtellerie, restaurants, catering) profits to those of companies who only have head offices in the Paris area (and generate their income all over the world) is ... I commented this below. And when a section is being discussed, it is quite rude to ignore discussion and edit it anyway. And can it with the disingenuous accusations. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say that all these jobs depend solely upon tourism; obviously restaurants serve both Parisians and tourists; and Metro drivers wouldn't lose their jobs without tourist passengers (they never can lose their jobs, they have a great union) but without tourism tens of thousands of people would be out of work. Tourism is a much larger sector than manufacturing, and second only services to businesses. And the Tourism bureau is of course using INSEE statistics, combining those sectors (hotels, catering, leisure, transport) which are most directly affected by tourism. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To examine globally Paris' economy, one would have to include all of the surrounding departments that contain Paris-dependant industry (in the French sense of the term), and those departments are all eight departments of the IDF - therefore the IDF itself. What the tourism board has done has tried to narrow down the tourism numbers ('un-dilute' them from IDF economy figures) by taking data from Paris and the innermost departments - we as Wikipedians don't have the right to do this (it would be WP:OR, but we can cite an organisation that has done this, and what higher and more concerned organisation than the Paris tourism board?). Still, again, their numbers should be accompanied with an explanation of how those numbers were calculated - and they do this themselves in their publication, so that would totally be legit, too. THEPROMENADER✎✓17:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minato Ku, do you really think that having five lines about tourism in the Paris economy is too much, and that it's role in the Paris Economy is exaggerated? Please, go the Champs-Elysees, or Galeries Lafayette, and tell me who you see there. You can't pretend that tourism isn't important to the Paris economy. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The role of tourism is exaggerated, there are maybe many tourists in the Champs Elysées but their contribution in the economy is pretty limited (Paris has a huge economy, this is a not a small city). Note that the upper floors of the buildings in the Champs Elysées are made of office with more jobs than the shops located in the ground floors, it is same around the Galeries Lafayette (there are even office space inside the GL). Minato ku (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second that Minato ku. The importance of tourism in the economy section is exaggerated. But this is a well-known pattern in this article now: : tourism, monuments, cliché montage in the infobox, and so on. The economy section should devote most lines to business services and R&D, which is the largest sector in the Paris economy, then to Public Administration and Education, which is the 2nd largest sector in the Paris economy, then to real estate which is the 3rd largest sector, then to commerce (wholesale trade & retail trade) which is the 4th largest sector. Tourism is a minor sector, sorry to disappoint. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any exaggeration, and that's only your opinion. This is an article about the city; take the insurance company and service sector head offices and move them to Lyon, and no Parisian (excepting those who work there ; ) would even notice. Where are the head offices of AXA? Oh, neither do I. Well, I do, actually, thanks to here ; ) THEPROMENADER✎✓20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ SiefkinDR: "Tourism is a much larger sector than manufacturing". That's absolutely untrue. How can you even write such a thing, it's baffling. Manufacturing accounts directly for 7.8% of the Paris Region's economy according to INSEE's 2011 regional accounts, and indirectly to much more than that if we also add business services provided by service firms to the manufacturing sector, finance services provided by financial firms to the manufacturing sector, etc. (business services alone make up 17.7% of the Paris Region's economy). Hotels, restaurants, and all the accommodation/catering industry, on the other hand, account for only 2.6% of the Paris Region's economy (and not all of it is generated by tourists, far from it). Even if we add the bits of other sectors that are generated by tourist demand (for example bits of retail trade, transport, etc.), I don't see how we could find a figure higher than the direct and indirect share of the manufacturing sector. PS: Wouldn't it be best to leave the editing of the economy section to people who know something about the subject? This is becoming ridiculous. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tourism isn't a sector. Hôtellerie is part of the Hébergement et restauration sector, but, as mentioned earlier, it is hard to calculate the exact 'value' of tourism. And this is a pretty good indicator, non - here, the last table [109] seems to confirm Siefkin's statement. Lighten your tone, you can't belittle someone for not sharing your opinion. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And wtf does business services have to do with 'manufacturing more than tourism' - again, you're just going out of your way to belittle/dissuade someone. Stop. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a sec - I see what you're doing there. You're not counting 'importance' by employment, you're counting it by GDP. Well, diluted with with the astronomical profits of the insurance and service sectors who only have head offices in the IDF, of (expletive) course tourism is going to be next to nothing. That's a pretty convoluted way of 'proving' that tourism isn't important to Paris.
But surefine. Keep your GDP statistics, or the profits generated by world-wide businesses whose offices are in the Paris region, for the economy section, and move the Tourism to a section of its own where it can talk about employment and people, or in other words, its real importance to the city. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh... looking with befuddlement at the ceiling) Promenader, with comments like these, you're just making a fool of yourself. This is why:
a- business services as defined in the national accounts are technical and professional services (such as legal services, accounting, architectural and engineering services, computer systems design, data processing, scientific research, etc., etc.) which a tourist is barely ever going to need. So yes, they have much more to do with manufacturing than with tourism. It's the whole process of outsourcing that has been going on in the Western world since the 1970s and consisted in replacing in-house services (inside the manufacturing companies) with services provided by external providers ("prestaires" in French), thus statistically decreasing the share of manufacturing and increasing the share of the services in the economy, but I'm not going to start an entire economics lesson!
b- there is no "I see what you're doing there". This bit is typical of your crazy antagonism for the pure pleasure of antagonizing other editors! Judging from your comment, you apparently have no understanding of how GDP is calculated. Profits have noting to do with GDP. GDP is the sum of added values, not the sum of profits. Besides, GDP is calculated where these added values are generated (that's the D in GDP, otherwise it would be GNP). So whether a region has lots of head offices or none is irrelevant. GDP is not calculated in the region where the head offices are located, but where production actually takes place. If Total, with wold headquarters at La Défense, creates some added value in its oil fields off the coast of Angola, this will go into the GDP of Angola, not the GDP of the Paris Region. Same within a country (added value generated by the Lacq gas field in Aquitaine goes into the GDP of Aquitaine, not the Paris Region).
Best advice: avoid to talk (and even worse, edit) about a subject where your expertise is apparently very limited. I wouldn't go into the Astrophysics article and tell the people there what should be given more or less prominence in that article, or explain to them how wrong they are with nuclear fission. Would you? Der Statistiker (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's always disappointing to watch someone knowledgable in a subject using that knowledge to condescendingly flummox (and berate) less knowledgable people. But it's obvious to anyone that you're judging a sector's 'importance' to the city by its share of the IDF GDP - that's both convoluted and wrong, especially where tourism is concerned. And when the INSEE titles their table "Les dix principaux secteurs d’activité"... should they be judging 'principaux' by GDP too? They don't, and there's a damn good reason why. Anyone saying "tourism is not important to Paris" needs to have their head examined, and anyone convinced they can 'prove' it is living in another reality.
We were actually discussing this until your disruptive intervention: in a few comments you've managed to condescendingly berate one contributor, accuse another of WP:POINT, and berate at third with 'knowledge' whose entire goal was telling them 'how stupid they are', all without even addressing the central point made. Tourism is important to Paris, and anyone begging to differ is of course entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to publish it as 'truth' here. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Statistiker, please stop insulting and making personal attacks against me and other editors. If you disagree with something in an edit, please discuss it, please don't be condescending and please don't attack me. That's not what the talk page is for. SiefkinDR (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the WP:BATTLEGROUND is all too apparent, and that behaviour is a guide for others brought to Wikipedia for the same WP:BATTLEGROUND purpose. And since we're 'allowed' to complain about bad behaviour again (running to admins with disingenuous complaints isn't working anymore, I guess), we're right back at the 'usual' condescending, combative WP:OWN behaviour. Something will be done. THEPROMENADER✎✓06:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now Minato ku just tried to revert again. Those numbers are referenced and explained, and that revert was contested, by me, for starters; I made a proposition to move it, not remove it. Again, I just don't like it is no reason to revert. THEPROMENADER✎✓00:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is explained, what readers understerstand by reading it is that 18.4% of the jobs are linked to tourism which is not true. Tourism-related industry is very unclear title because it include the whole sectors which are for most part not dependant of tourism and this source is contradicting the number from the INSEE.
According to the Paris tourist office there were 1 434 628 emplois salariés in the City of Paris but according to the INSEE there were 1 742 215 emplois salariés in the City of Paris. [110] (difference of more than 300,000). Odd isn't it? As I said data from those kind of agencies (office du tourisme) are dubious because they tend to exaggerate their importance. Minato ku (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter as long as they're a reliable source, and they are [111]: created jointly by the Mairie de Paris and Paris Chamber of Commerce in 1971. They explain how they came about those numbers, so does this article (but this could be elaborated were tourism in a section of its own); If you want to say that they're liars or wrong or cheating, it's better to write them and have them change their publication. Similar coverage just isn't (publicly) available through the INSEE. THEPROMENADER✎✓05:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this big difference matters (over 300,000 more, more than 20% more. it is not a small difference). When two sources give very different numbers, it is obviously the neutral French nation statistical agency INSEE which should be given priority over a source from the Paris' tourism office (which is not neutral and get funding according to this and hence has the interest to exaggerate the importance of its mission). There is 1.7 million salaried jobs according to the INSEE and not 1.4 million as claimed by the office du tourisme. So the 18.4% would be wrong by taking the more reliable INSEE data. Minato ku (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After research (thanks for making me do that), it seems those numbers come from the ACOSS (URSSAF) [112] that count only private-sector jobs. That's pretty official, and that's even more precise. THEPROMENADER✎✓07:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read better your sources because it is clearly written in the PDF Paris Convention and Visitors Bureau- Tourism in Key Figures 2013 that datas include public sector jobs. Minato ku (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop, my bad, apologies: including public sector. But the source remains the ACOSS (URSSAF) indicated in the Tourism board document, not the INSEE. We can't just pick our 'favourite sources' - and the city (this article) is the reason for Tourism, not the entire IDF. A purposeful skewing of context seems to be at work here to 'prove' tourism's 'unimportance' - or 'moving the goalposts', as we say ; ) In any case, the POV being pushed is quite clear. THEPROMENADER✎✓09:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not getting into an edit war over this (as Minato ku seems to want to). And yet again, the reverted-to number isn't even in the document cited. And yet again, that document is in the context of the entire Île-de-France economy, not the city itself. THEPROMENADER✎✓08:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(after examining document) The only number cited is a (rounded) 6%. Where (or who) does 6.5% come from? Also to note that the INSEE calculates 'tourism' in exactly the same way as the Paris Tourism board (including transport - perhaps the latter organisation updated its methods to reflect the former's); the only difference is the tourism board's calculations are on Paris and its three surrounding departments, which of course is logical. "Tourism is preponderant in the departements towards the capital" would be a precision to be made in the IDF/GDP context of the economy section. THEPROMENADER✎✓09:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, Anyway, I think it would be a good idea to move Tourism to a section of its own for now, I don't think it fits into the context, as it is, where it is now. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! la! la! Since when is en.wiki to decide = be judge & jury, which of the French sources is right or wrong? Which organism "which is not neutral and get funding according to this and hence has the interest to *exaggerate the importance of its mission*" blows its numbers? If this is indeed our mandate, would not it be proper at this point to invite to this discussion the top representatives of the Mairie de Paris, Office de Tourisme, Chambre de Commerce de Paris, INSEE, URSSAF and ask them point blank why the difference in the numbers they arrive at? Because when we do not imply but say that such & such blows its numbers, we are accusing such organism of lying. Is that the role of Wikipedia? This is more than political incorrectness.
Oh no no no - didn't you know? Wikipidian opinion of course trumps authoritive sources! Wikipedia should be used to publish "other realities" that consider authoritave sources 'substandard', 'misleading', 'exaggerated' or 'wrong'.
Prior to reading wiki's article on cherrypicking (thank you, The Promenader), I was going to suggest that we give all sources & all of the same date, (not published in different years). It would be then up to the reader to figure out the "why" of the differences & go to more developed articles.
Since this article is supposed to give only a general outlook - hence the shortening of most sections - why make an essay out of the sections on economy & tourism? We should only give numbers from official organisms, not judge the assumed motive(s) of some of these organisms.
Maps in the INSEE link are interactive, you need to put the pointer on them and you will have details by region.
Data about tourism expenditure on the GDP are in the last map called Rapport entre la consommation touristique et le PIB régional en 2011, put the pointer on the any region of this map and you will have the ratio like in this screenshot I have just made [113]Minato ku (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not irrelevant here because the GDP given in the article is the GDP of Paris region. I see a case of WP:UNDUE (Not giving undue weight to a view, by omitting information that shows that it is relatively unimportant).
ThePromenader unlike what you are claiming the INSEE doesn't calculated the tourism expenditure on the same way that the jobs for Paris office du tourisme, Paris office du tourisme takes all the jobs of the sectors no matter if the majority of them never deals with tourists. INSEE only calculates the expenditure made by the tourists in those sectors. Minato ku (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on here is a 'tourism is not important to Paris' WP:POVPUSH attempt to drown Paris tourism numbers in an Île-de-France context with the rest of the IDF ('Paris') economy from a strictly GDP 'importance' without making any mention of Tourism in the rest of the article.
I say move the Tourism written in a city context and importance (and numbers) to a section of its own, and leave the 'negligable part of the IDF GDP' text as it is (with its 6.5% 'reference' - there has to be better than an interactive map highlight) in the Economy section. And be done with it. THEPROMENADER✎✓12:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following section from the Insee link is the only section that (to some extent) deals with Paris:
Ainsi, l’Île-de-France perçoit 39 milliards d’euros grâce au tourisme. La région capitale offre une très large palette de sites culturels : le Louvre, Notre-Dame, mais aussi, hors Paris, Fontainebleau, Provins, par exemple. Les touristes viennent également pour les parcs d’attractions et les spectacles. Le tourisme d’affaires y occupe aussi une place importante : première région économique française, l’Île-de-France centralise bon nombre de centres de décision. En outre, selon les professionnels, Paris est la première ville pour le nombre de congrès internationaux. Enfin, l’Île-de-France bénéficie aussi des revenus générés par ses aéroports, et des dépenses de touristes qui pour partie n’y font qu’une étape de leur voyage. Source
I am not trying to say that there is tourist industries, I am saying that the tourism industry is smaller than what the article is trying to claim with the 18.4% of jobs in tourism related sectors which include the whole catering, the whole transportation Job and etc. This means that a fast food worker at the KFC of Château Rouge or a bus driver of the line 62 are included as tourism jobs even if no tourist put the foot there. The majority of catering and transport jobs don't depend on tourism but the article suggests otherwise. (By using the same criteria even a city with very few tourists will have a large share of employment in tourism business). Minato ku (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yo, Minato, you have tried to remove that perfectly legitimate and sourced phrase no less than six times since yesterday because 'I just don't like it'. That is way over the WP:3RR limit. Enough.
If you look at both the INSEE and Tourism board documentation, their choice of 'sectors affected by tourism' is exactly the same. The INSEE takes the IDF GDP perspective (and nothing smaller is available), and the URSSAF takes a per-departement (and larger) 'jobs' perspective. Apples to oranges, IMHO. So, leave IDF GDP to the economy section, and move the URSSAF 'jobs' to a section of its own. THEPROMENADER✎✓13:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Full agree... Insee is saying Paris is a nice touristic place, nothing else. Including airports within touristic revenues should be clear enough. Btw reading between the lines, insee is saying exactly the same than Minato and myself 78.227.131.149 (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpts from that May 5, 2003 article in the Chicago Tribune, with title:
French pucker up to woo back U.S.
"Officials have embarked on a kiss-and-forgive campaign, hoping to mend fences with a longtime ally and its tourists after the rift over war in Iraq:
"The brochure is this year's official travel guide for France. The French government Tourist Office's publication may fall as flat as a cold souffle for Americans who remember all too clearly Secretary of State Colin Powell and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin "getting into it" with blunt exchanges at the UN Security Council in the days leading up to the Iraq war.While diplomats concentrate on mending high-level relations, other French officials are working on maintaining cultural ties between the two countries and shoring up the sagging tourism business.[...]
"Push on for U.S. tourists
"The same is not true of the French tourist industry, already pummeled by the weak American economy and concerns over international travel in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. From a high of 3.8 million American visitors to France in 2000, the number plunged to about 3 million last year, and a further 10 percent decline is predicted this year.
"This month French tourism officials plan to launch a $600,000 campaign to promote their country as a tourist destination.
"As part of the tourist office's stepped-up efforts this year, it has launched Club France, which for a $25 sign-up fee qualifies France-bound travelers for promotional rates on hotel rooms and other discounts.
"Some tourist-dependent businesses are taking matters into their own hands to lure Americans back to La Belle France.
"The four-star Victoria Palace Hotel in Paris is offering a discounted three-night package for Americans who stay in the Left Bank hostelry for the Independence Day weekend, including free lodging the night of July 4th."
The French were frantic at the loss of the 'tourist' business. And since most tourists from foreign countries (except Belgium?) land in Paris, tourist-business in Paris was very first to suffer... then came the rest of La Belle France.
@ColdCreation. office du Tourisme usually sum all activity that can be related to tourism. Almost half of the activity of Paris, for sure. But a big big joke in practice. Yes, metro is used by tourist, and then summed to this activity. if you use office du tourisme grade sources, I can easily demonstrate, with the same sources quality Paris is located on the moon. v_atekor (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@coldCreation : more generally : dont excpect an administration to be neutral about his own activity. Insee is OK. ministery of economy too. Office du tourisme is false by construction, it has to justify its own existence. v_atekor (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who are we to judge? Is the role of Wikipedia=Wikipedians to (using your construction image) demolish the reputation of such & such bureau, office or administration in favor of another, because such would be our appreciation of them?
Look, it's a question of language and context. if we said that "18.whatever jobs in Paris are tourism-related", that would give a false impression. Yet if we say "18.whatever jobs in paris are affected by tourism", that would keep the number 'open-ended' (almost hypothetical sounding... as it is, really, we could technically say that every supermarket and shopkeeper and kiosk and peanut salesman is affected by tourism). Normally the IDF figures should make the same distinction because they use the same sectors, but they don't have to because the tourism numbers are so overwhelmed by suburban services, industry, etc. 'preferring' IDF figures (and excluding Paris-PC figures) is both moving the goalposts and tilting the table. THEPROMENADER✎✓15:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And this is an article about the city of Paris, not the IDF. I say (again): leave the INSEE IDF GDP statistics inline in the economy section, and move Tourism to a section of its own where we can elaborate on the industry's relation to Paris. Does anyone else see sense in this? THEPROMENADER✎✓15:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to move Tourism in a dedicated section, with a clear presentation of the CURRENT DEBATE. museum can be considered as touristic for ones and cultural for the others, probably both for thirds. I wont call people going to Paris to a conference on art a tourist. Why people say they are going to Paris as tourist, to forget stress & to rest some days, is a great mystery, something to do with sadism and masochism. And, still the same point IdF is what it is because Paris is what it is. Main decisions centers on economy are near Paris because they are near the political centers of a centralized country. Hard to split IdF from Paris from this POV, but it can be presented correctly. v_atekor (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are Paris' specialities?
I'm not suggesting anything, but just wondering 'why people go to (or 'hire') Paris' - I know about Tourism (and congresses), Expositions, education, medical research, printing (although it's fading fast) and media... Cinema... Fashion (duh)? Any others? There are aerospatial company headquarters here, but the actual research is elsewhere... I think. THEPROMENADER✎✓16:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Start by the beginning : Capital of France. That is the key for power decision, place to be to negotiate o almost anything that is done in France, from wheat to perfume (mostly done next to Grasse). Aerospace r&d are mostly in Toulouse & Bordeaux. v_atekor (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't 'Capital of France' a given, and covered in the Adminstration section? And for the latter, thank you. What else is Paris 'attractive' for? Cooking schools - nah, that's so trifling I wouldn't even count it. Fashion schools, for sure! THEPROMENADER✎✓17:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What people do in Paris first is decide & negotiate for what is done in France, not only at administrative level, & for other part of the world, former colonies for ex... There are a large panel of not french administration in Paris (starting by embassies). France is a heavily centralized country, with state counting for more than 50% of the PIB : then half the activity of France is decided in Paris... Then,the second activity parisians best do is to leave Paris. v_atekor (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No the state don't count for more than 50% of the GDP (PIB=GDP in English), fortunately. Don't confuse the level of public spending with the economic activity.
The specialities of Paris, banking, insurance, cars sector, energy sector, retail sector and etc. Paris home to the hq of companies from all the sectors of the economy. This could be described as corporate business and this is the leading economic sector of Paris economy.
(edit conflict) Thanks! I wouldn't call 'having head offices in/around Paris' a 'specialty', though... especially for Finance sectors. But why are they here, for that matter? Easier business meetings? Playing the innocent here just for the sake of the question. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. But I think it is very french to have most of decisions centers (public or private) concentrated in the political capital of the country. Milan, Franckfurt, Barcelona, Anvers... Guayaquil, Rio, Shanghai, NY, LA... are not political capitals and count with several major decisions centers v_atekor (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
v_atekor There are many centralized countries are all over the world, Russia, Japan (the importance of Osaka is fading in favor of Tokyo), UK, South Korea, Argentina, Belgium (even with a relivative importance of Antwerpen because of its harbor and linguistic difference, Brussels is by far where happen most of the important things) and many others.
So perhaps 'head offices' and 'business transactions' would be that 'attraction'... almost a given, but worthy of mention. Ottawa is the capital of my country of origin, but one can hardly say that it is a magnet for business - that would be Toronto. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Minato right, and for mot of these countries, what is important is to have economical centers next to political centers, just as in Paris, Moscow, Buenos Aires... v_atekor (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "What is Paris' international acclaim" would hone that question down a bit?
A lot of the above could go into the economy section (as sub-sections?) - at least something about the leading company names in each sector, that's pretty high information-value. IMHO, of course. THEPROMENADER✎✓22:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By international renown you mean tourists cliché instead of the real sectors of the economy? Because for the moment this article is trying to make the tourism more important than the financial sector in Paris economy. Minato ku (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear fellow editors, We have spent several thousand lines above in discussion of the tourism section which generated much passion, but resulted in almost no new information, additions or changes. I think we agreed that tourism is indeed important for Paris (though evidently we don't agree on how important) and that it therefore deserves to have its own section, either in Economy or elsewhere. We should mention how many people are employed in tourism in the city, citing the source and who is counted, so people can decide for themselves if its credible. (Personally, I think it is). We should mention how much money tourism contributes to the economy- no one yet has questioned that figure from Mastercard. Is there anything else that needs to be said here? If not, why don't we close this discussion, which i believe is actually longer than the article itself, declare this section done, and move on to another topic. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second that very diplomatic motion ; ) With all that info, it does indeed deserve a section of its own where we can talk of the trades involved (and other details). THEPROMENADER✎✓16:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(pointing up) v_atekor seems to agree as well. One note: Mastercard also seems to get a lot of its numbers from the Tourism board. I'm not questioning them, because this discussion has shown that the Paris Tourism Board gets its numbers in the same sectors as the INSEE. I've got enough of a workload (the sections in my sandbox - I'm staying out of direct contributions until things are calmer) - does someone want to work on elaborating? THEPROMENADER✎✓22:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I propose this canvas for the paragraph, I think it will explain better the debate :
"L’évaluation de l’impact du tourisme sur l’économie parisienne varie radicalement selon les points de vus adoptés et les indicateurs utilisés.
Si d’un côté l’office du tourisme de Paris évalue à plus de 50% les emplois potentiellement impactés par le tourisme, et à plus de 18% du PIB, l’INSEE et le ministère de l’économie et de finances marginalisent cette mesure.
L’office du tourisme se focalise sur le nombre d’emploi impactés au sein de Paris, c’est-à-dire le nombre de personne, dans Paris intramuros, ayant un travail qui peut les amener à travailler pour le tourisme.
Les autres organismes d’état considèrent Paris dans son environnement, et lient l’économie d’Île de France à l’économie parisienne, marginalisant de facto le poids du tourisme, non seulement en termes d’emploi, mais surtout en termes de PIB.
Si la position de l’office du tourisme est administrativement correcte, celle des autres administrations ont une plus grande pertinence pour l’évaluation économique. Paris étant la capitale politique d’un pays fortement centralisé, il existe des intérêts partagés entre décideurs publics et privés à rapprocher des centres de décisions politiques et économiques, voire militaires et diplomatiques : l’île de France travaille en étroite relation avec la ville de Paris."
Yep, that explains it pretty well, but it's a bit outdated (the tourism board only counts 18% of jobs these days) - is it from the French Paris article? THEPROMENADER✎✓15:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's damn well written. Unfortunately we're not allowed to make synopsises or theories of our own here (even if they are true) - strict WP:NOESSAY rules - BUT, if you can find a reliable source saying the same thing, you can 'echo' that here and use it as a reference, as long as the context matches up. THEPROMENADER✎✓16:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear fellow editors:
I think we need a new section on environment, which can give a brief summary of where Paris is on air quality, water quality, traffic, energy, green space, and other similar issues. A lot of good information on this topic is contained in the European Green Cities Index, and the city also has good information. Help is needed to find sources and put this together. The question is, where would this go? Any suggestions? SiefkinDR (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, yes, great idea! Wouldn't it go well in the 'Geography' section? (Land, hydrography... air?). There's something to be said about the Seine water quality - or is there already? There was, but I contributed that years ago. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources - some useful tools
Hey guys,
I've noticed problems/lack of sources in this article. Sources are a PITA for sure, but there's a few useful tools out there. Generally book sources are preferred for FA-quality articles: just type whatever you're looking for (or the ISBN number of the book you're referencing) into Google books, choose the book you're looking for, then copy/paste its URL into this tool; it will concoct the reference you need. There's other tools for web/pdf documents, but I'll add those when I find them. THEPROMENADER✎✓09:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone: I see that Der Statistiker has made some significant re-arrangement of the economy section. Much of it is very clear and makes sense, but I think some questions can be (and have been) raised about whether tourism should be put under market services. I think a good case can be made that it should be a separate section under economy, or even completely independent. It combines workers from several different sectors, including hotels and catering (classified as services to individuals), transport, leisure, commerce, and government (museum employees, for instance). Also it has statistics on the comparison of Paris against other tourist destinations, which other economy sections don't have. What do other editors think?
SiefkinDR (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tourism isn't even a sector (it's a 'use' of many sectors), and it's rather out of context where it is now: it concerns more the city itself than IDF economy statistics. Several have already voiced support for moving it to a section of its own; we can elaborate later. It's one of the city's 'international magnets' and the why and how of this deserves to be explained in more detail. THEPROMENADER✎✓19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ SiefkinDR: then why don't you move "tourism" to the "culture" section? That's what they've done in the Rome article. What would be improper would be to have it in the economy section as a subsection separate from the "Economic sectors" subsection, as if it were somehow something different. If you put it in the culture section, you should add a line or two about cultural aspects of tourism in Paris (on world culture I mean), so that it's less economy oriented (and the currently economy-oriented content should be shortened/summarized more, as this subsection is already quite long for a general article like this one). Der Statistiker (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is some confusion here with the use of the terms "metropolitan area" and "uban area"; in addition to the Paris region and city of Paris. it would be useful to explain what those cover. I like the table of top companies, but I note that the link for Fonciere Euris redirects to Casino, whose headquarters is in Saint-Etienne; I don't think the metropolitan area of Paris extends quite that far.SiefkinDR (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is wrong. Foncière Euris owns half of Casino, but it is not Casino. It owns many other things besides Casino, and it is headquartered in Paris (Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré). Actually you could work on that and create an article about Foncière Euris, instead of the current redirect. ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion is apparent even in your comment. The aire urbaine is an INSEE statistical creation (known and used practically only by them) that measures population dependency on an urban centre - it is a re-mapping of data at a commune level. 'Where people work' (and in what trade) is part of this - all of this should be outlined in a summary before the figures if the figures are going to be cited, because economic figures are taken only in communes, departements and regions, here the IDF. So each section (aire urbaine figures, region (IDF) figures) should have an explanatory summary, otherwise there will be confusion. An explanation of why IDF numbers are used (instead of just Paris numbers) would bring clarity, too. THEPROMENADER✎✓08:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me, in reading the above discussions Tourism, Tourism II - Summary and this one, Economy Section and Tourism II, that there is a general consensus among editors to move Tourism to a section of its own. Some of the ideas to expand it slightly are good, including more about its cultural context. Coldcreation (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't belong in "culture" ; it's not comparable to music, literature and theater. Probably a stand-alone section, at least of now, until we figure out what else can go into it SiefkinDR (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever it is put, like it shows now, it should be a section of its own, not a sub of any other section.
Nothing much to change, thanks for your added concision. I also had to indicate that not all sources consider the entire IDF GDP to be Paris' - many only count Paris and the IDF's inner departments. THEPROMENADER✎✓18:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ref inside a ref doesn't work. Superfluous in this article anyway, since there already exist sub-articles for each concept."
Again, none of these 'points' is valid. Those refs led to a full explanation of each area, straight from the organisation that created them. 'Superfluous' is an opinion that should be voiced in a talk-page comment, not as a revert summary to a just-made contribution. Those were proper, valid working refs that had no reason to be removed. Again again again again, that is the sort of behaviour that starts edit-wars. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Der Statistiker, you turned the entire just-contributed paragraph into a note (that may or may not be consulted!) before even making a mention on the talk page! The opinion of one wikipedian does not 'rule' the just-made contributions of others! Jeez. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you can find a way to make these references appear, feel free. I can't. It seems it's impossible to have references inside a note. In any case, these references don't really belong to this article, but to the sub-articles. Let's not lose sight of what this article is about: it's about Paris, not about statistical methodology. No other city articles write paragraphs about the methodology behind the stats used in the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your opinion - I'm sorry that 'it doesn't work as a note', but it shouldn't be a note in the first place! And someone just complimented (and refined) that contribution just above! Put it back the way it was, please. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't put it back, I will. Let the others (in addition to the person who already voiced their support) decide whether it is an improvement or not. You alone can't decide for all. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That will have to go to RfC then. I doubt people there will approve of your edit, since they'll probably find it way too technical for such an article. As a simple note, on the other hand, few people can argue against it. But then it's your call. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Others have already expressed their support, and I will be putting that edit back if you don't put it back yourself. But by all means, open an RfC all on your own. And it's the contribution that will be judged, not your reduction of it. THEPROMENADER✎✓22:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I put it back to the supported version for further comment myself. One can't decide for everyone like you tried to, but by all means, open an RfC. And no, don't revert in commenting 'in awaiting RfC'.THEPROMENADER✎✓23:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, at the outset of the economy section, it is quintessential for the reader to understand what is meant by the terms Paris, urban area, urban unit, if the text and figures are to be understood. These differences have been discussed here in Talk (above) and have now been reflected in the Paris article for the benefit of the reader. These points are stated briefly in a simple and concise manner, with reliable references. Any further changes should be discussed on this Talk page prior to modifications in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above editors that the article should explain up front what's meant by the City, the Metropolitan Area, the Urban Area, and the Paris Region. Otherwise it's very confusing. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR, quick question; is there any particular reason why you reverted
I deleted it because it contained less information than the few sentences of statistics on tourism which I wrote for the main article, and a list of links to monuments and sites in Paris, more or less identical to the list in the Paris article. What I deleted was mostly my own work. I thought no article was better than one that gave no information other than that found in the main article. If you think it should be restored I have no objection, but it really needs to have some additional content. SiefkinDR (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm just opening a question. The 'culture' section kind of bothers me titled as such... it's neither here nor there. It doesn't reflect modern culture very much (and for me, culture is the mix of ethnicities, music listened to, favourite city outing habits, etc.)... what it seems to describe now is a vague 'gathering of the arts (over time)'.
In the past, Paris drew communities, local and foreigners alike, of painters (Dadasim, Montparnasse, etc.), music (Chopin, Debussy, Satie, Ravel, etc.), Cinema, Photography, Fashion, Expositions (technologies and research), congresses, and foreign students (schools) of all these trades. Only Expositions (and are these all international?), business (congresses), Fashion and tourism seem to have passed the test of time. In short, I guess I'm asking "what makes/made Paris internationally famous/attractive as a city?". And every city has/had its own specialty. Do you see what I'm getting at?
In looking at the New York City article, I see the editors have developed these topic within the Culture section (that's not to say we should do the same):
It's just things like Cabarets that are prominent in Paris' past, but they are not part of modern local culture (they should almost be part of the Tourism section). The NYC 'culture' section seems a bit of a compromise, too. THEPROMENADER✎✓15:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are true. To avoid that, I think cultures & passed artistic movement should be put in them contexts. Hard to speak about internationals expos & art nouveau in now a day Paris. Or of the beginning of the Gothic movement in the same paragraph we would speak about surrealism and end with glass based architecture. Gothic is what it is because Paris was capital of France when of king were involved in crusades, not really to be painted by Monet. Sainte Chapelle is, because Saint Louis got the Crown of thorn.
I think this paragraph should be centred on contemporaneous culture. About expos : there are way too much to mention all them. We should be (very) synthetic. v_atekor (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Human resources section II
I just remembered that the "human resources" section was reverted. I'd like to create it again, grouping Healthcare, Museums, Libraries, Religion, and eventually Security (Police, Firefighting) and Gymnases (piscines publiques), and perhaps Sports too... It would make for less sections, more logic. Again, the New York City article can be an example if an example is needed. Please let me know of your thoughts on this. THEPROMENADER✎✓10:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. I see the New York City article splits it up like this:
Human resources in the NYC article deals with human resources of the NYC city hall. Neither education nor police nor firefighting nor even public health are administered by the Paris city hall, and they are not resources of the city, but of the French state. It's the French state who administer education, police, and firefighting in Paris. Public health is administered by an independent body, APHP, funded by national taxes. Such a section makes sense for NYC, not for Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I added Siefkin's homelessness section to that list as "Social Services" (but if there's a better name... Social protection?). THEPROMENADER✎✓15:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bien sur it makes sense. And the 'city hall' claim is simply not true, Statistiker: NYC's human resources are even private corporations and State-run (like some of Paris'), and are just as complicated (if not more so) than Paris' are. THEPROMENADER✎✓15:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against a "Human resources" section per see if it can contribute to reduce the number of sections but I think it would need a better name than "human ressource". I don't think that the place of the religion is for this section. It would be better in demographic with maybe less detail about the buildings and museums should stay with culture and this not a good section to put the sport and media.
About the place to put sport and media, as noted higher the cultural section of New York is called "Culture and contemporary life", it covers a broader view and allows you to add all the recreations and the medias.
Anyway even if a lot of emphasis is put on the organisation of the article, the major issue is more about what is inside. I think that there too much details about the history. In example, a part about the police should be about the current police force but not the history of the Paris police and its buildings. Less on history and more about current the current function and form. Minato ku (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One editor has just deleted all the work of all the other editors for the last several months, without any notice or discussion with other editors. The article is now once again full of outdated statistics and stale and inaccurate information that had been updated by other editors on almost every topic. This is vandalism on a colossal scale and is the worst and most irresponsible behavior possible by an editor. It should be reverted immediately.SiefkinDR (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the comments it seems as though the modifications were inserted too, but I haven't looked yet (and haven't been keeping track of the changes, either). All I'm seeing now is lots of "citation needed" tags (including stuff I had already provided citations for), and that the City Mayor was Delanoë again. I'll stop for now until you guys check what's changed. THEPROMENADER✎✓10:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" This is vandalism on a colossal scale and is the worst and most irresponsible behavior possible by an editor." Um no, you've proved that you cannot edit in a way in which sourcing is sound and write in a way which is concise and well-structured. I restored a version which Promenader had worked on combining my July 2013 with updates and I thought it was a progressive update. I was tempted to fully restore to the July version but I want this to be seen as a progress and think Promenader made a lot of great additions. I warned you a week or two ago that if it didn't pick up I'd be restoring it. Even a few days ago you were adding unsourced content Siefkin. That's completely unacceptable. Some of the content you've added without sourcing and in poorly structured paragraphing is in all honesty a major part of the reason why it's got so bad. You edit it obsessively every day and the end result is poor. Any competent editor here such as Tim riley, SchroCat, Cassianto would agree that the article had been made a hash of. You're not the only one, but until you learn how to write concisely and support what you write with correctly formatted citations then you shouldn't be editing this. No article needs to be pushing 200kb. If I've restored any outdated material it pales into comparison to the mess which you caused. I know you mean well but seriously, you create a big mess from a technical viewpoint. This has been festering for months now.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's find a way forward which is positive. If we can try to get citations where needed and some of the errors fixed and bring about a general improvement of the prose and try to keep it relatively decent technically then things should start to get back on track. I'm not going to let this fester again. I could not believe how bad it got to the point that there were even bare source urls and entirely unsourced paragraphs and one line paragraphs. You need to stop editing it excessively every day for starters and try to follow the formatting and consistent sourcing as closely as possible if we are to progress. You have the habit of bloating it back up to 200 kb which really is excessive, even for Paris. If not then I'll keep restoring it until you and the others can learn how to work together in a way which improves the article rather than making a hash of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It must be noted that this was probably the motivation for today's change. I hope not too many toes were stepped on, but it does look as though certain updates were included - yet I don't have time to go through the entire article history. Let's hope that this was not just yet another effort (not by Blofeld) to dissuade and distance article contributors. THEPROMENADER✎✓11:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did I not say that I would restore it if the article didn't pick up soon? Frankly I care little for the reasons of why Der Statistiker suddenly supports the restoration and see the bigger picture. This has been festering for too long. If it was indeed Der Statistiker's "plan" to "dissuade and distance article contributors" then it doesn't change my outlook on the article and Siefkin one bit. I've long been critical of his editing of it. But for you Promenader it certainly brings up the issue of whether you care more about the article developing or conflicts with certain editors here. I believe you care more about the quality of the article, I hope I'm right. I've given it a chance to be restored to GA status with the restoration. Take it or leave it.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your approach to editing the article. For example, after these edits, here are a few of things missing from the article.
Mayor Hidalgo was deleted. She's no longer mentioned.
Mayor Delanoe was deleted.
There are no longer any statistics at all about tourism in Paris, the number of visitors, number of hotels. number of rooms, All deleted. Apparently there's no tourism in Paris.
There are no longer any statistics about poverty and homelessness. Evidently these don't exist in Paris.
There is no mention that a Paris writer won the Nobel Prize for literature this year- that was deleted, along with the text about French writers in Paris.
There is no description of the city government, parties represented on the City Council, and how it works. That was deleted.
There is no mention of the Regional Government and how it works. That was deleted.
There is no mention of employment in the different neighborhoods of Paris. That was deleted.
There is no current information about restaurants in Paris, such as number of 3 star restaurants in Paris in 2014; that was all deleted. It's mostly now a collection of outdated dead links, and promotion for restaurants.
There's no description of the Metropole of Grand Paris, or the new transit system. That was all deleted.
The current number of Fortune 500 Companies in Paris was deleted
Updated and sourced facts statistics on the Paris Commune and other historical events was all deleted.
All of the above were sourced. If you had a question about the sources, I wish you had discussed it with me when they appeared, rather than simply deleting everything at once now. I don't think you would be pleased if all of your work simply vanished one morning. All of the outdated statistics and stale information is right back where it was. What is the specific length limit for an article on a major city? It would be helpful to know. But if the article is to be massively cut, it should be cut after discussion with other editors, not before. Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you highlight what got deleted during the restoration in your sandbox and I'll try my best to ensure that the current article is updated with the improvements. I did think your hotel content was OK but it was poorly sourced and had an unsourced paragraph. You need to ensure most facts are sourced. Obviously I don't want to reintroduce errors but from a technical viewpoint can you at least see why I restored it (rather than bending down to Der Stat). I think 150-160kb is really as big as it needs to be, 170kb was already pushing it, near 200kb is massive. Ultimately we need to come up with a version we're pretty content with and stop this daily editing of it. The best thing we could possibly do is produce a GA again and try to get it fully protected and changes then made with discussion first/. OK I've created User:SiefkinDR/Paris, please add the sentences which you wanted restored and the sections they're in under each one and I'll find a way of sorting it.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dr. Blofeld: I think the real problem with this article is something else. I admit that I don't always get my citation formats correct; luckily for me other editors have been kind enough to fix them. I don't think I'm such as bad editor as you say I am; I've worked on over three hundred articles, and was Wikipedia Editor of the Week in February; but you're entitled to your opinion. I think the problem is the lack of civility and respect among the editors on this pages; the insults, the attacks, the sudden deletions without discussion, the language used by some editors, I've not seen that in any other article I've worked on. Some editors (and I don't think you're one of them) seem to want to drive off any other editors from what they consider their article. No wonder Wikipedia is having difficulty retaining new editors, if they have to face that. I think we need to improve the way we talk to each other and do business here before we worry so much that the article is too long. Wouldn't you agree with that?SiefkinDR (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I did give this a big chance to improve though. The general quality overall I think is worse at least from a technical/prose viewpoint, but I accept at least it has become more comprehensive/and updated in some parts, not always to the improvement of the article though which we need to sort out. If we can try to cling onto the original more from a technical viewpoint and move forward in stages to try to merge article versions without sacrificing quality then I think we're onto a winner. I've emailed as to what I think we should do next. Ultimately for the sake of the article we really need to come up with a highly thought out stable article version which at least a few of us here are fairly happy with and which meets GA guidelines. I think it's possible, I'm giving it one last shot anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading and seeing what has happened today. Let's start somewhere: the first paragraph of the economy section. I argued above that it was way too technical (and poorly written to boot) for such a general article, especially considering that we are trying to contain the size of the article. At the very least, this paragraph should be turned into a simple note, as I had tried to do before being reverted, if not entirely deleted from the article, since there are sub-articles anyway (with links) where those statistical technicalities could be placed for those wishing to find out more. What do you think Blofeld? Der Statistiker (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing's changed, Statistiker. That phrase still explains the mess of complication that is the statistics after it, and others have commended its usefulness. There's only your I just don't like it here, and there's hardly a sea of complaints flowing in about it. Nothing at all was mentioned about that phrase in the comments above (so how can one fixate on that here?) - but they do denote many other much much more important article things to improve. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the size of the article need to be reduced. Providing to much technical details on a general article don't really help to the comprehension of the subject. Too long and many reader will not read it. You must put yourself in the shoes of the reader when when you wrote the article. What do you understand and what you might understand the readers. After reading the article the good question to ask to yourself is "Have I understood how Paris works? Obviously on a simplified way becuase you can't detail every all aspects of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the article gives figures the city of Paris, the Paris region, the Paris Metropolitan Area and the Urban area, I think these terms need to be briefly explained; one sentence can do it. Otherwise readers will be confused. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you give too much or too technical information,s the reader will be ever more confused. In example I don't see the need of this first paragraph in Paris economy, it is incomprehensible and leave the reader more confused than it would be without or if you give too much information about historic events, the reader will loose the track of Paris history.
This article is a general overview about Paris, the reader just needs to have the essential information. Give him too much and he vill be confused or worse mislead because when you put too much details, those details are often badly explained and therefore misinterpreted. Minato ku (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much simpler to use IDF statistics to describe the Paris Economy (as the INSEE does), and not insist on pushing a demographics concept that describes but one aspect of the Paris economy, but since this is the case, than it must be explained. Another solution would be to have the GDP figures in its own section and context (IDF), and Paris-area employment in another (aire urbaine), both with respective descriptions (this is needed), but the two are inexorably intertwined throughout an Economy section that reads like someone narrating a statistics table. In its present form, it is clear for many here that the existing description is useful.
I really don't understand the coordinated focus on one clarification when there's tons of other issues to fix in the rest of the article. Obviously article quality is not a concern here. THEPROMENADER✎✓08:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give too much technical information, and the reader will be confused. Give too much historical information, and the reader will be confused. Give too much architectural information, and the reader will be confused. In other words, give too much Paris information on Paris, and the reader will be confused.
On the other hand, don't give enough information on anything, and the reader will really be confused, bored, will have learned nothing & will wonder why he bothered.
And I am not sure the condescending (I was going to write "denigrating") tone by which a "reader" is described as being confused or unable to make anything out something that is a little meaty fits all readers who turn to Wikipedia. It does not describe me, and I don't think to be a unique case. Many turn to Wikipedia to learn something quickly from an article that is not left to a skeleton & so washed down that they have to turn to a thousand articles in order to get the information they were looking for. And the hilarious part is that a few of them will add the information they believe should be there. So, let's schedule a rendez-vous for next year at this time, or even earlier!
Following this discussion, one gets the impression that the utmost concern is not the quality of the article, but its length. Section by section, it is reduced to a "peau de chagrin". Cut! Cut! Cut! Are we paying for paper & ink?
By the way, I am curious to know how we have come upon the profile of our dear not-too-curious reader, on whom we seem to have so much data regarding likes & dislikes, and when the highest peak of his/her confusion or boredom is reached. Out of the millions who have access to this article, is there only one profile that fits all? Out of which crowd have we chosen the "reader" who fits to a T into our profiling mold? With the shrinking information we are preparing to give him/her, it must be a first grader... although first graders can be pretty sharp & usually ask many questions.
All I read here is that there is too much information on everything. Why bother writing an article? Why not limit it to titles of empty sections with blue linking to real articles?
We don't want this article to be "touristy", but if we remove everything that is not, in addition to everything that is, what are we going to be left with?
Surprised to learn that this article on Paris is supposed to be only an "overview". Only this article on Paris, or ALL articles in en.wiki? I thought an article was supposed to be something interesting to read, and in the redaction of which every editor was expected to put his/her best on the subject he/she is best at.
Again, what are we going to do when readers, innocently thinking they are bringing something interesting to this article, add details? For instance, the musée Marmottan Monet? Are we going to hire a watchdog to immediately remove any addition? That is really something to think about, because it is going to happen, and the first to be hit will be the history section & that of monuments.
Paris is Paris, and we are working against the current trying to reduce it the way attempted now.
An anecdote:
"Joseph II, emperor of Austria, commissioned the creation of The Abduction from the Seraglio, but when he heard it, he complained to Mozart, 'That is too fine for my ears, there are too many notes.' Mozart replied, 'There are just as many notes as there should be'. (Quote from en.wiki article on Die Entführung aus dem Serail")
Wikipedia is NOT paper, true, but that doesn't mean that every article on a broad topic should contain every scrap of info known to man. I'd say that's the beauty of wikipedia in that we can have dozens of sub articles containing detail about sub topics which readers can click. A general article on Paris should really be an outline sketch of the city, most visitors will not want to read a 150kb article fully let alone a 200 kb one. Quality is the most important, and a quality article on Paris would be fairly comprehensive but as concise as possible and impeccably well-researched and sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld23:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We (you and I) have no disagreement regarding the impeccability we want to attain in research, references, subjects covered & redaction of this article, and I am certain others who have been working relentlessly on it are d'accord with us. The main difference in our way of thinking seems to be the length. The article on New York City is 264,209 bytes long & we, here, on the city of Paris, which is at least a thousand years older & has a history like no other city in the world, and where the only features missing are a black lava beach & a year-long snowy peak, are aiming at 180,000. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: each subject covered is linked to a well-developed article of its own, and that is splendid, but in my own little humble opinion, that does not mean that the main article should be so amputated that one has to go on reading dozens of articles in order to get the information he/she is looking for. Many readers do not have all day to spend researching Paris, and a good summary of its history & description of the town itself belong in the main article. Because you & I and others here know much about Paris does not give us the right to sit as judges as to what those who do not should be fed. This is being pretentious on our part. I maintain that a reader who does not have all day to read an article should come out with the feeling that he has learned something, at least enough for the day, and not have to take the week off from work to search every article to become an expert on Paris. He/She can do that later if interested to do so. I also believe that when a point in the article is lacking source, "source missing" or "citation needed" could be added instead of reverting the day's work of an editor. A source 'lacking' does not mean the information is not correct, so just point at it & contact the editor, do not remove/revert the work. Editors such as SiefkinDR and THEPROMENADER✎✓ are not vandals or second-class editors, no more than Der Statistiker. They may not see eye to eye, but their work is as valuable. When source is lacking, anyone of us here, in the spirit of teamwork, can look it up & add it.
May I also remind you that we are still 'working' on the article. The last editor does not think that he/she has brought the article to an impeccable conclusion yet. Work is still in progress, with its imperfections.
And I am going to repeat my question to you, personally: what are you going to do when an innocent reader who has not been involved in this discussion adds a monument (for instance) to the article? Are you going to automatically reverse/revert? After the article has achieved GA, are we going to post an armed guard at its door?
I agree with Blue Indigo; I am glad to fix citations and sources, but I don't really see that our goal is to have the shortest possible article with the minimum acceptable amount of information about Paris. It will be great to have a universe of sub-articles, and some are underway, but we don't have them yet. I don't see it as exactly a virtue that the history of Paris section is shorter than the history section in the New York article, despite the difference in age. The article is not going to be frozen after this edit; it will need annual updating of statistics and additions as the city changes. It's not an outline, its a portrait of the city for people who don't know much about Paris and want to know more. I think you should come away from this article, without having to read sub-articles, with a good knowledge of the major institutions of Paris, the major sights, and how it got to be what it is today. SiefkinDR (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the article being shorter starts to affect quality then it is going too far. But there's also no need for a 200kb or even near it.. It shouldn't really be much over 160 kb, that's hardly a short article now is it?♦ Dr. Blofeld11:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Described above are the very reason I dislike 'other-article' comparison: two articles can only be alike if their subject matter is alike. Paris' history is so ancient that even a brief outline of it is already long: it has to have a history sub-article; I could even say that the New York article has commited a fault by trying to cram all of its short history into the main article. Nor is there a 'magic bullet' optimal section/article length - each section has its own particularities from article to article. Paris' history and particular administrative situation makes certain sections longer than 'the norm'. I've seen calls for 'descriptions of different architectural styles', yet Paris is so homogenous architecturally that this section will be shorter than 'the norm', unless we overly focus on as many as possible individual buildings that break with this tradition (which would give a false impression of what Paris really is).
So, in short, a 'perfect' article should be a harmony between those who know 'what's right' to mention in article content, and those who know 'what's right' for wikipedia and readers in general. Choose just one of these and the result will be either long and overly-detailed, or short and un/misinformative. THEPROMENADER✎✓12:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a time like pre 2008 on here when if you exceeded 32 kb for an article a warning used to come up suggesting splitting into different articles!! Now you can't possibly write a good article with it that short but I do think you can write a fairly comprehensive and concise article under 150kb. It's finding a balance I think, the most important thing is that it highlights the basics and is digestible to the reader. 264,209 bytes long is absolutely ridiculous, New York City or not. I'll be raising a concern on the talk page about that. Honestly I like articles to be comprehensive, in fact one of the reasons why I haven't taken Clint Eastwood to FAC is that I know I'd have to chop out a lot of material which in my opinion would make it a lesser article. That's 148kb and very long really for FA. But I don't think any article on wikipedia really needs to be 200kb, let alone 264 kb, even on global cities. If the article is difficult to read comfortably in one sitting and within half an hour then it's too long. We are an encyclopedia at the end of the day, not a book. Our strength lies with the room to venture into hundreds of sub articles covering topics in detail.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See what you did there? A few of us here are just as endeared to Paris as you are to that Clint Eastwood article - cutting large swaths out of it 'just ain't right' ; )
And that's an article on a single person, not and entire city. But still, with a bit of effort the Paris article would be about 'right' at 170-180k. The TOC -must- be comprehensive though, as readers will find what they're looking for there more than they'll scroll down and read/scan the entire article. THEPROMENADER✎✓14:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just had an edict conflict with the The Promenader above.
Here we are, working on an article with each one of us aware of the fact that some details do not belong to a general article, but to a related sub article to which there is a link. For instance, the Eiffel Tower is mentioned, but not every step of its construction should be in the Paris article, and we stick to that concept. When each is done with his/her section or whatever he/she was working on, we take a look at the article, see if the sections are well balanced with none overflowing in comparison to others etc. At one time we are going to agree (hmm!) that the article is saying exactly what it should, not too much, not too little, and THEN we look at its length. It may be under 160,000, which I doubt very much, and it may be 250,000. But will the length matter if we are satisfied with the content of the article? In the end, isn't the content what really matters? What I am driving at is that right now we are so concentrated - or made to concentrate - on the length of the article that nothing else matters: someone cuts here, someone skips adding a necessary detail in fear it is going to be reverted, someone comes with a measuring tape, some contributors walk away & the rest of us freeze. I salute those who keep working at it, trying to please everyone, but are still criticized because a divine hand has set in stone the byte limitation of Wikipedia articles, at least that on Paris.
Again, Paris is different. It is different because it is the old capital of an old country that has gone thru political turmoil & changes all its life, while Washington D.C., (sorry The Promaneder for the comparison) is the capital of a country that has had the same constitution since its birth, and has remained set in the same decor in which it was built with not many changes. Compared to Paris, that is a capital really "set in stone", with the huge number of 25 old historical buildings since 1674? And again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia & has not business decapitating the history or amputating any part of a city or a person because it has set certain numbers of bytes per article - has it? The article on Michael Jackson has 242,041 bytes, that on WWII 221,157, Elvis Presley 188,843, Hitler 155,212 bytes. And now it is suggested that 160,000 bytes for Paris are sufficient?
Indigo, my judgement is a 'finger in the wind' one based on a) my knowledge about this city (and the events that made it what it is today), b) my remembering as a foreigner what I didn't know about this city (and what I had assumed (as a NA foreigner) to be true but later found out different) and c) remembering what I came here for and how I came about it (and where I went to read more in-depth after). I see a few things missing, but it seems more or less 'right'... but you don't have to take my word for it, it's just my opinion. ; ) THEPROMENADER✎✓14:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is way too long because of sections such as "Poverty and the homeless" added recently. This is making a joke of a general article like this. Anyway, if this section is not removed, I will add a "Wealth and the rich people" section this week, to balance things a bit (why a section only about the city's poor and not its rich inhabitants?). End result: the article will be even longer. Brilliant. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article has several sections or subsections on population, richer neighborhoods according to value on square meters, on salaries, size of apartments or studios, etc. Included in
Housing:
Two-thirds of Paris's 1.3 million residences are studio and two-room apartments.
Only 33% of principal-residence Parisians own their habitation (against 47% for the entire Île-de-France): the major part of Paris's population is a rent-paying one.
Social housing represents a little more than 17% of Paris's total residences, but these are rather unevenly distributed throughout the capital:...
Demographics:
...the main features of the Parisian population are a high average income, relatively young median age...
Income:
The average net household income (after social, pension and health insurance contributions) was 36,085 euros in Paris for 2011.[132] It ranges from €22,095 in the 19th[133] arrondissement to €82,449 in the 7th[134] arrondissement. The median taxable income for 2011 was around 25,000 euros in Paris and 22,200 for Île-de-France.[135] Generally speaking, incomes are higher in the Western part of the city and in the western suburbs than in the northern and eastern parts of the urban area.
So, why not speak of homelessness? It belongs - or at least needs a mention - in economy, housing:
Those living in tents do live somewhere, and it happens to be in tents on the quay of the Canal Saint-Martin in Paris.
This is not about not speaking of homelessness, it is about having a specific sub section about it. We don't need more than one small sentence mentioning it. Minato ku (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of this article do nothing but trumpet how great and powerful Paris is. And about the rather pointed tagging, one of the citations is to a map of the aire urbaine covering the IDF. And the entire sections trumpets "The Paris economy is really the IDF economy" although many sources don't agree with this (they consider the Paris agglomeration instead), but if you insist... these were not done with article quality in mind, especially when they come from someone in the habit of linking to excel tables as "sources" for numbers of their own concoction. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page 180 of the book in your reference does not say that "the Paris region (Île-de-France) GDP is often considered Paris' own". A reference is supposed to back the sentence it references, otherwise it's original research. The previous sentence is also quite obscure ("commuters to and from their Paris area workplaces live in an area covering primarily the Île-de-France region"). The two references listed do not contain this sentence. It needs to be reworded in a much more simple and matter-of-fact way. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that phrase, so it's much simpler now. The 'green index' reference was just after your tag - clearly you are here just to target other contributors. Stop. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a concept with no obvious definition such as a "green city" is introduced in the article, it should be explained in the same sentence and not left to readers to go check the definition in the reference. That's common sense. Otherwise what's the worth of putting this sentence in the article if the reader has no idea what that concept means?? As for the first paragraph, the "commuters to and from their Paris area workplaces live in an area covering primarily the Île-de-France region" is still there, extremely badly worded, to the point that the average reader has probably no clue what is meant by this sentence (not to mention that the two references listed afterwards do not contain this sentence and its strange wording). Der Statistiker (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather pointedly nitpicky, especially when there are tons of other article problems outlined clearly and many times above. All the same, the 'hated explanation' is über simple now. Happy? THEPROMENADER✎✓21:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's much better now. Clearer, and less confusing. But in my opinion it's rather unnecessary, as it's only stating the obvious (all the cities of the world have their economy stretching well beyond their administrative limits, unless they are large Chinese municipalities; and I'm not sure the fact that INSEE collects employment statistics in the communes adds any value to the reader in this section or indeed in the article; in fact you could also have mentioned that INSEE collects employment statistics at the census tract level, called IRIS in France... commune statistics are only the aggregation of IRIS statistics, but is the reader frankly needing this sort of details in such a general article??). Der Statistiker (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious to you, because you know about such things! But if statistics are expressed in two different methods, they both have to be explained (as this clarification was useful even to other contributors here). And no, we don't need another level of confusion added to this ; ) THEPROMENADER✎✓21:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are... links: Paris Metropolitan Area, Paris Region. Readers are not stupid, they can click on the links when they see those terms (as opposed to "green city" which is neither linked nor explained), and see what they mean if they don't know already. On the other hand, I'm not sure mentioning INSEE's complex alchemy of communes and departments and urban areas and aires urbaines (a non-English term) is going to help their comprehension. PS: And accusing me of not having the article quality in mind is below the belt. I remind you Fut.Perf.'s rule: 'comment on content, not on contributors'. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone would agree that my observations were quite accurate. But concerning the article, when one can read in a single phrase what's going on in the rest of the section (the context), it's much better for the reader. Obliging readers to open new pages and windows just to understand article content is a bit much. THEPROMENADER✎✓22:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: And those backwards, fixed, compicating demography-ignoring communes, departments and regions are France's, not the INSEE's, and they can't be ignored. The INSEE tried to spatial-analysis deal with this with their statistical tools (that the public neither refers to or knows about), and this adds yet another level of 'confusion'... if it is not explained. So, all the reason more for this. THEPROMENADER✎✓07:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About poverty and homelessness
One editor has suggested that the short text on poverty and homelessness in Paris is irrelevant, unimportant, "unfamiliar to readers" and, as he puts it, "a joke." Poverty has been a familiar part of Paris life since the Middle Ages (see Victor Hugo). There are enormous income disparities between Paris neighborhoods, well documented, and the City of Paris runs a large network of homeless shelters. Anyone who has been out on the streets, even in the 6th and 7th arrondissements, sees it, it's a major social problem in Paris. I don't think that stating official statistics on poverty and homelessness is irrelevant or unfamiliar to readers. They should be included in the article.SiefkinDR (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being the one who suggested it at someone's talk page, I do support the idea... because it is a fact & something quite visible. And it is not necessary to balance it out with "neighborhoods of rich people", as those are quite obviously mentioned throughout the article.
Curiously, I just fell upon this article in today's German newspaper Handelsblatt online, nothing to do with homelessness, but another fact of Paris that could be mentioned in climate? health? tourism? cemeteries?
Poverty exists in all the cities of the world, and yet only Paris has a section dedicated to poverty now. Go figure! Besides, there is already an "Incomes" section where this information belongs. As usual, you guys forget the larger picture and turn anything you write into a case of ownership, as if your sacred edits were untouchable. You think you're the only ones putting hard work in this article (as Blue Indigo wrote on Coldcreation's talk page)? I see only inflated egos and uncompromising editors here. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Go Figure' for what? Uncompromising with what? What 'ownership'? What 'egos'? (looking at talk pages filled with discussion) What 'uncompromising'? Whither the accusations... based on what? THEPROMENADER✎✓18:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Statistiker, please stop the personal attacks and insults to other editors. It has no place in Wikipedia. How many times do we have to tell you that?SiefkinDR (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was only reacting to that last sentence by SiefkinDR because it makes me ill reading over-patronizing phrases( particularly in a context of dealing with poverty in Paris, where aristocracies-and-caste struggles are very much under reciprocal matters of patronizing ), then as Blue Indigo puts it below you are all doing good work on that article so I let the opportunity for your question, my intention is not of being disruptive. --Askedonty (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Der Statistiker, a couple of days ago, I wrote on this very page: "I also believe that when a point in the article is lacking source, "source missing" or "citation needed" could be added instead of reverting the day's work of an editor. A source 'lacking' does not mean the information is not correct, so just point at it & contact the editor, do not remove/revert the work. Editors such as SiefkinDR and THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ are not vandals or second-class editors, no more than Der Statistiker. They may not see eye to eye, but their work is as valuable. When source is lacking, anyone of us here, in the spirit of teamwork, can look it up & add it." No idea if you read this, but shorty after you went thru several paragraphs that either SiefkinDR of THEPROMENADER✎✓ had done in which the sources were missing or wrong and, instead of removing these portions, you put "citations needed". Then Coldcreation found the sources & put them there. Siefkin thanked Coldcreation on his/her talkpage & I also left a note of thanks for that courteous gesture that avoided someone's hard work being reverted. Anything wroong doing this? As for people "putting hard work in this article", may I point out to you that you were among the three I named?
And about not only poverty in Paris as given by scale of salaries, cost of rents & the number of people who cram into a one square meter apartment, but about homelessness & people living in tents, I think it is important to have a mention of it somewhere because most foreigners have an idea of France, and Paris in particular, that is fed thru advertisement & Hollywood movies. Why not in this article show the gap between the rich & the poor, the wealth brought by multinationals & the people left behind, whatever the reason is, but who do not live in luxurious apartments in the seizième or in Neuilly, with the proximity of the Bois de Boulogne, but on the quay of the Seine in tents furnished by some charitable organization?
Last: my bringing earlier today's Handelsblatt article is because, an every day common fact about Paris that should not be ignored is its unbeathable pollution - one of the reasons the various maires have been pushing the use of bicycles!
Homelessness and pollution are common features in all the cities of the world, and Paris is certainly not worse than most other cities on these two metrics, in fact it is much better. Pollution levels in Paris are infinitely lower than in most Asian cities, also better than in German industrial areas, eastern Europe, and many North American cities. As for the use of bicycles, it's a gimmick by the Paris city hall, not a serious policy. So what's the point of singling out two aspects of the city that are nothing really special, and usually not mentioned in other city articles? As usual I see a tendency among some editors here to look at Paris 'par le petit bout de la lorgnette'. What's needed is the big picture, not the 'petit bout de la lorgnette'.
Also, Monsieur Blue Indigo, instead of lecturing other people on this talk page, why don't you actually spend your time and energy improving the culture section, which is currently laughingly outdated and cliché? Such a connoisseur of Paris as you cannot but be shocked to see the Parisian culture reduced to a sort of pre-WW2 theme park in this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sehr geehrter Herr Statistiker! Keine Zeite. Keine Lust. A lot of work of mine here was "disappeared". According to the opinion of experts, my ideas about culture are probably 'de l'autre côté de la plaque', as is, according to you, every idea or suggestion I bring to this page. For one to dare to open his/her mouth is a sure way of becoming your next target. Beside, since musette & rap are not strong points of my cultural background, that leaves me out of the culture department. But, with or without your permission, I will contribute to the discussion on this page where what I write can be criticized, but not reverted.
Warum Monsieur Blue Indigo? Nur guys allowed hier?
As I've said a thousand times before, I frankly don't give a rat's ass what 'other wikipedia articles' do... Wikipedia 'big city' articles seem to be plagued by "mine's bigger than yours" POV-PUSH campaigners wanting to show only the biggest, tallest and best of 'their' city (and exclude anything negative in the process). Crime and poverty are both real problems here (with their 'problem areas'), and excluding this gives a disingenuous image of the city. Disingenuousity is a fault, not a rule.
Thanks for FINALLY stating your POV in the most clear way. You want this article to highlight the "negative" sides of Paris. At least the other editors now know what's your goal here. Problem is, an encyclopedic article is not about highlighting the good of bad (subjective judgment, hence POV) aspects of its subject. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(cough) Wwwwwhat? Why the disingenuous effort to build false opposition - to what? Neither contribution was mine. Those accusations don't even make sense. THEPROMENADER✎✓12:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on a canvas of paragraph for history, using the same rules than for biographies, then putting the art/sciences/architectures main event for Paris for the concerned century, in them context. I am only adding items directly related to Paris as town, Paris because it was Paris, and not only because people making it was living in this city, but it would have happened elsewhere if people were not living in Paris. For example in Science, definition of the meter and metrical system but not Lavoisier research on water. For architecture : Gothic movement ; and for plastics arts the main movement that happened in Paris after Paris replace Rome as capital of arts in the XIX century (reference to be copied from French articles about Art nouveau).
Use this draft if you want. It wont be ready quickly because I have too much work IRL. v_atekor (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added an important new section on Security and safety in Paris. It is placed within the Tourism section, as tourists are most often targeted for robberies and related activity. Coldcreation (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article supposed to be a tourist guide? This is getting more and more ridiculous by the day. What's next? A section about the best air fares to Paris? Der Statistiker (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's beyond ridiculous to add 6 paragraphs to an already very long article that simply copy warnings from the US State Department to tentative tourists to France. This subsection does not discuss crime in Paris (tourist crime is only a very minor aspect of crime in Paris), it gives no context about criminality in Paris (if this is even needed in a general article such as this), it's only some warnings and advice to tentative tourists. You guys are now going to such extremes here that I am in no doubt this will all boomerang back. But then feel free to add more tourism stuff! The more this article becomes extremist in its 'tourist guide' orientation, the more it is bound to eventually attract the attention of other editors concerned with the encyclopedic quality of it. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Extremist'? Is it even possible to you to state your views in a talk page without reverting, accusing, insulting, or belittling? When one 'states' points in that way, people tend not to listen. THEPROMENADER✎✓12:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why there is no consensus and progressive discussion possible in this talk page, ThePromenader, if you don't even listen to points where you don't agree.
Any section about crime in Paris has no reason to be put in tourism section and this section should not be a copy of tourist advice from the US or it just proves that this article is more and more written with the tourist point of view, it is not giving an overview of the Paris of today and its function but giving something based on stereotypes and what tourist may see. Nothing about the banking and financial industries but a lot about the hotels. Minato ku (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem guys is that beginning the article with History starts the reading of it with a blank and semi-void which remains long the only and dusty path with ancient and faded pictures before starting arriving to the real thing. There seem to miss a direction. The fat rich modern piece of urbanity exposed in the lede arrives only after crossing the desert and that's a bit perplexing. You'd need one flashy and bright spot of paragraph before starting with history. About direction: in Government, we read that the city has a Mayor, starting with Jacques Chirac. There is something unreal in that image (although it's fact). I think it should be shortly reminded that an equivalent function was held by the Provost of Merchants until 1789. --Askedonty (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually agree that the history should go further down after we understand what the city's all about... but I'm not the only one here. By the way, what brought you to the article talk-page? THEPROMENADER✎✓15:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was, I had an eye on a few of the big cities articles, my watch on evolution, and I'm curious about what will become of the Parisian struggle between glass towers and the Eiffel Tower. There is also the Tour Triangle affair. I noted the struggle seemed to be also in the talk-page, this sometimes can lead to some easy conversation - voilà. --Askedonty (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if the Le Monde article was still bringing attention, or the campaign on French wikipedia inspired by the same article. Okay, cool! I left a longer message below. THEPROMENADER✎✓21:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Askedonty: regarding the last question by ThePromenader, to let you know what sort of charming place you've entered, he's probably implying, as he often does, that I have contacted you off Wikipedia, or canvassed with you, or something like that. That's basically the meaning of what would otherwise be a rather odd question to ask in any other talk page. Various other editors have also been accused by him of being either my meatpuppets, or some people I had "recruited" (sic!) off Wikipedia. That's the sort of constant accusations one is faced with here.
Regarding the history section: yes indeed, there is no rule that says a city article should start with the history section, but as you must have noticed by now, there is a clear push to turn this article into a mostly historical article, as if Paris was a mummified city. The "Culture" section is a very good example of this: it reads mostly as a history of Parisian culture before 1960. Long paragraphs about ancient artists and cultural trends (with a clear preference for the 19th century, don't know why), and almost nothing about today's Parisian culture. Paris must be some sort of Pompeii buried under the ashes of a volcano in 1960.
The other major flaw in this article is its tourist orientation. This has been already criticized on this talk page, but again: 1- the current tourist photomontage in the infobox which was forced in this article without prior consensus in replacement of this more modern picture of Paris, 2- a strong focus on heritage, as if a city was just a collection of heritage sites (several sections are little more than long lists of monuments; and it used to be even worse a few weeks ago before User:Metropolitan removed a very long list of "landmarks" from the article), 3- a new "tourism" section that is less than a week old and already twice longer than the "education" section (complete with travel warnings by the US State Department added today).
My advice: do not let insinuations and daily vitriol destabilize/discourage you. We need new non-involved editors to express themselves here, because the "discussion" between the currently involved editors is frankly leading nowhere, with one camp firmly entrenched in their historical/heritage view of Paris, and another camp trying to defend a more modern and functional view of the city, but with little success so far as you can see from the current state of the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wondered what brought Askedonty here - this article has seen so few contributors over the years. But the person making all the accusations does indeed canvass and use (at the least) knowingly meat-puppet contributors[115] to impose edits or overturn consensus - that does tend to further (in addition to all the disingenuous accusations) disrupt the editing atmostphere. THEPROMENADER✎✓16:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well - I'm surprised, I'd thought that a subject like Paris would be of course attracting a number of contributors. I do not think I'm interested getting involved into writing for the article, that's not the kind of subject I know myself to be very easy with, I thought however I could give my view if it could help.
Indeed a kind of subject I'm more at ease with being history, I've noted that history can be a difficult merge where ancient classical cities are concerned. Particularly so concerning Paris probably, with all the different periods almost all intermingled in the contemporary exploitation of them, and a prosaic life going on around it. That's where a touristic oriented aesthetics is a temptation because easier. See how the history subjects are often grey and blank, coloured only by action in the narrative, or by the exposure of aristocracies and protocols. In some Italian cities one may emphasize on the gold and the purple. In our Rome article there is the exposure of some very spectacular excavations. The history of Paris is much of action, but this is not the place for spectacular narratives - perhaps the history part could be focusing more on urbanism and geographical deployment. @Der Statistiker: the photomontage seems to be a de facto standard, where big cities articles are concerned, otherwise bright colored panorama like with Hong Kong. I would certainly support a request for a different photomontage, the Eiffel Tower view in the present is was probably intended for a standalone picture. --Askedonty (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Askedonty! Bienvenue! Please stick around. You sound as if you could help détendre l'atmosphère. C'est souvent orageux ici. The problem is that there is not one Paris, but a different Paris for everyone & each one of us sees it with different eyes.
@Askedonty: I proposed this photomontage, but it was rejected by the historical/heritage camp here. Too modern, not representative of the city I was told. So it's not a question of single photo vs photomontage, it's really a question of modernity vs fantasy 'Woody Allenesque' Paris. That's where we are. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just have to add that I'm again dismayed at the level of disingenuousity in the aggressive diatribes against other contributors - most all of us are just trying to improve the article (it just lost its GA status, btw), but there's always been one here doing everything possible to resist it. There wasn't much opposition over the past seven years or so, so the article remained (in its sorry state) relatively unchanged, but Dr. Blofeld's efforts to improve it, plus a battle over the lede image led to a canvassing of a skyscrapercity.com website to garner like-minded meatpuppet votes... and exactly the same thing happened one year later. This time though, I'm glad to say, the involved contributors have been more dedicated, tenacious and numerous, and we're at present working out what the final article should be. Some are history-oriented, some are culture-oriented, Dr. Blofeld is our 'wikiperfection' guide, I'd like to see more urbanism (the city as a city), and the skyscraper-denizens would like a 'huge, rich and skyscraper-filled' with hardly any mention of history or tourism at all. That's about the sum of it. So... welcome? ; ) You're obviously knowledgable (your prévôt des Marchands comment), so if you don't mind the noise, please stick around and pitch in! THEPROMENADER✎✓21:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again repeating your false accusations? Let's inform Askedonty that you filed 4 (four!) complaints against me in the Administrators' Noticeboard to get me banned (whereas I never filed any complaint against you), and all of them failed, and in the end an administrator even told you to shut up and "comment on content, not contributors". Perhaps you believe if a falsehood is repeated often enough it will end up being taken for the truth. I am NOT a member of that stupid skyscraper forum, and the fact that your repeating that falsehood over and over again won't change that fact.
Polemics aside, I have to agree that the current "security and safety" seems more suitable to en:wikivoyage:Paris than to encyclopedia article about Paris. A section about crime may be relevant here, perhaps about residential break-ins, drug-trafficking, whatever, but not an how-to guide about tourism safety. --Superzoulou (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but I'm always suspicious of somebody who edits only a couple of times a year and turns up to support something and never place any weight on their opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld17:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but I fail to see the point of this vacuous 'ad hominem comment. Besides, it is pretty clear that the issue with this article is that people are too emotional about it, not that they show up too infrequently. --Superzoulou (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lock the talk page
In all honesty I think it would be better in the long term if central discussion was avoided here. It causes more conflict and trouble than it's worth. I think the best solution would be to lock the talk page and encourage discussion/collaboration between individual contributors, at least until everybody can learn to work together and assume good faith. I'm sick of seeing the ill feeling here.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those who share ill feelings have to work that out between themselves. If they cannot, Wikipedia has ways to 'lock' them out. Besides, if they want to argue, they will do it on any page being worked on. But locking the talk page? I don't think it is a good idea. This would lock out anyone wanting to participate in the discussion & bring valuable new ideas.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this issue. Metropolitan (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
![[67]](http://www.cashville-boutique.fr/media/catalog/product/cache/1/small_image/427x427/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/t/s/tshirt-unkut-paname-noir.jpg){kind=link}
![[102]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ThePromenader#mediaviewer/File:Social_housing_in_Paris_jms_DRIHL_2012.jpg){kind=link}
![[103]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jms_idf_median_income_2010.png){kind=link}
![[104]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jms_pc_median_income_2010.png){kind=link}
![[105]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jms_paris_elevation_hydrography.png){kind=link}
![[113]](http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d107/Vincentthomas/Photo%206/TourismeIDFdepense.jpg){kind=link}
