![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
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)
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)
This is just POINT editing. The above 'complaint' wasn't even answered (understandable because its disruptive and personal attack nature), and what happened to " The fact that you've mentioned them "many times" doesn't mean they are accepted by other editors"? Wikipedia is not a GAME. By the way, I've already mentioned many times that I'm working on an 'urban sociology' section here that covers both rich and poor issues, and an actual discussion would have allowed that to come up again. But no chance for that... as usual. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
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. Blofeld 13:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
@
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)
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)
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)
You all have brought up some excellent points. Please feel free to improve or move the section of safety and security as best you see fit. I will see what I can do to ameliorate is well. Coldcreation ( talk) 07:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"About 2.7 million of this total were born outside Metropolitan France and represent a multitude of different countries and territories from around the world."
" Disneyland Paris, the most visited tourist attraction in France, welcomed 32.3 million visitors."
It seems to me that in lede, anything that touches Paris itself should have the priority over the Paris Region which is not Paris.
This, for instance, should be before the paragraph on Paris Region & Disneyland:
Then the paragraph on sport.
Then the Paris Region.
Best regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 15:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"As for trying to make a rank order between the City of Paris and the Paris Region, I think it's a bit futile (and impossible), because the two are inextricably interwoven."
Few share this opinion, and no reference that I've ever seen, either. And hardly all aspects of the city are intertwined with its surrounding region - and that, only in the IDF's inmost departments - and that disconnect is the very problem they are trying to solve with the Greater Paris Metropole! This article is about Paris, so it is only normal that Paris be mentioned first.
THEPROMENADER
✎
✓
20:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies to Der Statistiker & Minato ku for not being more precise about the urban space covered by 'my' metro ticket: I meant Zone 1, which is Paris intra muros [ [4]].
-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 10:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Le ticket t+ est valable pour un trajet continu, here: http://www.transilien.com/static/tarifs/billet-unite
There is actually a metro ticket for only Paris intra muros=Zone 1.
Pas moi qui l'invente! -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 11:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Could be time to edit mention of Mickey Mouse in Lede & Economy: [ [6]] -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 00:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Anyone to archive the current page, only presenting a short synthesis of not yet solved points (Oh.... of course, the definition of the short synthesis should not generate new discussions to be recursively archived... ) v_atekor ( talk) 08:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I have corrected the weatherbox because the 1971-2000 averages in the climate section of Paris are wrong and mixed with 1981-2010 summer seasons averages. The 1981-2010 averages that I have added are correct, please do not change them because these averages came from meteo france official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:39AF:800:F921:CB83:64B2:AA68 ( talk) 10:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be mentioned at the bottom of the history?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I would propose deleting the map of parks and gardens that was recently added to the article; it's much larger than any other image in the article, and, because it has no text or labels, it provides no other information about Paris parks, other than to show that Paris does in fact have them. This is a small section, and I think that the image that is already there, showing people in one of the parks, is more appropriate. Unless someone comes up with a good reason for retaining it, I think it should be taken out. Anyone have comments on this? SiefkinDR ( talk) 11:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The new population figures and rankings just added to the lead, "2015 estimates" for the "urban area", are confusing and not from an official source,. I don't believe they're necessary. Before this edit, the lead gave the official population of the city within the city limits, and its ranking with other EU cities (fifth). It also gave the official population for the Paris metropolitan area, from Eurostat, with its ranking with other EU metropolitan areas (second after London)..
The new figures for "urban areas" are "2015 estimates" and according to the citation come from a private source, Demographia. It's not at all clear what the difference is between the metropolitan area and the urban area, and it certainly shouldn't require an explanation in the lead. The "urban area", and these statistics, are not mentioned at all in the section on demographics.
I think the lead should give only the official population figure, and ranking of Paris with other EU cities; and the official metropolitan area population from Eurostat, with ranking with other EU cities. A discussion of the "urban area", and any unofficial ranking with other cities outside EU probably belongs in the demographics section, not in the lead.
What do other editors think? SiefkinDR ( talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Urban area is a relatively universal concept. All countries define continuous urban area as urban settlements within 200 metres of each-other. What constitutes as an "urban settlement" may vary though. Overall however, urban area is relatively comparable across countries, and many sources including the UN use this measure. They do not use administrative boundaries.
The suburbs of French cities are rarely annexed by there adjacent city, but instead administered as separate departments. Conversely, English cities often expand there jurisdiction outwards to encompass suburbs. Does this make French cities smaller than English cities? Furthurmore, English cities administrative boundaries often include rural areas and separate distinct towns. For example, the metropolitan borough of the City of Sunderland, includes the city, Sunderland, and Washington, an entirely separate town with a distinct identity. French cities rarely annex neighbouring towns like this.
The administrative limits are designated for administrative convenience, not to define a city. Furthermore, London specifically does not have a "city limit". It has an administrative region. That is not a "city limit" as your change currently implies. Please provide a reliable source that compares cities across countries based on there administrative limits.
The Paris region's area is four times the size of the city's urban area. There are parts of it that are not even regarded by the INSEE as within Paris' metropolitan area. I can't understand how this is relevant here? Yes, the figures are available and updated, but it's still not relevant. There are a a number of small towns in the Paris region, that is beyond Paris' metropolitan area. For example Provins, or Nemours. Why is the population of those towns relevant to Paris?
Please can you remove the sentence about the Paris region's population from the lead until there is consensus to include it? Rob984 ( talk) 12:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
My objection relates to this sentence:
'The English and Burgundians occupied Paris in 1356 during the Hundred Years' War, not leaving until 1436.'
The present text simply makes it look as if Paris was 'occupied' for 80 years. This is not correct as far as my knowledge goes.
It appears someone took 1356 (in which the Battle of Poitiers took place) as a starting date of some sort of 'occupation'. Although the French king did get captured in this battle, starting a gloomy period of French affairs which would last for a decade at least, the English did not press their advantage and did not advance on Paris. Also, unless my memory deceives me, the English as such have never had control of Paris. All sieges attempted by the English during the war were unsuccessful.
The Burgundians, however, -did- have control of Paris.
However, for the sake of clarity I would recommend to make sure to mention in the text that these were not the 'tribe' of Burgundians, or in fact a separate political entity (a 'Nation' if you will), but rather adherents of a junior branch of the royal Valois dynasty , which was at (a civil) war with the ruling branch.The name 'Burgundians' refers to the title of the leader of the junior branch - Duke of Burgundy.
Also, the Burgundian faction did not control the city at all at any point in the 14th century, since the faction did not exist. It only came to be around 1408 if I remember well.
I am not a professional historian, or anything of the sort, but I hope someone more erudite could shed some light on the matter just so we don't make the French look as if their capital had been policed by other peoples for 80 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:83A6:3102:EA2A:EAFF:FEB5:50EA ( talk) 20:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I replaced the unannotated "Paris housing 2012" map with a .png version of the earlier .jpg I made... sorry to whoever made the .svg version (and why this replacement - 'because' .svg? Just ask!), but the earlier version was at-a-glance informative - we can't expect readers to click to know what they're looking at (red means...?) when it can be readily presented. I'll see about making an SVG version, too.
FTR, I'm working on a 'paris walls (over the centuries)' map, too, and will be finishing it on my next break (soon). Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
What you looking for about Paris; from the 5th volume of the work "Ogygia or Archaiologia", by prof. Athanasios Stageirites, Vienna, 1815: "...When Paris was about to be born, his mother Hecabe, dreamed that she gave birth to a flaming torch and the whole city caught fire from it. When Aisakos explained the dream, he said that this child will be responsible for the collapse of Troy. So when he was born, Priamos, following Aisakos advice, gave the newborn baby to his shepherd, Agelaos, to throw the baby in the desert. The same misfortune was fortold by Kassandra and also the oracle Herofile. So Agelaos threw the baby to Ide, but going back to the mountain after five days, he saw the baby being breastfed by a bear. So he took the baby to his fields and raised it like it was his own child and then called the baby Paris, from parienai; because he escaped the danger... ... and Paris became handsome and brave, therefore they also called him Alexander..." (Appol.E'. Ib'. 5, Didum. Il. M.93., Dikt. G' ks'., Paus. Fokik. Ib'., Eurip. Andromache 297.) So Paris, from 'parienai', means 'to pass', 'go by', 'expire', 'escape from', 'get away'.
Paris is definitely an ancient Greek name, not only used in Ilion region but also in other parts of Greece, such as: The Aegean islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Attica, Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily, Magna Graecia, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, northern shores of Black Sea.
For further information see also: "Homeric Lexicon", I. Pantazides, Athens, 1880 "Homeric Onomatologion", N. Papadopoulos, Kyromanos ed. "Lexicon of mythological, historical and geographical personal names", N. Lorentes, Vienna, 1837 "Lexicon of the Ancient World, Greece-Rome" Y. Lampsas. Dome ed. 58.165.242.248 ( talk) 02:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please clarify the population of the Paris urban area (unite urbaine)?
TF1, M6 and Le Parisien are not based in Paris. They are based in the Paris suburb : TF1 at Boulogne-Billancourt, M6 at Neuilly-sur-Seine and Le Parisien at Saint-Ouen. Clio64 ( talk) 18:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Things have been more than a little software-development-intensive for me over the past months, but I've got a bit of (August 'imposed vacation') time on my hands for the coming weeks... how are things going here, any thoughts, any change ideas? Hope you all are well, take care, best, THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Paris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Statistiker, You have reverted text by other editors in this section twice now, without any explanation. Frankly, I don't think your changes were improvements. Can you please explain why you're making these changes? Thanks- SiefkinDR ( talk) 07:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we can start this discussion again in a calmer voice. Der Statistiker, you're correct that I confused the number of U.S. citizens in Paris with the number of those born in the U.S. living in Paris. In the US you're a automatically a citizen if you're born in the US. so I thought they were same, but I see that they're not; there's a difference of about six hundred, who I suppose are naturalized US citizens. Thanks for catching that. I also apologize that the URL was missing the second time from the citation, when I replaced it after you deleted it the first time without any explanation. I believe the numbers we are using are all from the same source, the 2011 census.
On the question of which numbers go first, those from Paris or those from the Ile-de-France (Paris region), you never explained why you changed the order. I put the Paris numbers first when I added this information to the article. In other sections of the article, and in the lead, information about the city is given first, and about the region second. The same is done in other articles on major cities and their regions. I would like to put it back the way it was.
I welcome your comments and suggestions and your contributions, but I hope you won't make any more changes to other editors' texts without discussing them here first. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Look at how long is the part about November 2015 terror attacks.
"On 13 November 2015, there were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris and Saint-Denis claimed by the 'Islamic state' organisation ISIL ('Daesh', ISIS). These included shootings at three sidewalk cafes; a suicide-bomb attack outside the Stade de France stadium where a France-Germany football match, attended by French President François Hollande, was taking place; and an attack on the Bataclan theatre/concert-hall, where Kalashnikov-armed terrorists opened fire on rock-concert spectators before triggering their suicide vests. In all, there were 130 people killed and more than 350 injured. Seven of the attackers killed themselves and others by setting off their explosive vests, while at least two others were still being sought by police. On the morning of November 18 three suspected terrorists, including Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the alleged mastermind of the attacks, were killed in a shootout with police in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. President Hollande declared France to be in a three-month state of emergency,"
We don't need to have all these detail on the Wikipedia article about Paris. A relatively short single sentence is enough, we don't need to learn how and where Abdelhamid Abaaoud and some of his accomplice were killed, we don't need to have detail on the guns used by terrorists.
If people want to learn more about these attacks, there is an article about it.
November 2015 Paris attacks.
Minato ku (
talk)
20:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The history section is way too long and disproportionate in this article. This has been said before, but instead of being shortened it seems to have been lengthened in the past year. Go figure. Der Statistiker ( talk) 01:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The recent spike in activity isn't because of the attacks? Are you serious? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just noticed that
Jmabel has reduced the size of the part about the november 2015 attack, He wrote "reduce near-anecdotal "presentism". Just because it's been in the news lately doesn't make it that major in an article about a city. Possibly could be edited down even further: we have a large, separate article about the attack"
I fully agree with this, it is not because something is a "current" event that more should be said about it and then reduced later when the heat will be down. Wikipedia is not a news site.
Informations about when, how and where Abdelhamid was killed are unecessary, it does not give us more information about the modern history of Paris.
Minato ku (
talk)
17:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Why was this reverted to the state it was in... a year ago? On the very day (since almost a year) I made minor modifications to that section (which means my work was reverted as well)? This is odd, to say the least. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't distract from the issue: the section was put back in its exact same state from almost a year ago (a deplorable state that was the origin of an improvement drive involving many contributors, and many contributors since), and I haven't even checked what was updated or not; if there were some updated numbers, that seems purely symbolic in that action. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll update the air traffic table soon. Didn't have time yesterday. I have a life besides Wikipedia you know.
Der Statistiker (
talk)
13:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
And
ThePromenader, can you point out exactly what important and non-outdated information Minato ku removed from the section? If there is any, it should be added back in the article of course.
Der Statistiker (
talk)
14:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
That said, I'll be putting this section back into its pre-revert state later today, of course adding the new tram line information (and any other numbers that have been updated since the revert). From here on, if there is anything more than a few phrases you'd like to change or remove, you talk about it here, first. That, too, I'll be outlining later today. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 04:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Distraction aside, both SiefkinDR and I have expressed our disapproval over this (many-times-removed-over-the-years-with-consensus-and-rationale) table, yet Der Statistiker totally ignored this to re-insert it.
I think this speaks pretty well for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, just back since a week after Paris Attack, and i just read your discussion about these table, in my opinion i think they may be better in this article than in Aéroports de Paris's one, as they are just talking about the top 10 destinations.. and thus image on how airports are used. As in ADP's page we may have even more detailed table? Clouchicloucha ( talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Busiest destinations from Paris airports ( CDG, ORY, BVA) in 2014 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Domestic destinations | Passengers | ||||||||
![]() |
3,158,331 | ||||||||
![]() |
2,865,602 | ||||||||
![]() |
1,539,478 | ||||||||
![]() |
1,502,196 | ||||||||
![]() |
1,191,437 | ||||||||
![]() |
1,108,964 | ||||||||
![]() |
1,055,770 | ||||||||
| |||||||||
International destinations | Passengers | ||||||||
![]() |
7,881,497 | ||||||||
![]() |
7,193,481 | ||||||||
![]() |
6,495,677 | ||||||||
![]() |
4,685,313 | ||||||||
![]() |
4,177,519 | ||||||||
![]() |
3,148,479 | ||||||||
![]() |
3,018,446 | ||||||||
![]() |
2,351,402 | ||||||||
![]() |
2,141,527 | ||||||||
|
Dear fellow editors, I have updated the information on Grand Paris, which comes into existence at the end of the month - it will need to be updated again in January to put it into the present tense. Comments and suggestions welcome. SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
There are several errors. The population figure is wrong. If you take all the 131 communes which comprise the Metropole du Grand Paris, there were 6,945,306 inhabitants in 2012. The 6.7 million figure can't describe a future. 6.7 million is the population of the City of Paris and the inner ring departements but Metropole du Grand will include several outer ring municipalities.
The land size is also wrong, the size of Metropole du Grand Paris will be 814 km², as for the population, the surface you posted (762 km²) only includes the City of Paris and the inner Ring departments.
Minato ku ( talk) 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
SiefkinDR, you didn't just delete some text from the section. You rewrote it entirely ( [20]) despite the fact that I had written and added this section only 3 days ago ( [21]) and that it contained accurate information and was sourced. What's more, in rewriting it you introduced lots of errors and factual inaccuracies that I've detailed on the talk page of Future Perfect at Sunrise: Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this.
But ok, let's take you at your words. This is what I propose: if you're sincere and genuine about what you just wrote, can you kindly revert this section to how it was today before your first edit at 15:20 ( [22]) and then work from there if things need to be added? A negative response would make your apology and offer of good behavior above look rather hypocritical. I hope you can see it. Der Statistiker ( talk) 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, I don't see those numbers in any of the references provided, and I just outlined this issue above. Wikipedia is not a source, it is a collection of sourced data, so if there is a number indicated in an article here, the source it links to must have it as well. I'm sure there's a reliable source out there that has 'done the math'... if there isn't, the article will have to make do with the best sources it can find. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I deleted text from the section on Grand Paris without first saying why and what I was going to do, and I realize now that was a mistake. Given the recent arguments on this page, I would propose that editors who want to make any major change (changing anything over one sentence) should announce it here first, for discussion, before making the change. I think that might calm things here down a bit. Would other editors agree to that? Cordiallly, SiefkinDR ( talk) 23:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
(note: this, in response to SiefkinDR, was bizarrely moved away by ThePromenader; I'm putting it back, and still waiting for a response from SiefkinDR demonstrating a genuine desire to stand up to his words)
SiefkinDR, you didn't just delete some text from the section. You rewrote it entirely (
[24]) despite the fact that I had written and added this section only 3 days ago (
[25]) and that it contained accurate information and was sourced. What's more, in rewriting it you introduced lots of errors and factual inaccuracies that I've detailed on the talk page of Future Perfect at Sunrise:
Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this.
But ok, let's take you at your words. This is what I propose: if you're sincere and genuine about what you just wrote, can you kindly revert this section to how it was today before your first edit at 15:20 (
[26]) and then work from there if things need to be added? A negative response would make your apology and offer of good behavior above look rather hypocritical. I hope you can see it.
Der Statistiker (
talk)
23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I've just seen the posts made by Der Statistiker on the Skyscrapercity web site, asking readers to come to this article on Wikipedia and to push his point of view. The post, in the link below, makes personal attacks on me by name and on two other editors. (The link to the post is below, in English and French). This is really a new low, Der Statistiker, asking people on other sites to come here to make attacks on me because I don't agree with you, and targeting Wikipedia editors by name with personal attacks.
Here are the links. The attacks on me and two other editors were disguised by putting our names into images. so they wouldn't appear in search engines.
Der Statistiker, I hope you have a good explanation, . SiefkinDR ( talk) 20:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be a few here unfamiliar with 'Wikiquette'. If you land on a much frequented page that's been heavily edited over time, there's a minimum of politeness that one can afford fellow Wikipedians (there, and anywhere).
These demonstrate a modicum of poiteness and constructive editing technique, and they apply to all of Wikipedia, but perhaps a reminder would be useful here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
In the Paris#References Notes section I am getting multiple Cite errors. It appears several refs have different definitions for the same names. I don't want to mess around with the reference tags myself as I am not great at them so I just thought I would point it out. HighInBC 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
20th-21st under history: There were many problems with that paragraph's narration about Charlie Hebdo attack: the mentioning of "Muslim extremists" is unnecessary and the writer definitely has a sinister motive behind it, do we label other terrorists attacks in Europe carried by non-Muslims like that? Was the picture necessary? what's the point of mentioning that the attackers " were born and raised in Paris"? Why the writer wrote just "Muhammad" and not prophet Muhammad when referring to the cartoons? Who is Muhammad? there are hundreds of millions of Muhammads in the Muslim World!! Prophet Muhammad must have been mentioned to inform readers what the writer is talking about, that practice is used by western media when talking about the cartoons. Religion section: Religions of Paris after Christianity it says " other religions" when Islam is the notable second religion in that city and in France in general! and even in that segment of " other religions" the write talked too much about Jews who are just few hundreds in that city ignoring the clear second religion in Paris, Islam, with it's old history in the city and the region and ignoring the fact that Muslims make up to 15% in metro Paris with a population exceeding 200k! Even when talking about Islam , just small two lines were written mainly talking about the Grande mosque of Paris and not even mentioning Islam or Muslims by name. I request changes to these two sections to protect the neutrality of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alforu88 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest to call him prophet Muhammad in the article, of course that would be wrong, I meant to suggest adding the word prophet to let readers know what the article is talking about, like cartoons ridiculing prophet of Muslims Muhammad, etc, but that's not the main issue with the article, I think the main issue is the religion of the attackers and their background ( born and raised in France, sounds irrelevant), the word Muslims extremists was unnecessary because many terrorist attacks were carried by right wing Christians in Europe and the religion of the attackers was never mentioned in any of them even though the motive was clearly religious hatred. As for religion, there are hundreds of sources about that even on another Wikipedia articles, websites like pew research center, muslimspopulation.com all put Muslims population around 10% ( 9.6% to be precise) amount to 6 and half millions compared to less than half of million of Jews. As for history it goes back to the battle of tours, the subsequent Muslim expeditions, Ottoman naval bases, etc, etc, rich history and much more historical events than Jews presence in France , it goes back till 7th and 8th century, please read Islam in France.
Can somebody merge them into an appropriate place without compensating the information? '''tAD''' ( talk) 23:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hm, I was going to do this this morning, but I think it better to present a rationale here, first.
Basically I think it best to move the entire religion section to an article of its own (it is already an article as it is, and there is much more information that can be added, as it is a subject all on its own), create a 'religion' sub-section in the 'culture' section, and move the demography info (that has no place there, anyway, as there is no real (let alone official) statistical data on religion (French law forbids it)), and use some of the moved info to concoct a paragraph describing the city's most prominent temples (and the quarter/culture around them). This would simplify the article greatly, as well as remove the 'who's on top' aspect of the present section (that, as we can see above, will always invite objection and 'different points of view'). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that an editor has deleted the population of the Paris Region from the lead, without any discussion, and also deleted it from the information box. Since the Region is mentioned frequently in the article, and since many of the statistics given are for the region, I would like to restore that to the lead and the information box. I ask once again that editor who did this discuss first here before they delete important text from the lead. Thank you. SiefkinDR ( talk) 07:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm working on a Paris-region 'Employment by sector' map that shows the percentage of people working in each job sector in each arrondissement; the inner departments are easy enough, but I found that just listing one value for the entire department is overly-simplistic, so I'm arranging it by arrondissement of each department, to give a more even Paris-to-suburb transition over smaller areas. It's a bit of a chore.
The data part of it is easy, though, as the statistics come straight from the INSEE: basically every arrondissment is going to have a pie chart showing the percentage of jobs in each sector (which should give a pretty good indication of what each quarter does), and I'm considering accompanying each with a number indicating the unemployment percentage in that quarter, as well as the percentage of fonctionnaires (as they are a large share of the labour market) in every given quarter, too. Would that be overkill? If anyone would like any other data (while I'm there), do let me know, too. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Any suggestions as to what can be improved in the article? @ Tim riley and Dr. Blofeld:, your input would be especially welcome. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Links fixed, will have to go over the entire page source for the date formatting, though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Paris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 10 external links on
Paris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
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)
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)
This is just POINT editing. The above 'complaint' wasn't even answered (understandable because its disruptive and personal attack nature), and what happened to " The fact that you've mentioned them "many times" doesn't mean they are accepted by other editors"? Wikipedia is not a GAME. By the way, I've already mentioned many times that I'm working on an 'urban sociology' section here that covers both rich and poor issues, and an actual discussion would have allowed that to come up again. But no chance for that... as usual. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
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. Blofeld 13:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
@
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)
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)
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)
You all have brought up some excellent points. Please feel free to improve or move the section of safety and security as best you see fit. I will see what I can do to ameliorate is well. Coldcreation ( talk) 07:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"About 2.7 million of this total were born outside Metropolitan France and represent a multitude of different countries and territories from around the world."
" Disneyland Paris, the most visited tourist attraction in France, welcomed 32.3 million visitors."
It seems to me that in lede, anything that touches Paris itself should have the priority over the Paris Region which is not Paris.
This, for instance, should be before the paragraph on Paris Region & Disneyland:
Then the paragraph on sport.
Then the Paris Region.
Best regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 15:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"As for trying to make a rank order between the City of Paris and the Paris Region, I think it's a bit futile (and impossible), because the two are inextricably interwoven."
Few share this opinion, and no reference that I've ever seen, either. And hardly all aspects of the city are intertwined with its surrounding region - and that, only in the IDF's inmost departments - and that disconnect is the very problem they are trying to solve with the Greater Paris Metropole! This article is about Paris, so it is only normal that Paris be mentioned first.
THEPROMENADER
✎
✓
20:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies to Der Statistiker & Minato ku for not being more precise about the urban space covered by 'my' metro ticket: I meant Zone 1, which is Paris intra muros [ [4]].
-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 10:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Le ticket t+ est valable pour un trajet continu, here: http://www.transilien.com/static/tarifs/billet-unite
There is actually a metro ticket for only Paris intra muros=Zone 1.
Pas moi qui l'invente! -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 11:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Could be time to edit mention of Mickey Mouse in Lede & Economy: [ [6]] -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 00:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Anyone to archive the current page, only presenting a short synthesis of not yet solved points (Oh.... of course, the definition of the short synthesis should not generate new discussions to be recursively archived... ) v_atekor ( talk) 08:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I have corrected the weatherbox because the 1971-2000 averages in the climate section of Paris are wrong and mixed with 1981-2010 summer seasons averages. The 1981-2010 averages that I have added are correct, please do not change them because these averages came from meteo france official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:39AF:800:F921:CB83:64B2:AA68 ( talk) 10:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be mentioned at the bottom of the history?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I would propose deleting the map of parks and gardens that was recently added to the article; it's much larger than any other image in the article, and, because it has no text or labels, it provides no other information about Paris parks, other than to show that Paris does in fact have them. This is a small section, and I think that the image that is already there, showing people in one of the parks, is more appropriate. Unless someone comes up with a good reason for retaining it, I think it should be taken out. Anyone have comments on this? SiefkinDR ( talk) 11:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The new population figures and rankings just added to the lead, "2015 estimates" for the "urban area", are confusing and not from an official source,. I don't believe they're necessary. Before this edit, the lead gave the official population of the city within the city limits, and its ranking with other EU cities (fifth). It also gave the official population for the Paris metropolitan area, from Eurostat, with its ranking with other EU metropolitan areas (second after London)..
The new figures for "urban areas" are "2015 estimates" and according to the citation come from a private source, Demographia. It's not at all clear what the difference is between the metropolitan area and the urban area, and it certainly shouldn't require an explanation in the lead. The "urban area", and these statistics, are not mentioned at all in the section on demographics.
I think the lead should give only the official population figure, and ranking of Paris with other EU cities; and the official metropolitan area population from Eurostat, with ranking with other EU cities. A discussion of the "urban area", and any unofficial ranking with other cities outside EU probably belongs in the demographics section, not in the lead.
What do other editors think? SiefkinDR ( talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Urban area is a relatively universal concept. All countries define continuous urban area as urban settlements within 200 metres of each-other. What constitutes as an "urban settlement" may vary though. Overall however, urban area is relatively comparable across countries, and many sources including the UN use this measure. They do not use administrative boundaries.
The suburbs of French cities are rarely annexed by there adjacent city, but instead administered as separate departments. Conversely, English cities often expand there jurisdiction outwards to encompass suburbs. Does this make French cities smaller than English cities? Furthurmore, English cities administrative boundaries often include rural areas and separate distinct towns. For example, the metropolitan borough of the City of Sunderland, includes the city, Sunderland, and Washington, an entirely separate town with a distinct identity. French cities rarely annex neighbouring towns like this.
The administrative limits are designated for administrative convenience, not to define a city. Furthermore, London specifically does not have a "city limit". It has an administrative region. That is not a "city limit" as your change currently implies. Please provide a reliable source that compares cities across countries based on there administrative limits.
The Paris region's area is four times the size of the city's urban area. There are parts of it that are not even regarded by the INSEE as within Paris' metropolitan area. I can't understand how this is relevant here? Yes, the figures are available and updated, but it's still not relevant. There are a a number of small towns in the Paris region, that is beyond Paris' metropolitan area. For example Provins, or Nemours. Why is the population of those towns relevant to Paris?
Please can you remove the sentence about the Paris region's population from the lead until there is consensus to include it? Rob984 ( talk) 12:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
My objection relates to this sentence:
'The English and Burgundians occupied Paris in 1356 during the Hundred Years' War, not leaving until 1436.'
The present text simply makes it look as if Paris was 'occupied' for 80 years. This is not correct as far as my knowledge goes.
It appears someone took 1356 (in which the Battle of Poitiers took place) as a starting date of some sort of 'occupation'. Although the French king did get captured in this battle, starting a gloomy period of French affairs which would last for a decade at least, the English did not press their advantage and did not advance on Paris. Also, unless my memory deceives me, the English as such have never had control of Paris. All sieges attempted by the English during the war were unsuccessful.
The Burgundians, however, -did- have control of Paris.
However, for the sake of clarity I would recommend to make sure to mention in the text that these were not the 'tribe' of Burgundians, or in fact a separate political entity (a 'Nation' if you will), but rather adherents of a junior branch of the royal Valois dynasty , which was at (a civil) war with the ruling branch.The name 'Burgundians' refers to the title of the leader of the junior branch - Duke of Burgundy.
Also, the Burgundian faction did not control the city at all at any point in the 14th century, since the faction did not exist. It only came to be around 1408 if I remember well.
I am not a professional historian, or anything of the sort, but I hope someone more erudite could shed some light on the matter just so we don't make the French look as if their capital had been policed by other peoples for 80 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:83A6:3102:EA2A:EAFF:FEB5:50EA ( talk) 20:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I replaced the unannotated "Paris housing 2012" map with a .png version of the earlier .jpg I made... sorry to whoever made the .svg version (and why this replacement - 'because' .svg? Just ask!), but the earlier version was at-a-glance informative - we can't expect readers to click to know what they're looking at (red means...?) when it can be readily presented. I'll see about making an SVG version, too.
FTR, I'm working on a 'paris walls (over the centuries)' map, too, and will be finishing it on my next break (soon). Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
What you looking for about Paris; from the 5th volume of the work "Ogygia or Archaiologia", by prof. Athanasios Stageirites, Vienna, 1815: "...When Paris was about to be born, his mother Hecabe, dreamed that she gave birth to a flaming torch and the whole city caught fire from it. When Aisakos explained the dream, he said that this child will be responsible for the collapse of Troy. So when he was born, Priamos, following Aisakos advice, gave the newborn baby to his shepherd, Agelaos, to throw the baby in the desert. The same misfortune was fortold by Kassandra and also the oracle Herofile. So Agelaos threw the baby to Ide, but going back to the mountain after five days, he saw the baby being breastfed by a bear. So he took the baby to his fields and raised it like it was his own child and then called the baby Paris, from parienai; because he escaped the danger... ... and Paris became handsome and brave, therefore they also called him Alexander..." (Appol.E'. Ib'. 5, Didum. Il. M.93., Dikt. G' ks'., Paus. Fokik. Ib'., Eurip. Andromache 297.) So Paris, from 'parienai', means 'to pass', 'go by', 'expire', 'escape from', 'get away'.
Paris is definitely an ancient Greek name, not only used in Ilion region but also in other parts of Greece, such as: The Aegean islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Attica, Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily, Magna Graecia, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, northern shores of Black Sea.
For further information see also: "Homeric Lexicon", I. Pantazides, Athens, 1880 "Homeric Onomatologion", N. Papadopoulos, Kyromanos ed. "Lexicon of mythological, historical and geographical personal names", N. Lorentes, Vienna, 1837 "Lexicon of the Ancient World, Greece-Rome" Y. Lampsas. Dome ed. 58.165.242.248 ( talk) 02:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please clarify the population of the Paris urban area (unite urbaine)?
TF1, M6 and Le Parisien are not based in Paris. They are based in the Paris suburb : TF1 at Boulogne-Billancourt, M6 at Neuilly-sur-Seine and Le Parisien at Saint-Ouen. Clio64 ( talk) 18:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Things have been more than a little software-development-intensive for me over the past months, but I've got a bit of (August 'imposed vacation') time on my hands for the coming weeks... how are things going here, any thoughts, any change ideas? Hope you all are well, take care, best, THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Paris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Statistiker, You have reverted text by other editors in this section twice now, without any explanation. Frankly, I don't think your changes were improvements. Can you please explain why you're making these changes? Thanks- SiefkinDR ( talk) 07:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we can start this discussion again in a calmer voice. Der Statistiker, you're correct that I confused the number of U.S. citizens in Paris with the number of those born in the U.S. living in Paris. In the US you're a automatically a citizen if you're born in the US. so I thought they were same, but I see that they're not; there's a difference of about six hundred, who I suppose are naturalized US citizens. Thanks for catching that. I also apologize that the URL was missing the second time from the citation, when I replaced it after you deleted it the first time without any explanation. I believe the numbers we are using are all from the same source, the 2011 census.
On the question of which numbers go first, those from Paris or those from the Ile-de-France (Paris region), you never explained why you changed the order. I put the Paris numbers first when I added this information to the article. In other sections of the article, and in the lead, information about the city is given first, and about the region second. The same is done in other articles on major cities and their regions. I would like to put it back the way it was.
I welcome your comments and suggestions and your contributions, but I hope you won't make any more changes to other editors' texts without discussing them here first. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Look at how long is the part about November 2015 terror attacks.
"On 13 November 2015, there were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris and Saint-Denis claimed by the 'Islamic state' organisation ISIL ('Daesh', ISIS). These included shootings at three sidewalk cafes; a suicide-bomb attack outside the Stade de France stadium where a France-Germany football match, attended by French President François Hollande, was taking place; and an attack on the Bataclan theatre/concert-hall, where Kalashnikov-armed terrorists opened fire on rock-concert spectators before triggering their suicide vests. In all, there were 130 people killed and more than 350 injured. Seven of the attackers killed themselves and others by setting off their explosive vests, while at least two others were still being sought by police. On the morning of November 18 three suspected terrorists, including Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the alleged mastermind of the attacks, were killed in a shootout with police in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. President Hollande declared France to be in a three-month state of emergency,"
We don't need to have all these detail on the Wikipedia article about Paris. A relatively short single sentence is enough, we don't need to learn how and where Abdelhamid Abaaoud and some of his accomplice were killed, we don't need to have detail on the guns used by terrorists.
If people want to learn more about these attacks, there is an article about it.
November 2015 Paris attacks.
Minato ku (
talk)
20:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The history section is way too long and disproportionate in this article. This has been said before, but instead of being shortened it seems to have been lengthened in the past year. Go figure. Der Statistiker ( talk) 01:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The recent spike in activity isn't because of the attacks? Are you serious? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just noticed that
Jmabel has reduced the size of the part about the november 2015 attack, He wrote "reduce near-anecdotal "presentism". Just because it's been in the news lately doesn't make it that major in an article about a city. Possibly could be edited down even further: we have a large, separate article about the attack"
I fully agree with this, it is not because something is a "current" event that more should be said about it and then reduced later when the heat will be down. Wikipedia is not a news site.
Informations about when, how and where Abdelhamid was killed are unecessary, it does not give us more information about the modern history of Paris.
Minato ku (
talk)
17:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Why was this reverted to the state it was in... a year ago? On the very day (since almost a year) I made minor modifications to that section (which means my work was reverted as well)? This is odd, to say the least. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't distract from the issue: the section was put back in its exact same state from almost a year ago (a deplorable state that was the origin of an improvement drive involving many contributors, and many contributors since), and I haven't even checked what was updated or not; if there were some updated numbers, that seems purely symbolic in that action. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll update the air traffic table soon. Didn't have time yesterday. I have a life besides Wikipedia you know.
Der Statistiker (
talk)
13:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
And
ThePromenader, can you point out exactly what important and non-outdated information Minato ku removed from the section? If there is any, it should be added back in the article of course.
Der Statistiker (
talk)
14:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
That said, I'll be putting this section back into its pre-revert state later today, of course adding the new tram line information (and any other numbers that have been updated since the revert). From here on, if there is anything more than a few phrases you'd like to change or remove, you talk about it here, first. That, too, I'll be outlining later today. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 04:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Distraction aside, both SiefkinDR and I have expressed our disapproval over this (many-times-removed-over-the-years-with-consensus-and-rationale) table, yet Der Statistiker totally ignored this to re-insert it.
I think this speaks pretty well for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, just back since a week after Paris Attack, and i just read your discussion about these table, in my opinion i think they may be better in this article than in Aéroports de Paris's one, as they are just talking about the top 10 destinations.. and thus image on how airports are used. As in ADP's page we may have even more detailed table? Clouchicloucha ( talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Busiest destinations from Paris airports ( CDG, ORY, BVA) in 2014 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Domestic destinations | Passengers | ||||||||
![]() |
3,158,331 | ||||||||
![]() |
2,865,602 | ||||||||
![]() |
1,539,478 | ||||||||
![]() |
1,502,196 | ||||||||
![]() |
1,191,437 | ||||||||
![]() |
1,108,964 | ||||||||
![]() |
1,055,770 | ||||||||
| |||||||||
International destinations | Passengers | ||||||||
![]() |
7,881,497 | ||||||||
![]() |
7,193,481 | ||||||||
![]() |
6,495,677 | ||||||||
![]() |
4,685,313 | ||||||||
![]() |
4,177,519 | ||||||||
![]() |
3,148,479 | ||||||||
![]() |
3,018,446 | ||||||||
![]() |
2,351,402 | ||||||||
![]() |
2,141,527 | ||||||||
|
Dear fellow editors, I have updated the information on Grand Paris, which comes into existence at the end of the month - it will need to be updated again in January to put it into the present tense. Comments and suggestions welcome. SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
There are several errors. The population figure is wrong. If you take all the 131 communes which comprise the Metropole du Grand Paris, there were 6,945,306 inhabitants in 2012. The 6.7 million figure can't describe a future. 6.7 million is the population of the City of Paris and the inner ring departements but Metropole du Grand will include several outer ring municipalities.
The land size is also wrong, the size of Metropole du Grand Paris will be 814 km², as for the population, the surface you posted (762 km²) only includes the City of Paris and the inner Ring departments.
Minato ku ( talk) 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
SiefkinDR, you didn't just delete some text from the section. You rewrote it entirely ( [20]) despite the fact that I had written and added this section only 3 days ago ( [21]) and that it contained accurate information and was sourced. What's more, in rewriting it you introduced lots of errors and factual inaccuracies that I've detailed on the talk page of Future Perfect at Sunrise: Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this.
But ok, let's take you at your words. This is what I propose: if you're sincere and genuine about what you just wrote, can you kindly revert this section to how it was today before your first edit at 15:20 ( [22]) and then work from there if things need to be added? A negative response would make your apology and offer of good behavior above look rather hypocritical. I hope you can see it. Der Statistiker ( talk) 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, I don't see those numbers in any of the references provided, and I just outlined this issue above. Wikipedia is not a source, it is a collection of sourced data, so if there is a number indicated in an article here, the source it links to must have it as well. I'm sure there's a reliable source out there that has 'done the math'... if there isn't, the article will have to make do with the best sources it can find. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I deleted text from the section on Grand Paris without first saying why and what I was going to do, and I realize now that was a mistake. Given the recent arguments on this page, I would propose that editors who want to make any major change (changing anything over one sentence) should announce it here first, for discussion, before making the change. I think that might calm things here down a bit. Would other editors agree to that? Cordiallly, SiefkinDR ( talk) 23:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
(note: this, in response to SiefkinDR, was bizarrely moved away by ThePromenader; I'm putting it back, and still waiting for a response from SiefkinDR demonstrating a genuine desire to stand up to his words)
SiefkinDR, you didn't just delete some text from the section. You rewrote it entirely (
[24]) despite the fact that I had written and added this section only 3 days ago (
[25]) and that it contained accurate information and was sourced. What's more, in rewriting it you introduced lots of errors and factual inaccuracies that I've detailed on the talk page of Future Perfect at Sunrise:
Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this.
But ok, let's take you at your words. This is what I propose: if you're sincere and genuine about what you just wrote, can you kindly revert this section to how it was today before your first edit at 15:20 (
[26]) and then work from there if things need to be added? A negative response would make your apology and offer of good behavior above look rather hypocritical. I hope you can see it.
Der Statistiker (
talk)
23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I've just seen the posts made by Der Statistiker on the Skyscrapercity web site, asking readers to come to this article on Wikipedia and to push his point of view. The post, in the link below, makes personal attacks on me by name and on two other editors. (The link to the post is below, in English and French). This is really a new low, Der Statistiker, asking people on other sites to come here to make attacks on me because I don't agree with you, and targeting Wikipedia editors by name with personal attacks.
Here are the links. The attacks on me and two other editors were disguised by putting our names into images. so they wouldn't appear in search engines.
Der Statistiker, I hope you have a good explanation, . SiefkinDR ( talk) 20:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be a few here unfamiliar with 'Wikiquette'. If you land on a much frequented page that's been heavily edited over time, there's a minimum of politeness that one can afford fellow Wikipedians (there, and anywhere).
These demonstrate a modicum of poiteness and constructive editing technique, and they apply to all of Wikipedia, but perhaps a reminder would be useful here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
In the Paris#References Notes section I am getting multiple Cite errors. It appears several refs have different definitions for the same names. I don't want to mess around with the reference tags myself as I am not great at them so I just thought I would point it out. HighInBC 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
20th-21st under history: There were many problems with that paragraph's narration about Charlie Hebdo attack: the mentioning of "Muslim extremists" is unnecessary and the writer definitely has a sinister motive behind it, do we label other terrorists attacks in Europe carried by non-Muslims like that? Was the picture necessary? what's the point of mentioning that the attackers " were born and raised in Paris"? Why the writer wrote just "Muhammad" and not prophet Muhammad when referring to the cartoons? Who is Muhammad? there are hundreds of millions of Muhammads in the Muslim World!! Prophet Muhammad must have been mentioned to inform readers what the writer is talking about, that practice is used by western media when talking about the cartoons. Religion section: Religions of Paris after Christianity it says " other religions" when Islam is the notable second religion in that city and in France in general! and even in that segment of " other religions" the write talked too much about Jews who are just few hundreds in that city ignoring the clear second religion in Paris, Islam, with it's old history in the city and the region and ignoring the fact that Muslims make up to 15% in metro Paris with a population exceeding 200k! Even when talking about Islam , just small two lines were written mainly talking about the Grande mosque of Paris and not even mentioning Islam or Muslims by name. I request changes to these two sections to protect the neutrality of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alforu88 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest to call him prophet Muhammad in the article, of course that would be wrong, I meant to suggest adding the word prophet to let readers know what the article is talking about, like cartoons ridiculing prophet of Muslims Muhammad, etc, but that's not the main issue with the article, I think the main issue is the religion of the attackers and their background ( born and raised in France, sounds irrelevant), the word Muslims extremists was unnecessary because many terrorist attacks were carried by right wing Christians in Europe and the religion of the attackers was never mentioned in any of them even though the motive was clearly religious hatred. As for religion, there are hundreds of sources about that even on another Wikipedia articles, websites like pew research center, muslimspopulation.com all put Muslims population around 10% ( 9.6% to be precise) amount to 6 and half millions compared to less than half of million of Jews. As for history it goes back to the battle of tours, the subsequent Muslim expeditions, Ottoman naval bases, etc, etc, rich history and much more historical events than Jews presence in France , it goes back till 7th and 8th century, please read Islam in France.
Can somebody merge them into an appropriate place without compensating the information? '''tAD''' ( talk) 23:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hm, I was going to do this this morning, but I think it better to present a rationale here, first.
Basically I think it best to move the entire religion section to an article of its own (it is already an article as it is, and there is much more information that can be added, as it is a subject all on its own), create a 'religion' sub-section in the 'culture' section, and move the demography info (that has no place there, anyway, as there is no real (let alone official) statistical data on religion (French law forbids it)), and use some of the moved info to concoct a paragraph describing the city's most prominent temples (and the quarter/culture around them). This would simplify the article greatly, as well as remove the 'who's on top' aspect of the present section (that, as we can see above, will always invite objection and 'different points of view'). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that an editor has deleted the population of the Paris Region from the lead, without any discussion, and also deleted it from the information box. Since the Region is mentioned frequently in the article, and since many of the statistics given are for the region, I would like to restore that to the lead and the information box. I ask once again that editor who did this discuss first here before they delete important text from the lead. Thank you. SiefkinDR ( talk) 07:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm working on a Paris-region 'Employment by sector' map that shows the percentage of people working in each job sector in each arrondissement; the inner departments are easy enough, but I found that just listing one value for the entire department is overly-simplistic, so I'm arranging it by arrondissement of each department, to give a more even Paris-to-suburb transition over smaller areas. It's a bit of a chore.
The data part of it is easy, though, as the statistics come straight from the INSEE: basically every arrondissment is going to have a pie chart showing the percentage of jobs in each sector (which should give a pretty good indication of what each quarter does), and I'm considering accompanying each with a number indicating the unemployment percentage in that quarter, as well as the percentage of fonctionnaires (as they are a large share of the labour market) in every given quarter, too. Would that be overkill? If anyone would like any other data (while I'm there), do let me know, too. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Any suggestions as to what can be improved in the article? @ Tim riley and Dr. Blofeld:, your input would be especially welcome. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Links fixed, will have to go over the entire page source for the date formatting, though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Paris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 10 external links on
Paris. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)