Talk:Paris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Paris was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 21, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 12, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 5, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 25, 2007 Peer review Reviewed September 19, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject France (Rated B-Class) France Portal Paris is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) WikiProject Cities     (Rated B-Class) This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.

To-do list for Paris:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Tune up language. There are a few many claims without citations - authors, please help. Abridge history section Better, better placed photos List by Je suis 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Last modified by THEPROMENADER 11:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Comment on this to-do list in the already creating discussion below.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have.

WikiProject Echo has identified Paris as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Bulgarian, Limburgish or Finnish language Wikipedias.

This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Talk:Paris/structure_discussion Talk:Paris/archive_01 Talk:Paris/archive_02 Talk:Paris/archive_03 Talk:Paris/archive_04 Talk:Paris/archive_05 Talk:Paris/archive_06 Talk:Paris/archive_07 Talk:Paris/archive_08 Talk:Paris/archive_09 Talk:Paris/archive_10 Talk:Paris/archive_11 Talk:Paris/archive_12 Talk:Paris/archive_13

Contents 1 Peer Review Comments 2 GA delisted 3 FA drive 4 What is going on here? 5 American vs. British English 6 Citations Needed 7 More no-discussion reverting - sources? 8 Grand Paris 9 Monuments 10 Parisii coins 11 Table of contents 12 Fixed faulty climate stats. 13 Sister Cities Section is Incorrect! Edit Needed! 14 Picture of children

[edit] Peer Review Comments

Please leave any Peer review comments here.

Lack of citations: Rather than go through the article and make a bit of a mess of it, what I've done is detail where I believe the FA crowd will expect to see citations in this sandbox: User:Zleitzen/Paris sandbox. My flags have not been an exact science - but it should give an idea of what is required. It may look daunting, but sections like the history section could be covered by only 2-3 main sources, preferably reputable historical book sources, with other points patched together with web citations. Some of the flags may seem so obvious as to not need citations, and much of it I knew to be easily verifiable. However, they'll still need to be visibly cited to escape the FA hawks. It's an exceptionally well written article by wikipedia's standards - I added strike-throughs to only 2-3 sentences, these I believed were a touch too personal and bordering on original research. However, I do think the article is too long to pass FA at its current length. The education section in particular could be farmed out to a sub article leaving a paragraph or so remaining.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Paris a cidade com maior densidade de boiolas do universo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.0.104 (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of September 19, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R.

• Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.

Regards, Epbr123 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be a good opportunity to initiate some discussion as to the direction being taken by the article's editors. I propose we forget good-article status and work towards featured article status. Green Giant 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Another editor was kind enough to indicate all the phrases that he thought needed sources - I'll see if I can find that somewhere. FA ho! THEPROMENADER 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA drive

I finally managed to dig up the "citations needed" sandbox version of the Paris article generously concocted by User:Zleitzen; all highlighted phrases need sources - many, unfortunately. You can find it here. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks to be the sort of thing this article needs. A lack of sources for potentially controversial statements is the first hurdle that many FA candidates fall down on. Green Giant 11:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is going on here?

In looking at the past week's edits, I see that User:Thum Fel's reverts are very similar to those made by two anon IP's, and both of these involve the reappearance of overly-detailed texts that were phased out of the article even a year ago. Can anyone confirm what I'm seeing? THEPROMENADER 06:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Thum Fel obviously wants things to look good on "his" monitor. On mine (1680 x1050px) the photos are miniscule. Compromise on this at least? THEPROMENADER 18:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The compromise I think is what User:Med has done by removing the pixel field from the images. The problem is Thum Fel has only one response to any attempt to talk with her/him --> "You is crazy you wants to help or to make vandalism? you change the article of the city of Paris the all minute its article this exquisite the page is also with many photos!". Anyway, irrespective of Thum Fel's numerous small edits, I have managed to fix the references so they all display the author and there are no {{en icon}}'s as well as correcting some spelling errors. Green Giant 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American vs. British English

I think, at its origins, this article was written in British English, also to reflect its European origins... and, by what I can see, a large part of it still is. Can we stick to this format please for sake of consistency? THEPROMENADER 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I had the impression that the article waz more American-spellingamatized than British-spellingismed. However, there iz no particularly good reazon that American spelling shud be uzed in this article. I have therefore reverted myzelf and reztored the editz by Uzer:Swedish Fuzilier. Green Giant 15:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ssomeone wass making a great effort to "Paris's(s)" this article (instead of Paris'), but asside from that I didn't ssee much movement in the language department. Thankss all the ssame for bringing back all those essess and uus : ) THEPROMENADER 18:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should use British English e.g. colour, pavement, metre, of which many of the origins come from old french languages or more french languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.200.23 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations Needed

Although it uglifies the article, I've added begun to add "citation needed" tags to all the phrases needing at least some sort of references - the selection/targeting of phrases needing citations was generously provided by User:Zleitzen, and you can find the original page on his talk page here. Cheers. Although ugly I hope that integratrating these tags will make improving this article easier, and provide a motivation to do so - it would be nice that, after all this time, that an article of this importance get closer to its much-deserved FA status. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More no-discussion reverting - sources?

Hardouin, I made a point of asking User:Tony Sidaway for some clarification as to his reasons for removing the article's demographic "similar to" statements, but you just went and blanket reverted once again. I'll have you know that there was no consensus for or against their removal, so this comment of yours was quite inventive and inappropriate. Thanks for ceasing to "edit" in this way, as it kills all possibilities for civil reasoning and discussion, and perhaps you should think about finding other more productive ways of contributing than just policing "your" articles and pet phrases. Many of this article's challengable claims lacking sources are yours, so there would be a perfect place to start. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy of the message I left on Tony Sidaway's talk page:

Note that it has long been proposed to simply use the English terms urban area and metropolitan area, since this is after all the English language Wikipedia, but ThePromenader has always refused this. This would be in line with the anglicisation of France related articles that was carried out by several editors (of which I was not part), turning département into "department", région into "region", and so on. At the time ThePromenader opposed this anglicisation (see discussion here), but he was overruled by the majority. Here in the Paris article ThePromenader has refused this anglicisation too, thus making the translation in parenthesis necessary for those readers who don't understand French (and there are lots of them). It's interesting to compare with the Stockholm article where they talk of a "Stockholm urban area" (not a "Stockholm tätort"), the Madrid article where they talk of a "Madrid metropolitan area" (not a "Madrid área metropolitana"), or the Berlin article where they talk of a "Berlin-Brandenburg metropolitan area" (not a "Berlin-Brandenburg Metropolregion"). Hardouin 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What do I have to do with any of this? Either the term is widely understood and referenced, or it hasn't much value to the common reader. I really don't see what role the "other events" mentioned have to do with the worth of comparing to North American terms in this article. Those sources though - anytime soon? THEPROMENADER 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this isn't a question of "English" - and anyhow, the varying definitions of "metropolitan area" (even within the US for lord's sake) make the term a false (and muddling) translation for the French "aire urbaine", a very precise statistical area/term created by France's official governmental statistics institution - whose official translation for the term, by the way, is "urban area." Or shall we assume that we know better than they? Keep it simple please - the added explanation may help a few, but only the original French term has its own unique and referencable definition.

In addition, we don't choose second-rate "foreign study" references only because they use terms we would like to impose on the article. All demographical statistics in this article come from the INSEE: the INSEE has never used the term "metropolitan area" in describing anything France in any of their English-language publications - not once - and their official translation is there right in front of you. I'm not complaining about how the article is, but as for your obsession with North America, see some sense please. Enough about this already. THEPROMENADER 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The only "obsession" I see here is in insisting on using French terms as if all the readers of this English language encyclopedia were fluent in French. Wikipedia is not meant for an elitist few, otherwise you might as well simply write the entire article in French and ask people to buy a French dictionary, since you're at it. Hardouin 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As Tony Sidaway so rightly mentioned, a misuse of foreign terminology is not a question of "language".

"Aire urbaine" is a precisely defined entity - where "metropolitan area" is a much-varied not - and it has an official translation so it should be used before anything else. The article in its present state is only because of a compromise with your insistant reverting to your narrow "we're like them" point of view - and I do agree that it diminishes the quality of the article - but your pet term is there, so stop your disruptive reverting and widespread whining please. THEPROMENADER 07:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it that fr:aire urbaine links to en:metropolitan area if this is a "misuse of foreign terminology"? I also note that the official English translation of département by INSEE is "département" ([1]), so why is it that all the France related articles were anglicised and "département" was turned into "department"? Surely if we follow your personal logic that INSEE translations trump all established usage in the English language, then User:Grcampbell must un-anglicise all the articles he has anglicised and restore the French term "département". This discussion won't move forward until you finally accept that not everybody is like you able to read French. For the average anglophone reader, reading "Paris unité urbaine" is as puzzling as it would be for you to read "Stockholm tätort", whereas editors at the Stockholm article have wisely chosen to simply write "Stockholm urban area", which is immediately accessible to the average anglophone reader. Hardouin 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We can assume that most readers will not understand what an undefined urban area is, let alone an aire urbaine. Either you provide a "comparitive" explanation after the phrase (understandable by all? Not.), provide a complete explanation ("built-up area"; "commuter belt surrounding built-up area"), or you link the phrase to its proper article that will provide a precise explanation. In either case, finding a precise and complete explanation amounts to the same - no matter the phrase. THEPROMENADER 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So by this we must assume that you know better than the very and unique governmental institution that created the "aire urbaine" - and its official translation? As for the others - shall we all jump off bridges? Precise and referencable definition is not exchangable with muddled envy. Please. THEPROMENADER 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(in a kinder tone) Listen, if the terminology used in those "other articles" is an official translation of their proper demographic terms, than they are correct. If a country's demographic makeup is imprecise, or there is no official translation for the same, then "borrowing" another country's as-widely-known-as-possible term as a description - and not as an appearlingly proper translation - would be barely "encyclopaediacally" acceptable. If no official or precise translation exists, the best and most verifiable practice would be to accompany the first appearance of an untranslated term with a common-language description. If, on the other hand, "other articles" have chosen another country's terminology and translations over their official own, then they are making the same mistake that you insist upon making in this article. Comparison does not make truth. THEPROMENADER 10:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Paris

I see that there is nothing about the project of Grand Paris, the fucion of Paris and the inner suburbs in one city. It is really important every PM in Paris region speak of this project even the french president. Minato ku (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is not only a question of a fusion into one City in that debate, also a unique management of certain services through several. If you want to add something about it, Hardouin, go ahead, but don't make anything up. THEPROMENADER 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not Hardouin.Minato ku (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, too many timely coincidences indicate that the contrary is true. THEPROMENADER 07:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Minato Ku isn't Hardouin. Minato is a respectable member of skyscrapercity.com. Please don't throw off irresponsible accusations especially when they are wrong. Matthieu (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To add even more circumstance to contrary your statement, MinatoKu appeared soon after Hardouin was invited (here) to join that same board. In any case, the bias remains the same: they both aim to pretend that the Paris' future exists already - and this is my only differend with them, even if the two contributors are not the same, as even insinuation to this end is anything but factual. THEPROMENADER 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about how much circumstances you can add. Minato Ku is a respected member of our forum and isn't Hardouin, end of discussion. Matthieu (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't ask me to care about one or the other's 'status' in your forum - or to care about your forum, for that matter. It's what's written here that counts and says all for everyone concerned - a fact so basic that it's not even worthy of discussion. THEPROMENADER 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but what I see here is you tossed accusations against someone, regarless of his origins, without having any proof of that. That's what is writen here. Instead of apologising or being sorry for that you insist. In all cases, Minato is NOT Hardouin and it's something I know for sure, feel free to insist he is if you want, there are people who keep claiming evolution does not exist either. Matthieu (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that once it has been proven that one contributor has resorted to sockpuppetry to push a certain anti-factual agenda, all future attempts of the same sort can be attributed to the same, especially when constructive edits to this article are so few; the fact that both belong to a forum called 'Paris skyscrapers' (a rather contradictary title in itself, at least for the time being) explains a lot though. In any case, I'll hold back on any futre accusations of the kind and concentrate on the article. In that light, I think it would be more informative to readers that the article make some further mention of the actual geographical/political state of Paris (eg: the still-pending 'Grand Paris' project), rather than trying to insinuatively project the idea that Paris is already bigger than it really is. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: The French version of the Paris article does this very well - and clearly! THEPROMENADER 09:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monuments

The statues of liberty cited in the monuments and landmarks section points to the wrong artical. The statues that are being referenced are found in the Ile des Cygnes, and Jardin du Luxembro. I wasn't sure where it should link to, maybe the artical Replicas of the Statue of Liberty, the replica section of the statue of liberty page, or the ile des cygnes park. TwistedWeasel (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Green Giant (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I LIKe IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.91.150.109 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parisii coins

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

[edit] Table of contents

Why does it not include subsections? How'd that happen? --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The table of contents with subsections is far too long - so we cut it short using a template. Much better this way - trust me! Cheers, THEPROMENADER 06:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed faulty climate stats.

The previous precipitation data from MSN was not accurate. I replaced it with the information from this Paris-Paris-Paris.com tourist site. Certainly, there are probably better choices for information, but I could not find many other sources that did a month by month background and felt the figures were accurate, so it works. If someone can find a better source, please use that, but realize that news sources are not always accurate. The precipitation figures given by MSN showed that Paris receives less precipitation than Phoenix, Arizona, a pretty doubtful claim. Vertigo700 (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC) the eiffel tower was also struck by lighting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.232.86 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sister Cities Section is Incorrect! Edit Needed!

The Two SISTER CITIES of Paris, as defined by Sister Cities International, are: 1) Chicago, Illinois 2) Washington, District of Columbia

http://www.sister-cities.org/icrc/directory/Europe/France/index

Eddiecougar182 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Another comment - London is in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, rather than England. If you want to use states for countries then you will have to change all of the others in the list. Perhaps it's easier to simply change the London entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tissifur (talk • contribs) 09:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of children

--Apmab1 (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC) The picture of the children in the primary school is not representative of the general French population (<4% non-European). I suggest it should be removed from the because it is misleading, this is the homeland of the French and we should not make it out to be otherwise.

Only 4% are you crazy, according immigration data, 5% of France inhabitants are non european immigrant. I said immigrant because a non white children born in France is not an immigrant. So these 5% don't include the 2nd, 3rd generation, nor it include the people form overseas departement. I am myself non white and I am not include in France immigrant, this is aslo the case of my parent because we are born in France Most people conclude that the non white represent over 10% of French population. The ratio of non white is higher in kids, If we imagine that france is like U.K (according most info, France would have an higher ratio of "non-European" than U.K), you can conclude least 20% of french kids are not white.

Secondly, Paris is the biggest and the most multicultural city of France, you can easely imagine that the ration of non white is much larger in Paris than in the average France.

Minato ku (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nobody sane is likely to objectively arrive at 20% non-white births in France. For one thing, North Africans, Arabs and Turks are often counted as white in the chromatic scheme of human complexions. In any case, unless you back them up with solid sources (INSEE, for instance), you should refrain from airing such claims on Wikipedia. Your editing habits [2] certainly appear to show a militant agenda (I got a good laugh out of your SkyscraperCity page [3], the nature of your bias is pretty transparent) , so you should be extra careful to follow WP:NPOV and WP:NOR while working on high profile pages such as Paris. -- 66.130.156.84 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never writing anything about this in Wikipedia main articles (here we are in talk section), without real source we can't conclude something, I am not stupid. Secondly there is also many black african, black caribbean and many asian in France. Thirdly the comment say "non european" and north african are not european, the notion of white can aslo change depending the country many latino american are white but not counted as white in USA statist when arab are non white in british stat. And living in France I can say without doubt that nobody see north african as white. Minato ku (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "you can conclude least 20% of french kids are not white". Zinédine Zidane, Rachida Dati, Kad Merad may be of non-european origin, their skin color looks pretty pale to me. I'd argue that notwithstanding the "Black, Blanc, Beur" categorization, most North Africans have skin color traditionally termed 'white'. In any case, as long as the French Republic forbids the gathering of ethnic statistics, the true numbers regarding non-white births in France are virtually unknowable. However, I think most would judge your figure (20%) a very high estimate. -- 66.130.156.84 (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Or the oposite, Of course they are white but they are not see as white in France and in every other european country, the difference can change depending the country (exemple the hispanic are not view as white in USA, but many are white), mixed race kid would be see as white in African and as black or metisse in France. The inhabitants of Eastern Asia have mainly a white skin but they are not view as white. The idea of white is cultural. So it is not really the subjet of this talk page. The sujet was someone that see a picture with a multi racial group of kids in a picture and was shocked because it did not know that Paris and France was multi racial, especially the kids. [4] Minato ku (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

SECURITY ISSUE: A very subtle change was made to the Paris article on March 28, 2008 (10ish) by User Kaustubhnm, who has no UserPage or TalkPage. How was a non established registered user able to make this change on a supposedly semi-protected article? How were they able to make the change without any substantiating evidence for it? "City of Lights" was changed to "City of Light." The former, and original, "of Lights" refered to the city's early adoption of street lights - historically verifyable. So how was the change to "of Light" made without any verification. Toroloco (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)