Talk:Paris

Paris Talk Archives
Main Paris talk page 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

Bulky Templates

Is it really necessary to keep all the bulky templates at the bottom of the article ?

• Communes in the metropolitan area of Paris can be moved to Paris metropolitan area (actually already in there), and linked to in the See Also section, and wherever relevant in the body of the article.
• World Heritage Sites in France. The heritage site is Banks of the Seine, which would make a neat encyclopedic article, and the template could be moved there. Links in See Also and the body of the article where relevant. Equendil 20:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To Do Discussion

Economy

What do you think needs expanding in the Economy section? THEPROMENADER 09:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Should list some of the world-wide compaies which have a HQ or a office there, expand the manufacturing and services statement there, ect. -- Je suis 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps mention a few in a 'such as' statement... but listing too many would be pointless, simply because we can't list them all! The biggest by category then, and cite them a such - this would be both informative and NPOV. No lists though, please. THEPROMENADER 19:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For right now, Iam not going to to the companies and offices, ect. stuff, but I am going to add some information about the economy, if I can find anything. -- Je suis _t\^c 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

All the information you need is most probably in Economy of Paris - that article is quite complete (although it contains some fiction), and all the sources you need are there. I think the Economy section is fine the way it is though! If people want to know more about the economy, they have only to go to Economy - I think the outline here is already quite complete. THEPROMENADER 23:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a couple of problems with the section named "GPD and organization of the economy" - aside that the title itself could be better phrased and it's "GDP" not GPD.... a good lot of this section is now allocated to office rental costs, but not only is this hardly at all relevent to Paris' economy, it is a subject that would have a better place in the demography section (office space vs. living space, reasons thereof, etc). In short, I think this should go in favour of more valuable information. I can tend to this if you like. THEPROMENADER 21:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Only two sentences are but I think it should stay since it is part of the oragnization of Paris' economy, if you do not agree; I do not mind if you change it. -- Je suis _t\^c 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that it is part of the 'city' economy (the economy of 'city function' without reflexion on what's traded through the city), but the office information is not presented like this, the paragraph is on the entire region's production and trade, and office costs have little or nothing to do with this. I hope you see what I'm getting at. THEPROMENADER 07:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

The most recent confirmed Census numbers date from 1999, but 2004 estimates will be confirmed any day now. There has been a census every year since a few years ago, so from this point on INSEE numbers will always be recent and we will no longer have to worry about compensating possibly outdated numbers with both official and estimate counts. This for sure will save some space. THEPROMENADER 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note on Riots: This is an 'actual' event, but Paris' segregation of its suburbs that caused it isn't. In order for things to remain as 'contemporary' and encyclopedic as possible, I would suggest outlining the Paris/suburb separation/alienation/problems (in the demographics section) and add the riot as a result and an example - with a link to a corresponding article. THEPROMENADER 19:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tourism Section

I think 'tourism' should be but a sub-heading of the 'Culture' section, as Paris' 'tourist attractions', save a few more garish amusement parks (not even in Paris), are pretty well integrated into the Capital's existing Entertainment industry (albeit sometimes a parody of this) and Museum network. A good summary would be to speak of gastronomy (restaurants, cafés and bistros), museums, entertainment (theatre, nightclubs), fairs, and in a last 'tourism' section perhaps indicate a few of the above examples that are 'oriented to' tourism. THEPROMENADER 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, wait I think I understand to you mean

... Tourists expect to see something "Paris" here, non? Usually they should be doing everything above 'Tourism', but some there are a few 'extras' such as les Bateaux Mouches and the Eiffel Tower - but isn't this, although tailored for tourists, a part of the 'Paris culture'? THEPROMENADER 23:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I meant more like this (change at will) :

Culture

---

Monuments

Museums

Gastronomy

Entertainment

Tourism

Okay sounds good, but I think we need to talk about the tourist things first in a little introduction for stuff like the Eiffel Tower or the Arc de Triompe and explain why it was built, then in the tourism section explain them thing in more detail. -- Je suis _t\^c 01:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was proposing: 'What there is' already explained in other parts of the article (Eiffel tower -> History, Louvre -> Museums/History, etc), the 'Tourism' section could briefly describe which of these is most frequented by tourists and perhaps why. The tourism section could end with a (brief) description about cruft like Eurodisney that uses all of the above as tourist bait (everything in its order) and places such as the Moulin Rouge that today are but a parody of what dancehalls were before (already outlined in 'Entertainment'). All in positive terms of course : ) THEPROMENADER 07:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Administration

Je suis, can you explain what you mean by 'split Administration into Arrondissements and Politics' ? I don't see the logic in this: Arrondissments are inseperable from politics - they are almost --Je suis _t\^c 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)towns to themselves, each with its own mayor. THEPROMENADER 19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I realise that, butin the politics you could mention about how the arrondissements have mayors and arrondissements section you can name the mayor, and give some information, like what tourist's attracts and ect. are located there. -- Je suis _t\^c 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be in the interest of this article's (already long) lenght to keep it as "generalist" Paris as possible, and save the individual arrondissement info for arrondissement articles. Also please be reminded that Paris' arrondissements are politics and nothing but; they are divistions that reflect next to nothing on what they contain, nor for the history of the land they encompass. Tourist attractions by arrondissement? I think this would be a good idea for a guide, but not for a general article : ) THEPROMENADER 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay but section needs somewhere the name of the mayors, not it a full list, but something like: The mayors of the arrondissements are... and then link somewhere an article that would have more detail on it. -- Je suis _t\^c 15:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Districts

Districts defiantly needs de-listing and more text, it has bare facts but it needs a little more then just its barest information. -- Je suis _t\^c 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sections should be decapsed

Just thought I'd point out that section headings (including subheadings) should be in lower case: "Sectors of the economy" not "Sectors of the Economy". See the MoS. Stevage 11:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you here again : ) Do you want to do the above cleanup, or are you just leaving a note on it? THEPROMENADER 12:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I did decapsed everything, it's all good now. -- Je suis _t\^c 16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Has anyone noticed than when you do a search for "mudville" you end up directly on this page?

Fixed. - Thank you for mentioning it.-Andeh 14:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but is it doing it again? I'd fix it, but I am just learning how Wikipedia works...

Heh, can't believe I'm writing on this talk page. Some people never learn. Anyway, I have added to this page's navigational box nightmares by adding {{Template:Préfectures of Ile-de-France}}. Enjoy! Stevage 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, goody. At least with all the bottom-ballast we can be sure this article will stand upright : ) THEPROMENADER 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we can add some more. How's about one for the {{Template:Capitals of the world}} ? You know you want to... Captain scarlet 13:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the promenader, there's no more space left ... Pedro carras 10:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon? THEPROMENADER 11:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic... Please remove some of those templates, we're getting to the point where the height of the navigational templates will exceed the height of the article ! Captain scarlet 11:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really hard to know which ones to remove though. The point of the templates is to be complete - to put the template on every page that meets the criteria for inclusion. However, some of them are obviously redundant, or add little information at best - Paris as commune, department, préfecture of département of Ile-de-France, and préfecture of région. Then there are the ones where the category is getting fairly obscure - Summer games host cities, world heritage sites in France and European city of culture. On the other hand, all those boxes are down at the very bottom of the article, and don't really "get in the way" of anything more important. Stevage 09:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I don't really care one way or another - my criticism stops at the ugliness. In my opinion most of those templates could be replaced by a simple category. Templates shout and are (sometimes) fun to make; that's probably why there's so many. I opted to remove the at once largest and incomplete template. True that they are not so 'bothersome' where they are. I think the Paris article is nearing peer-review quality - we could very well leave this issue until then. But we're already a few wanting to remove it.THEPROMENADER 10:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before, but, ther eis a need ofr articles on each of Paris' status, one for departement, one for city. The rest is treated in MA and IdF. then the templates can feature in these articles, with a See also section on the Paris article leading to Paris' other meanings. Captain scarlet 11:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Idea: limited Photo gallery?

That space to the right of the 'sister cities' column is taken quite nicely by a couple photos now, but what about a thumbnail gallery? I know that consensus (if I remember correctly) was against this before, but that space would be quite quite suitable for a select few photos that would (ideally) not take up any more page architecture than the aforementioned column. Could be informative and square things up nicely. THEPROMENADER 10:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay with me. -- Je suis _t\^c 15:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

An event better idea, IMHO, would be to replace the "Sister Cities" section with a photo gallery. As a Parisian, I have never heard of the so-called "partner cities", not even on the Paris.fr website. Does anyone have a source or additional information on what these partnerships actually mean? Only Rome should be mentioned here, because its association with Paris is real. At least, it is mentioned outside Wikipedia (even on large posters in my street, these days, because it's the 50th anniversary), although, like most twinships, I don't think it has many practical consequences. Thbz 16:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I asked that question once to the person who first added that list to the French Wikipedia and the answer was: "I don't remember" [1]. So this list is dubious and should be moved to the talk page until an external source is provided. Does anyone disagree? Thbz 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, "twinning" information is of very dubious utility, but people love adding it to Wikipedia articles because it's simple, concrete, is usually easy to find, and sounds meaningful. For an article like Paris, a brief mention ought to be sufficient, in a corner somewhere. Stevage 16:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys need not forget WB:AGF, I have been looking to see if any of the cities list are not a sister city or twin city of Paris, thus far I haven't found one. -- Je suis _t\^c 17:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I took the time to find who had added the list of sister cities to this article (which is not easy because the history of this page is very long) and I added a message on your talk page to ask you for more information.

Anyway, I just found something:

• When searching Google on "site:paris.fr partenariats amman lisbonne", the first result points to a page that contains a list of partnerships (the page itself is unavailable, but one may see it in the Google cache).
• Another page at [2] mentions something that looks like a partnership, but this page mentions cities like Istanbul that are not listed here.

In summary, this list of partnerships may have some meaning. Maybe I'll try to dig into this issue and try to do something about it. Thbz 20:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No galleries, improve layout and illustrate. I hold the opinion that wide text (a consequence of the horizontal 4/3 format of computer monitors, as opposed to the vertical format of books etc) should be avoided as much as possible on the basis that it reads less easily and is tiring on the eyes. There's plenty of material on the web discussing that issue, so straight to the point : There's plenty of space in the article to insert pictures. At a width of 200-250 pixels, pictures make the lines narrower so that an optimal 10-15 words fit (assuming relatively standard window sizes and fonts for a web browser). Used wisely, pictures not only illustrate the article but also make it easier to read and improve the overall layout. I suggest taking advantage of this to reduce the bulkiness of the various sections where the lines are full width, rather than adding picture galleries.Equendil Talk 22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just adding a note to say that Internet Explorer blows when rendering text and pictures together. Opera and Firefox are doing a much better job of it. Not sure it's an issue to consider though, just had a look at various big articles on my IE and all render quite badly. Equendil Talk 22:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Was saving the best (layout) for last - filling out the info first. IE Mac is dead, IE 7 for Windows coming soon (so more unexpected problems no doubt). Equendil: being a webmaster, research of user habits has taught me that people with wide screens rarely expand their browser window to fill it. All the same, I see your point about illustrations. No gallery? Let's wait for the fate of sister cities first... I just suggested it only because there was a convenient space for it. True that when you start adding 'dump bins' of pictures unattached to any text, there's nothing keeping them from multiplying indiscriminately... like coat hangers. THEPROMENADER 00:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me slightly alter what I wrote above since I misinterpreted what you suggested, filling blank space caused by lists etc with pictures is fine with me, though using multi columns for lists might be a better idea. Two big pictures or a limited gallery of smaller pictures, it's all the same to me. I'm opposed to galleries on their own however.

On another note, I added a few picture to the article to illustrate the text, and modified the layout of the introduction and the TOC. Hope it's fine with everyone (if not, you know how to revert). Equendil Talk 00:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Know how to, don't like to though. I do dislike the TOC to the right though. Actually, if I had it my way, the TOC would be in the lefthand column. What do you think about putting the TOC below the infobox, and constraining it to a 250px width (packing it in a DIV) to make it line up and look nice? Damn think is so ungainly, nothing seems to work right. THEPROMENADER 00:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

TOC trouble

Well, the TOC makes a big hole if kept in its normal position, if on the left of the "name" section, it makes that section look badly squeezed by the infobox on the right in addition to the TOC on the left, I find it looks terrible if on the left of the introduction, and I'm not terribly happy with it on the right side either, though I thought it was the lesser of several evils. Of course, it may look worse on your web browser like it looks on mine. Can't say I like the idea of having it even bigger and too far down the article. Basically, I hate the TOC. I wish these things were hidden by default for everyone, wouldn't have to deal with them then. Anyway, what about cheating: see User:Equendil/Paris temp ? Sub sections are just bold headers so they don't appear in the TOC (and let's be frank, who clicks on sub sections ?), and an image to fill the space instead of squeezing text in there ? Equendil Talk 04:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think that works either *sigh*. Equendil Talk 06:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice trial - that must have taken some work. True that the TOC is a pain in the *%$* for the size it grows to in varied articles. You can take one thing for sure out of all this - there must be some way of getting sub-titles out of longer TOC's if they are not wanted - perhaps like some of the page-bottom templates, hidable, or better still, expandable but collapsed by default? Anyhow, for now, how about putitng the TOC below the infobox to the right? Will give it a go. THEPROMENADER 07:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Below the infobox would push it too far down. What about just going back to the regular TOC (User:Equendil/Paris2), makes a hole in the article but 1) it doesn't mess up the layout of any section. 2) The infobox is sitting in a proper place 3) It's standard, that's where people expect the TOC and they are used to it that way. Equendil Talk 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Oh, and you can forget about the right side, putting the TOC there wasn't one of my greatest ideas anyway. Equendil Talk 07:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Back to the left we go... THEPROMENADER 07:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I managed to make a 'fake' TOC - move this one around anywhere you like, but revert if don't like. Must fly! THEPROMENADER 10:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing Sisters

Thbz - The www.paris.fr website is under maintenance, but I found this... should be complete. If you can't trust the Mairie de Paris website, who can you trust for info like this? Still... there's the 'uninformed webmaster factor' to consider. THEPROMENADER 00:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

New sections

I've been adding like crazy these last two days, but if there's anything to add, remove or be improved, please, break a leg. THEPROMENADER 09:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank for the hard work I'm going to (one of this days) start on seperating the Administration article, from what I said in the discussion above. -- Je suis _t\^c 13:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks; it's my pleasure to share. Concerning the 'separation' though: I don't think it would be a good idea to cut anything in Administration until we've had a chance to talk this out, simply because for now I don't see the reason in what you want to do - and I actually think it's a bad idea as I've said above. Let's keep this conversation up there though. THEPROMENADER 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Thanks goes to you, too! THEPROMENADER 14:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I updated the To-Do list, one big update was created. -- Je suis _t\^c 15:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tourist visits little problem

London#Economy London is the world's most popular city destination for tourists, attracting 27m overnight-stay visitors every year.[10]

Paris is the most visited city in the world,[1] with more than 30 million visitors per year.

I suppose 30 million is higher than 27 million. Skinnyweed 00:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you can edit London has the second most. -- Je suis _t\^c 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Son of "to do" list

Je suis, just want to note that some of what you put in the 'to do' list you can just go ahead and do if it's nothing major - like adding Eurodisney? It will just be a blurb added. Immigration too. Metro is important, but keeping things as general as possible in this article is already a chore - for now I've made the unique heading 'mass transit' to avoid singling out 'metro', as if you do that the bus system is very developed too... can we leave this sort of detail for the sub-articles? The Paris metro articles are very complete thanks to a few contributors to this page.

I think after the citations are fixed (and phrases needing found and appended) peer review time shouldn't be too far away. THEPROMENADER 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it (Métro) needs one or two more sentences about it. Btw, I'll get to work ASAP! -- Je suis _t\^c 04:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Don't forget that for anything language you're covered, so we can concentrate on getting the proper info in first and touch up later. Just leave word if you want something looked at. Stevage? THEPROMENADER 06:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, great work on the 'Districts' section. THEPROMENADER 06:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have said up there 'go ahead and do it if its not eliminating something else' instead of 'if it's nothing major' - no discussion needed for adding info! THEPROMENADER 10:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Districts

Hey, don't worry about the districts being "stacked" - they won't seem 'listed' if each heading has a good amount of descriptive text. As it stands there is no seeming logic in the grouping - limit was Concorde/Vendome - or something like Champs-Élysées/Avenue Montaigne - but putting "Les Halles" in the same paragraph as "Quartier Latin" is a bit nonsensical. The content is great, but this section has to either be separated (headings) or restructured. THEPROMENADER 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Quarter Latin and Les Halles do have similar but different quality, like both are lively, but in different ways, which IMHO give a good contrast. --Je suis _t\^c 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so for the reader to get that correlation, your explanation must be in the phrase: "Two of Paris' most liveliest quarters are..." - otherwise he won't get how they are connected (as they are in the same paragraph). As for the contrast part, I don't get you. THEPROMENADER 18:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Education section

I had asked around for someone better-informed than I to look at/create this, but after more than a week, no takers. I am doing it myself for now, but I'm sure the result could use improvement. I'll try to have it up later today. THEPROMENADER 08:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm overbooked. If anyone wants to have a go at this, or thinks any part of it complete enough to include, please find it here. Thanks! THEPROMENADER 06:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Education section created, albeit a wee one. I really hope someone else more knowledgable can develop it - perhaps that its presence in the article will draw attention. THEPROMENADER 18:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Climate should actually be apart of geography

I've added Climate as sub section in "Geography", because that is where climate info of a city goes on Wikipedia. Jackp 11:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ - there is no Wikipedia standard as far as I know. It's best to do what reads best and most coherently. THEPROMENADER 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is a standard, search any city article and you'll find it's a fact. Just letting you know. Jackp 08:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact is: there is no standard, and surtout not a written one. What is best is what best works for the article. This one has its own TOC so it can safely have as many categories as it needs without excess space - and it takes full advantage of this fact, and your removing the category actually disrupts this setup. Unless you manage to overturn concensus on this, leave the categories be please. THEPROMENADER 08:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jackp, would you mind leaving the climate section alone? I am not alone in contesting your changes and I have provided ample explanation and even reason why this modification is disturbing to the page layout and TOC above. Please desist. THEPROMENADER 05:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Paris....

How did Paris dubbed as the City of Lights???

Several reasons! It all began with the 18th-century "Siècle des lumières" (century of lights, or enlightenment period) with many of the philosophers residing in Paris during this time - Paris as "Ville des lumières" could be better translated to "City of ideas". The ideas weren't only philisophical ones, they were also based on the many inventions of the time concerning insdustry, living comfort and hygene (water pumps, sewers, etc), and the beginnings of an architectural utopist movment (Claude-Nicolas Ledoux).

From there Paris "city of Lights" appellation was re-used for: being one of the world's first cities to completely light a main avenue in gas light; becoming known for brilliantly lighting all its boulevards with electric light; perhaps once again when the car-maker Citroën lit up the Eiffel tower with thousands of electric lights.

Hope that answers your question : )

THEPROMENADER 06:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed New Morning link

New Morning club link was linked to Bob Dylan's New Morning album, changed to a new blank New Morning (Club) page

That was my dumb : P - Thanks. THEPROMENADER 06:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Paris is a leading?

"Paris is a leading global cultural, business and political center and is renowned for its defining neo-classical architecture as well as its role as a major international influence in fashion, gastronomy and the arts.[1]" The link to the site proving that sentence dosen't work, if you can fix it or find another link also proving it, then I will remove the citation needed. Jackp 08:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it myself. Link fixed. THEPROMENADER 08:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

national government

I notice that there's no references at all in the article to the locations of the principal institutions of the French national government in the city - the Elysée Palace, Hôtel Matignon, Palais Bourbon, and Palais de Justice are not mentioned at all, and the Palais Royal and Palais du Luxembourg are mentioned only for their gardens (am I missing any of the big ones?). This should surely be rectified, but I'm not sure where in the article would be the best place. john k 01:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The administration section would be perfect I think, as it is the building's function that you wish to outline, and not their secondary status as monuments - perhaps integrated into the text? Anyhow, please do! THEPROMENADER 06:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't "shaky", that was fine, and needed! Great : ) THEPROMENADER 17:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Just added a new title, and changed the title of another section to give the new one relevence and tie everything together. This addition was one of the last before peer review - great insight, I don't know how it was missed until now! THEPROMENADER 18:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

There's a few citations left to find (please help!), but in all I think this article is near enough completion to put it up for Peer review. We'll get lots of editing 'brush-up' attention I hope, and the 'outside opinion' will do this article even more good. Everyone should who contributed thus far to this article should give everyone who has done the same a big thank-you. And yes I mean everyone. So thanks from me of course : ) It's been a ride - but it's not over yet! THEPROMENADER 20:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review? Article near completion? You must be joking. This article is full of spelling and grammar problems, not to mention outright false information, such as this:

"Although Paris' history is long, that of its municipal government has less than half a century: Paris and its surrounding territories were always governed directly by the highest power of the time: this was the Crown before the French Revolution, and a state-appointed préfet (governing the Seine département) afterwards. The office of mayor of Paris, save for a few brief occasions, did not exist before 1977."

Promenader, since you wrote this, have you ever heard of the Paris municipality before the French Revolution? Ever heard of the prévôt des marchands? Paris has been under direct government control only between 1795 and 1977. Hardouin 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Hardouin. Nothing at all is "wrong" in that phrase - It's obvious that "municipal government" means "municipal government under direct government control". You forget 1789-1793, and the few months between 1848 and 1870-71; Together these indeed make "less than half a century". Perhaps changing a word or two could clarify this, but why instead do you only leave a months-after-the-fact message - and a very rude one at that, I might add - on this talk page? This serves only to pollute the editing atmosphere. Thank you also for insinuating that this article is full of "false information" - but if the "false" you speak of is like the "false" above, then there's no point in taking the time to fill a talk page with criticisms and quotations instead of taking the time to make a few simple corrections. Also, insinuating that there are "great faults" without indicating what they are does not seem to be in the goal of article improvement.

Language improvements is one of the goals of the Peer review, as I have clearly written. If it is improvements you would like to make: you have as of yet totally ignored requests to cite the numbers, claims and statistics of your contribution. Doing so would be an enormous help, so thank you in advance for this. THEPROMENADER 07:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Hardouin would like to make the changes to the text you describe as false ? Remarking their inexactitude is all in good but unless you do something about there is little point. If indeed you have noticed this error maybe you would like to edit the article and edit in a more befitting history? I'm sure the French article, or other languaged articles will provide source for your statements and help you in this task. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Promenader's bullying attitude completely put me off editing this article, which is a shame because I had great material to contribute. And I don't feel like correcting errors either. Promenader has no particular knowledge or economics, statistics, demographics, French administration, or history, yet he wrote most of these sections (after deleting almost everything that had been written by previous users), and the result is these sections are full of errors. Yet if one dares to change a word, it's immediately a flood of angry messages on the talk page, accusations of bad faith, etc. It's beyond me that someone would write about subjects he is not familiar with, and then have a bullying attitude if people dare to disagree. The paragraph I quoted above is a good example. Despite being entirely incorrect (there existed an independent municipality of Paris from 1271 to 1795, contrary to what's claimed) and being exposed here, Promenader continues to argue the opposite, and lashes out with a new angry message (read above). How wouldn't anyone feel totally disgusted with editing the article after that? I can't help noticing how so many previous editors have left since Promenader self-appropriated this article. Hardouin 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Promenader's bullying attitude completely put me off editing this article, which is a shame because I had great material to contribute. Oh, grow up. john k 18:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, asking you to cite your sources is not "bullying", and I am not the only one to do it. If the agenda you tried forwarding here were echoed in references, there could be no argument against it - end of story. As for continuing to insinuate that I am "wrong" by forwarding facts on a subject completely another, I don't think it really matters, as I'm sure many of those reading this page won't have a clue what either of us are going on about - often has been the case in the past. The ongoing conflict had all to do with appropriation, yes, but you're not the one doing all he can to get others editing this article. THEPROMENADER 12:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And, if I might add, my aim since the start was to bring this article to featured status. It is only normal that I maintain my participation until it attains that goal. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 13:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Each of your edits contain approximately one spelling error per sentence. Do you never proof-read your edits into Word or another software before uploading them? Your sentences are also often grammatically clumsy, which is bizarre given that supposedly you are a native English speaker. And then there are the many factual errors (the municipality of Paris didn't exist before the French Revolution, the prefect of Paris is the same as the prefect of police, La Défense is located within the City of Paris, and all the other many factual errors that I have pointed out over the months). I'm just saying, when someone knows as little as you do about Paris, it's better to abstain from editing. I can't understand why you waste so many hours and days of your life to make low quality and amateurish edits. Don't you have anything better to do? Writing about your Canadian hometown would be more helpful, as you probably know it better than Paris. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but at some point someone needs to tell you. Hardouin 13:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

All of your affirmations are either exaggerated, untrue, or are purposely concocted to 'get my goat' - it's quite obvious that you find fun in this, as well as pretending superiority in a domain where few can call you out - at least every word I have ever written here has been backed by referenced fact, or has been corrected by the same. "La Défense is in Paris" indeed: If it is for agendas such as this you use your "superior knowledge", then you might as well throw it out the window. Good day. THEPROMENADER 13:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You both have good points, but it's clear that you guys can't stand each other. Why play at each other's game? Chill for goodness' sake. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but what I say stands for both of you, you're both in many situations as bad as each other, regardless of what I think.

That i am aware off, there is no harm in asking for peer review. It is precisely to correct mistakes that are said to exist in the article that a PR is useful other than a mere judgement of the possibility of FAdom. None of this bickering is useful for either of you two, or me, and as I've said before it's best to work together. And yes, I'm not perfect, I make sp3lingue mis5t4kes and syntax errors's. Bordel! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you Captain Scarlet, and I'll most likely regret this as silliness by the day's end. Good day to you sir. THEPROMENADER 13:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Silliness it is when someone doesn't want to admit errors. In any case, the aforementioned paragraph still remains, pretending that Paris was governed by the Crown before the French Revolution and that municipal government has less than half a century of history. There are other factual errors in the article, and many ambiguous or gibberish sentences, but I don't have time for this now, and to tell the truth, I am not really inclined to contribute to an improvement rally given Promenader's attitude. I've taken enough blows already. Hardouin 13:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your disengagement in claiming damage and victory is a great help to all the errors you vaguely indicate, as if there exists any victory to claim. No matter though - even if you are right, the truth will surface through the help of knowledgable people who really care about sharing veracity backed by reference and fact. This is the whole point of the peer review. Bonne continuation alors. THEPROMENADER 14:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Promenader for showing your true nature to other users. A couple more arrogant and disdainful messages like your last one, and they'll get the full picture. Hardouin 15:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Factual errors" and edit comments

Hardouin, thanks for the edits, but the "many factual errors" you spoke of were nothing of the sort and I resent you attempting to belittle other editors by presenting them as such. You simply added, in my opinion, unneeded detail ("Paris region" before Ile-de-France) and effaced the date indicating the creation of France's régions with the date of the renaming of the "district de la région parisienne" into its present-day Île-de-France appellation. Again this is a question you taking another option on "what and how much are we going to say" and calling what you chose to replace "error".

If you're complaining about the language, everything after that has become a rather garbled rehash of what was there before, with "of the" and "lot of" added. I'm not criticising you personally for your linguistic abilities, but you would be doing this article a service by leaving language edits to those better able, and no I don't mean only myself. Peer review should set this problem straight.

As for the Education section, I've never hidden the fact, and in fact made it very clear to all, that this is not at all in my domain of expertise, and we both know that I've done the rounds trying to get someone to do it in my place. Your insults as comments aside, even published as it is, it goes without saying that this action served for something: proof of the matter is, now that it's there, it's already begun to improve. Only the best should take the first step? Hardly, otherwise little would ever get done.

Editing with you would be much more fun and educational would you use your knowledge in a way that wasn't so damn unsociable. THEPROMENADER 12:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Education Section II

Hardouin, a few minor language glitches aside, the education section now has the clarity that I was unable to find before - thanks. One has to know the whole picture to make an effective summary. THEPROMENADER 12:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"In 1991, four more universities were created in the suburbs of Paris, reaching a total of seventeen public universities. These four universities were given names (based on the name of the suburb in which they are located) and not numbers like the previous thirteen."

There is this, though - I had to read it twice to get its real meaning. Even in my miniscule knowledge I thought that the University of Paris had only thirteen universities. Unless the French Wiki "Université_de_Paris", English Wiki University of Paris and official sorbonne website are somehow wrong. After a web-wide search and a comb through Larousse and Quid my doubts on this are only reinforced. What educational entity are these "four more universities" part of, why is this phrase worded ("given names ... and not numbers like the previous thirteen") like they are part of the Paris University? A word of explanation please? THEPROMENADER 16:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of always making accusations, just read the webpages that you're linking to. Obviously you didn't read the Sorbonne website thoroughly. If you had you would have found the information in the last paragraph of this page: http://www.sorbonne.fr/document174.html. Hardouin 17:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked for answers after being unable to find them in what should be obvious places. What are these other establishments, please? The page-bottom phrase you link to is very vague - it speaks of plans to 'decongest' central universities through new universities created in 'aquired buildings' in suburban 'new cities' , but it doesn't say where these buildings are, nor that these are Paris Universities per se. Are there really seventeen universities in the Paris University as you state? THEPROMENADER 18:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A Google search provides the answer. These universities are not part of University of Paris (which, apparently, doesn't exist any more except on tourist T-shirts), which is why I renamed the section. Thbz 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Discovered "Université 2000" and "U3M" just now myself : ) THEPROMENADER 19:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If the Paris University no longer exists, shouldn't this be stated outright? This would make things much clearer to the layman (searching in English elsewhere) - and it would seem a very important event in the evolution of Paris' education, even as a (thinking forward) a historical mention. THEPROMENADER 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Still, I see lots of talk of, but I can't make anything concrete out of my findings in all the above. If the University of Paris is indeed a defunct establishment, why are all its (even the Sorbonne) "Paris University" references solidly in place, and little clear mention made about any of the 'expansion' anywhere? I'm not coming to conclusions; I still have questions. It's important here to say what is - and provide clear proof of it. I'd like to adopt this as reality, but I still have reservations for lack of clearly-worded documentation. Can you provide any solid examples, Thbz? THEPROMENADER 20:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The clearest mention I could find was this interview (2005) from the Cergy-Pointoise university website - but it is still inconclusive. Towards the bottom: "17 Paris region universities that can be thought of as a network" . So, how to define "Paris education"? Of course it would be the entire Paris region in this (as the intra-extra exchanges are many) but the a) situation must be stated clearly as it is (in transformation?) and b) be verifiable. Could someone rewrite this in a clear way, with references? THEPROMENADER 20:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there is not one big University of Paris but 14 small, autonomous Universities doesn't seem very important to me : it is only a matter of institutional organization, which makes the life of students a little harder because it means more bureaucracy and red tape if you want to change from one University to another... The description in its current state seems rather clear to me : we have found that there are 17 Universities in Île-de-France, and more details about the administrative organization should belong to sub-articles, if anyone is interested. The fact that someone in Cergy says that "they should be thought of as a network" only means that it's good to speak with your neighbours. Universities of course do establish relationships with other universities, as well as with private companies (well, not many in France...). Thbz 21:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fourteen? I'm beginning to get the picture - but still unsure on how it could be presented clearly. By what I've read the U2000/U3M concerns all of France, so in reality no University is centred anywhere... so where does Paris' education stop? I see your point about "talking with your neighbours", and actually, according to the goals of the developing system (if I understand them correctly), limiting things at the Île-de-France would even be against its own interests. So "Paris education" is becoming a stickler - but I'd still stick with the Paris region. My last question I guess is: is there still a Paris university? If not, where can I read about its death? I only ask because I haven't found it yet. THEPROMENADER 23:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, Université 2000 is not a new university but a Government plan to make existing universities better... Universities depend upon the State, as all things in France; the recteur is named by the President of the Republic. They are autonomous, not independent. Thbz 05:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

...I do understand that these (U2000/U3M) are plans and not universities, but I've just noticed now that you in fact did rewrite things into a clear way. D'oh, sorry and thanks. THEPROMENADER 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I learned much from the edits that came later, but its regrettable that they are peppered with an ulterior intent. You rather overuse a particular term, dear Hardouin, that appears four times in the space of a few paragraphs - only one indication is of any use, that is to say the one concerning employment in the Paris area. The other usage is pointless, aside from the repetition where none is needed, for the simple reason that this particular unit of measure is unused by anyone wanting to indicate the locale of any university; this will only hinder any search for similar information elsewhere. But there's no point in my getting all huffy about it at this early editing stage. THEPROMENADER 10:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

An example of paying more attention to the words than the wording: In the Paris metropolitan area can be found France's highest concentration of grandes écoles - yet another claim needing source, to boot. THEPROMENADER 15:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's rather funny, because you're the one who wrote that there is the highest concentration of grandes écoles ([3]). Indeed, if you make claims unsourced, there's something wrong with your editing. Hardouin 12:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're purposely trying to get my goat, as we both know of what part of the phrase I speak. Stop corrupting the editing atmosphere please. THEPROMENADER 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "Paris has France's highest concentration of Grandes Écoles", which is even narrower than saying that "In the Paris metropolitan area can be found France's highest concentration of grandes écoles." If by "Paris" you meant the City of Paris, then you are wrong. The City of Paris does not have the highest concentration of grandes écoles. There are actually few grandes écoles left in the City of Paris. The whole metro area, on the other hand, does contain the highest concentration of grandes écoles, and so the sentence is much more clear now, and less misleading. Unless of course you prefer that we use the generic name "Paris" to mean the whole metro area, but I thought that wasn't really your cup of tea...Hardouin 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Writing only "Paris" was indeed an error, as I meant to write "Paris region" as the next area description in the sentence. You went and replaced both with "metropolitan area". This also is wrong. People simply will not look for schools in the "Paris metropolitan area", and even schools themselves never speak of their own locale using this statistic, which makes everything in this section an unreferencable original research.

We both know "Paris region" or "Île-de-France région" is the correct term. The above proves that your editing is dominated by a slant more personal than a reader's better understanding - and this is becoming quite silly. THEPROMENADER 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to verify, and I'm glad I did. In the higher education section alone: The first reference turns up Île-de-France statistics. The second leads to a pdf study (not reference) that clearly states (lefthand column, page 14) that the study is based on urban agglomerations or urban areas. I can provide the quote if anyone is interested. What's more, "aire urbaine" is never referred to at all in the study, if only to explain why it is not used as a reference. The last reference in this section links to the INSEE IDF pdf as well.

What I really don't (want to) understand about this is that these falsehoods were not simple error; they could only be a result of research and premeditation. THEPROMENADER 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here is a noteworthy source on IDF education: http://cordis.europa.eu/ile-de-france/fr/infra2.htm.

I would like to leave the "metropolitan area" of the first paragraph as there it has its proper use - employment - but the reference at the end of that paragraph leads to nothing precise - btw, "Data gathered in the websites of... " is not a proper reference. I could find the numbers clearly indicated nowhere in the sites indicated, and can only be roughly approximated by the INSEE AU 99 numbers - which probably explains the overuse of "approximately" in that paragraph. This is far from encyclopedic and must be improved. On the side, the Acadamy links to the INSEE are all for pages concerning the Île-de-France, and none for any "aire urbaine" or metropolitan area. Notice any trend here? THEPROMENADER 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How could you revert after everything outlined above? This is beyond words. THEPROMENADER 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What's beyond words Promenader, is that you constantly revert edits made in good faith simply because you despise the editor. Discuss things on the discussion page before reverting things. That's what it's made for. Your self-imposed reign over this article must come to end. You are by no means the only authority on Paris, and your bullying and systematic calling into question of everything that I edit is inacceptable. As for the use of the word "approximately", this is simply because figures vary from year to year, and even from official sources to official sources, that's why I put only approximate numbers rounded to the thousands or hundreds of thousands, instead of figures down to the unit which are meaningless. Hardouin 23:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, you've reverted every correction made to your false allegations and false referencing addition to my work - are you happy to showcase work like this? The references that you provide do not even correspond to the allegations you publish - what argument can you possibly have? And still you revert - twice - without changing a single word ! Simply incredible. I, my dear, have had enough for today - Goodnight. THEPROMENADER 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This log ([4]) shows the difference between the article before your "corrections" and the article now. As clear from the log, I didn't "revert every correction". Why do you always have to exagerate everything? What's unacceptable is that you revert people's edits (in that case my edit from two days ago about Education) without discussing things before on the talk page. Reverting and then leaving a message afterwards on the talk page seemingly justifying the revert is simply contributing to an unhealthy and war-like atmosphere. You accuse the Académies' websites not to be proper references. I don't know, perhaps you are not very familiar with the French education system (then you should be all the more cautious to discuss things before reverting!), but actually the Académies' figures are the most official we can find, because the Académies manage the entire education system at local level. Hardouin 00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant this one. With your example, this shows that all of your falsely-referenced allegations are without exception solidly back in place. Sleep tight. THEPROMENADER 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In what way are the official Académies du Ministère de l'Éducation's websites "false-references"? Hardouin 00:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Where in the sites ? "collected from three sites" is not a reference - but that's far from being the worst of the lot. Tata now. THEPROMENADER 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The figures do not appear at a single location in the websites. They are spread a bit everywhere. It took me time actually to gather everything. If we are going to pinpoint the exact location of each and every figure, then there would be lots of links, which would make the reference section a bit crazy. Besides, these official websites are changed all the time, so within a month from now the many exact links would become obsolete, that's why I just linked to the websites main pages. Obviously, none of this crossed your mind when you rashly deleted everything without previously discussing it. Hardouin 00:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The "acadamy pages" link is not only not a reference; it is a "just take my word for it, it's there" statement that goes against the whole point of providing references in the first place. Last night I was almost too tired to see what I was editing, but this morning I find that: a) the just-mentioned inacceptable link to 'information in three websites' is back, - a direct link to these numbers must be found, even if it entails adding one or more references; b) the first reference in the "higher education" section still links to IDF figures, but the area indicated is once again not at all that used to gather the statistics provided in the reference it is linked to; b) the second phrase referenced to a paper comparing education in European agglomerations still speaks of agglomerations, which is great to see.

So once again I must put things into their proper state. For future improvements: please find proper references; use numbers corresponding to the region you speak of, or speak of the region used in the reference you provide. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 04:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, are you joking? You can't link phrase speaking of one area to a citation linking to statistics from another. Nor can you simply link to a website's front page as if to say: "the information is there, ok? Trust me." - you must give indication of where to find the numbers cited. Un peu de sérieux stp! THEPROMENADER 18:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, I just had a look at those pages you were vaguely "thrice compiling" together as one citation - all numbers indicated on each link therein were based on either the IDF or divisions of the same ("académies" of Créteil and Versailles) or of Paris itself - nowhere is mentioned any "aire urbaine" or "metropolitan area" - so even this citation was false. BTW, according to the www.paris-iledefrance.cci.fr pdf you linked to, there are 600, 527 employed in higher education alone in the IDF region, so I don't know where you get your "330,000 persons" employed in all education. Can you be so kind as to correct all this yourself? Thank you very much in advance. THEPROMENADER 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Promenader, the next time you delete something from the article without even reading properly the references, I file a rfc regarding your case. Enough is enough. Once again, if you had properly read the references I gave, you would have realised that 600,527 was the number of students enrolled in higher education, not the number of people employed in higher education. With such a poor record for paying attention to facts and figures, you'd better abstain from deleting things without discussing them first. A little bit of humility on your part would help. Hardouin 22:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hardouin - file away. You say numbers are from one area and provide a reference saying those numbers are from another. This is anything but ecyclopedic, and after three reminders, frankly impermissable. THEPROMENADER 23:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, those links are to IDF figures, not Metropolitan area figures, so your 'source' is still not acceptable. Apologies, but please do not try to revert again without finding a proper solution. THEPROMENADER 00:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Promenader, you perfectly know that 99% of the inhabitants of IDF live in the metro area, and 98% of the inhabitants of the metro area live in IDF. Figures were rounded (because they vary every year, and also from sources to sources), so the references listed are perfectly acceptable to describe the metro area situation. Hardouin 00:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of any sources that use that sort of reasoning, or that juggle statistics between two completely different area types that have only size in common? Of course not. This is actually the antithesis of "perfectly acceptable", as it is a perfect example of Original Research. One cannot simply invent the usage of a certain preferred statistical area; correct terms and real use must be made evident through sources provided. If one can't find any sources using the 'pet area', then the 'pet area' can't very well be used. Nor would it do to ignore common use to hunt high and low for only sources using that area, as the result would be far from infomative to the wider majority, and the information cited much harder to find elsewhere. Such practices are in ignorance of even the most basic principles of Wiki. THEPROMENADER 01:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you don't understand the concept of rounded numbers. As for your accusations of original research, keep them for yourself. If adding up numbers from official sources is personal research, then pretty much everything on Wikipedia is personal reasearch. If someone checks the birth date of Queen Elizabeth II, do the substraction, and writes in her article that "the queen is currently 80 year-old", I guess by your standards this would be "original research". In any case, and above all, it's your attitude that is at fault here. You can disagree with the sources, but you shouldn't delete them from the article until the discussion here is over and other people have expresssed themselves. Your pre-emptive reverts contribute greatly to the negative editing atmosphere that has plagued this article for months now. Hardouin 11:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Hardouin. What I do undertand is the importance of providing verifiable sources that confirm the information in the article, not that of another subject or area. Even though you have never participated in any pre-revert discussion on any matter concerning article content, please let me remind you that your error has been clearly indicated and proven here, uncountered by any real reference or proposed correction, for almost a week now. THEPROMENADER 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with a source, it doesn't mean the source is invalid or unverifiable. This is typicall of someone doing page appropriation. You think you know everything, you think you're always right, therefore, if you think the source is wrong, it must necessarily be wrong in the eyes of everybody. Problem is, here things are decided by consensus, not by one person deciding for the rest of us. Hardouin 12:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The source does not agree with the text. End of story. You cannot build consensus on error. End of sequel. Thank you for not pursuing this any further without providing correct references; please let me remind you that haranguing and attempted denigration are not replacements for these. Thanks again. THEPROMENADER 12:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Claiming unfounded things now is not going to help you. The sources that you deleted are still in the history of the article, and so everybody can access them, and double-check the numbers for themselves. Accusing me of writing numbers that are invented or erroneous is not only malicious, but also untrue. Hardouin 13:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Will you please stop this? The irrelevancy of the reference in question has already been examined and its irrelevancy seconded - but even this was an unnecessary use of someone else's time. Again, it's not the numbers that are wrong, but your misuse of them. Please stop this disruptive behaviour and attempted slandering. THEPROMENADER 13:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussing things on the discussion page is a "disruptive behavior"? So much for your respect of other editors... Hardouin 13:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Immigration Exodus

"Exodus" was a pretty funny choice of a word, wasn't it? Glad you corrected it. The thing is, you only mentioned only this and nothing about re-inserting the very text I was trying to improve. Please stop following me around, and please stop trying to make me angry by inserting "metroplitan area" everywhere. First off, this is an article on Paris, so Paris has priority, and secondly, if the numbers cited don't come from the metropolitan area you can't use "metropolitan area" - you didn't even take the time to verify, otherwise you would have posted the source that was quite explicitly asked for. THEPROMENADER 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you've gone and found the AU 99 numbers. Sorry for jumping the gun. THEPROMENADER 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no excuse for your behavior. You are always hot-tempered and war-like. You should reflect on your attitude... Hardouin 19:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(glancing up) Didn't I just apologize? You are quite rude. So, the sum of your edits are that you have replaced IDF numbers with AU numbers. That's fine, but what of the cultural disparity between Paris and its suburbs? it is quite evident, and this is mentioned in most every encyclopedia. I'm sure it is possible to mention this without re-re bloating any text. THEPROMENADER 19:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't "replaced" any number with other numbers. If you would pay more attention, you would notice that the numbers are the same. This is just another of your umpteen accusations. Hardouin 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually couldn't "notice" anything because there are no percentages in the reference you give. Is this permissible, and are we expected to do the maths ourselves? I did, and indeed you did not replace anything. Consider this an apology as well then. THEPROMENADER 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox "squish"

The infobox is fine up top, but while doing some site testing at smaller screen resolutions I opened up the Paris page and see that the "Name" section is rather squeezed between the infobox and the image to the left. Let's put the image down below the infobox and air things out once again, shall we? THEPROMENADER 08:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean let's put the image back up the infobox? Hardouin 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't quite, English - but I meant rearrange things so that the infobox fits properly up top, and the photo below (instead of to the left), without disturbing the rest of the layout or squeezing the text. I think I was quite clear. THEPROMENADER 23:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Club de Paris"

"(Promenader, it's not because you don't know about something that it doesn't exist. Stop removing edits from other users (this time User:86.71.38.247's edit).)"

... as it was lacking a reference, I did a search - I could find little on the "Club de Paris", nor what importance it could have to the city to merit a place in the introduction. Hardouin, thank you for not insinuating that I often remove other contributor's edits - nothing could be farther from the truth. Even then your "correction" was not made in the aim of our better information, as you did not say what importance this club does have even after you reinstated the phrase. THEPROMENADER 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert by User:66.159.221.97

After a revert war the night before that stopped just short of the 3RR rule, I see this morning that anonymous editor 66.159.221.97 had made one final revert. Since this IP's unique and uncommented edit was to re-insert ad litteram Hardouin's erronous text/irrelevent references, I concluded that this was either another case of sock-puppetry, or some drive-by user gratuitously seeking to give unfair advantage, so I set things back the way they were the night before. Still, when one considers the odds of a) a single user, making a single edit to a single page in all of Wiki and b) that edit being a to-the-letter repeat of the exact same reverts made the night before, one tends to doubt the latter scenario.

Instead of wasting time in filing an WP:RfC for what should be a trifling and obvious affair, or to write long letters to administrators unaware of the above situation, I thought it best to set the record straight this way. I am of course willing to accept the concequences of my action should it be deemed unjustified. THEPROMENADER 06:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: For explanation of why the text in question is clearly inacceptable, please refer to the latter half of #Education Section II. Reverting to unaltered premeditated error even after it has been clearly proven as such can in itself be considered as vandalism, IMHO. THEPROMENADER 07:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Promenader, you have no excuse, and your lame justification here is very weak. I note that even other users are tired of your page appropriation now. It's not by accusing them of sock-puppetry or vandalism that you will get out of this. This time I filed a complaint against you. Hardouin 11:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I was alerted and have left not on the corresponding page. Thank you for not insinuating the disgruntlement of an insinuated many "other editors" who do not exist, but thank you for your warning. THEPROMENADER 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sister/Partner Cities

Nagoya, Aichi lists Paris, France as a sister city/partner city, but the Paris page does not. Could anyone confirm this? samwaltz 22:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish I knew what a partner city is exactly. The whole section seems useless to me, unless one says exactly what these partnerships mean. Thbz 22:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what do these mean? Is it a special agreement for every "partner"? This would make for a long article if so. As it stands, I think all those flags would make a cool horizontal bottom-side infobox - or something of the sort. Any thoughts? THEPROMENADER

I'm living in Vienna, which has gods only know how many partner cities. Generally, both municipal governments contribute to cultural programmes (we have two Japanese gardens in town donated by our Japanese partner cities; they occasionally have various theatrical performances), horiculture ("This tree was planted on behalf of our partner city XYC.", etc) samwaltz 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Local naming conventions, language

While concerned with names and namespaces elsewhere, it was recently suggested to me that I look at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places), namely the Follow local conventions section. Very enlightening, and seems a simple way to make things quite clear and referencable. All those concerned or interested, have a look please.

It's been noted in this article's peer review that much of the text (almost half!) has to go, but where to start? To begin with, needless detail can go, as well as many of the "of the of the" phrases recurrent in this article. If anyone sees one, please shoot it on sight. The history section can get much lighter for sure. Also the section I've just added; not all that detail is needed in this supposedly 'general city' article. This is where I'll be working over the next little while. THEPROMENADER 23:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

1968?

I was looking for somthing on Paris, 1968, what happened and why. Maybe it's not of enough significance in an article on the city, but perhaps a link to May 1968 could be here somewhere. – Morganfitzp 01:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right! To date there's only a vague reference (educational reform) in the Education section. If you don't have the time to add a line to the history section yourself, be sure that someone will do it later now that it's been brought up. ThePromenader 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Municipality - or trade?

Today's insert takes a lot of space without providing much information. The phrase replaced stated that the crown had the last say in all things concerning the ruling of Paris, a fact confirmed in the replacement phrase citing the lieutenant general of police (in a quite wrong secondary position). The Provost ruling Paris' trade did not rule Paris itself - commerce and politics were not one and the same, and this section is not about Paris' trade or trademsmen.

As for the rest, adding additional information is not "correcting error" - and "City proper" != "Paris proper" - 'city' can be bigger, but Paris is Paris. This article already has a long list of things that could stand improvement, so thanks for not adding to it. What about all those phrases that need references? ThePromenader 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you don't like whatever I edit. You really have a problem you know. This article is not yours and other editors have as much a right to edit the article as you do. As for the provost of the merchants, please stop arguing about things that you obviously know very little about. The provost of the merchants, despite his name, was not just in charge of Paris trade. He was the head of a full fledged municipality, responsible for building new streets or levying taxes at the octroi bareer for example. And the crown certainly did not have (quote) "the last say in all things concerning the ruling of Paris". It is statements like this, contrary to historical facts, and your constant desire to appropriate this page, that makes your attitude detrimental to this article and to the editing atmosphere. I suggest you pay a visit to the musée Carnavalet and to the bibliothèque historique de la Ville de Paris to learn more about the history of the municipality of Paris and stop writing stupid things. Hardouin 15:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't like that you replaced something simple that was for something long and complicated off the mark. The 'streets' law you refer to is one dating from Philippe-Auguste where merchants were responsible for the cleanliness of the street in front of their doorway... this is hardly what one would call maintaining Paris under crown control. Crown control, if anything, is a "last say". This is why a Paris revolt against the power in place, such as that led by Etienne Marcel, were such an extraordinary event - whoever controlled Paris controlled France, and it was for this that Paris was always under Crown control. This is quite simple. This information is now gone. ThePromenader 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite simple. Too simple. You have this tendency to oversimplify history. If you believe that ancient France was some sort of Stalinist regime where the king controled everything, then you understand nothing about ancient France. It's better you leave this to people more knowledgeable than you. Hardouin 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather 'facile' and unfounded critique. No need to put words in another contributor's mouth - the precedent version was simple and to the point. It is no longer. that's it. ThePromenader 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What is this?

The city of Paris even legally ceased to exist between 1795 and 1834

.... What of the 'mur d'octroi'? What of the enitre 'guinguette' culture/economy resulting from this rather fixed delimitation? If anything, Paris' limits were never more clearer between 1798 - 1860. ThePromenader 23:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Check your history books, and stop making accusations. If you persist in making baseless accusations I will report you on the incidents noticeboard. Your article appropriation must end once and for all. You've already been told at List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris that it is not right to appropriate an article. Hardouin 23:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your accusation of baseless accusations is in fact a baseless accusation. What of the question I asked? Your affirmation is false on all counts. Original or not, the phrase in question is quite incorrect. ThePromenader 23:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Look Promenader, it's not because you don't know something that it means it doesn't exist. Do you understand the difference? It is time you accept that there are things you don't know or you have never heard about. That'd save people time. Hardouin 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would only have to admit that things exist when they reflect reference and reality. Wiki is not here to take a single Wikipedian's 'word for it' for opinions forwarded - all should forward fact in the clearest possible form, not tailored to take a position 'for' or 'against' a version already existing. The questions I ask above are quite legitimate, and concern only fact, as the affirmations in question are quite contrary to referenced reality. ThePromenader 00:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Hardouin, you could explain the meaning of the statement that Paris "ceased to exist" between 1795 and 1834, rather than insulting ThePromenader. It does seem at odds with my understanding of history, as well. john k 00:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement is "legally ceased to exist", not "ceased to exist". Check municipal arrondissement for more details. As for "insulting" ThePromenader, have you read any of the above? This user is systematically calling into question and denouncing each and every of my edits. This has lasted for eight long months now. Just imagine if there was one Wikipedian who had systematically called into question absolutely each of your edits over the past 8 months. How would you feel? It has come to a point where whenever I edit the article, a denouncing message is written by ThePromenader in the following minutes, whatever the content of my edit may be. Look at the history of the article. Yesterday I edited the article at 13:55 UTC. Promenader left a very mean message at 14:23 UTC, only 28 minutes later!, saying (I quote): "Today's insert takes a lot of space without providing much information". Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Does it help to improve the editing atmosphere? And tell me, who is insulting who? You know, when people are constantly harassed, it is only understandable that they develop anger. I also suggest you read Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris#Protected for a good example of Promenader's misbehavior. Hardouin 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For discussions of a more personal nature, please feel free to use my Talk Page. As for fact: were the phrase in question explained or self-explanatory, there would be no questions to ask. Also, it is quite clear, and has been also made the same in this article's peer review, that this article is far too long. If cutting essential fact is already a problem, adding an entire paragraph about what seems to be obscure detail is not at all a help in this effort. ThePromenader 12:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty obscure. Just because the city's municipal governement was split between arrondissment municipalities doesn't mean the city ceased to exist - legally or not. Paris was still a commune called 'Paris', even if it was under the direct government control with the rest of the préfecture. This, In fact, is just a rather roundabout way of saying "Paris had no mayor". ThePromenader 12:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Paris had no mayor between 1794 and 1977 (save for brief moments). Paris had no legal existence between 1795 and 1834. Those are two different things. Hardouin 13:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not split hairs here. Just because Paris had no unified administrative council (thus a mayor) doesn't mean that the commune "legally ceased to exist". ThePromenader 15:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The commune of Paris was disbanded by the Directory in 1795 and its territory split into independent municipalities. The commune ceased to exist, that's quite clear. The same happened to other large French cities such as Lyon or Marseille. In 1805 Napoleon reunified the communes of Lyon, Marseille, and the other large French cities, but not Paris. It is not until 1834 that Paris was reunified. Between 1795 and 1834 Paris had no mayor and no legal existence. Between 1834 and 1977 Paris still had no mayor, but it existed legally, as there was a municipal council. Perhaps you don't understand the subtleties of French law, but then you should be all the more cautious about calling into question other people's edits. Hardouin 16:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Although it was not governed by its own council, Paris remained a complete entity as far as city (commune) legislation and taxation were concerned (all this under the direction of the préfet). Paris was still, by law, a unique commune. The real meaning of the "did not exist" phrase in question is an inventive interpretation of fact, but not fact itself. Please be careful with such affirmations. ThePromenader 17:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard that Paris was split into separate municipalities, or that it had no legal existence at all. I knew that it had not self government as a whole, but that's not the same thing. If it was still treated as a single commune by the central government, as the promenader says, then the idea that it didn't exist is incorrect. Hardouin, you would do well to calm down and be more polite to other users, especially thePromenader, who you seem to have decided it is worth your while to virulently attack whenever he challenges an edit of yours. When something in wikipedia doesn't conform to what one has read before, it is perfectly legitimate to challenge the statement, and ask for more information. I think that some sort of source citing (on both sides) would be appropriate at this point. john k 17:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)