Talk:Paris/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Demographics Table proposition

Demographics within the Paris Region
(according to the official INSEE 1999 census)

Areas	Population	Area (km2)	Density (/km2)	1990-1999 growth
Administrative Limits (Ile-de-France départements)
City of Paris (département 75)	2,125,246	105	20,240	-1.26%
Inner ring (Petite Couronne) (92, 93, 94)	4,038,992	657	6,148	+1.27%
Outer ring (Grande Couronne) (77, 78, 91, 95)	4,787,773	11,249	426	+5.93%
Ile-de-France (including Paris)	10,952,011	12,011	912	+2.73%
Statistical Growth
Urban area (Paris agglomeration)	9,644,507	2,723	3,542	+1.85%
Metro area (agglomeration, commuter belt)	11,174,743	14,518	770	+2.90%

The existing table takes up much too much page architecture for the information it contains. Also, its map being cut off in color and detail at the IDF borders is a roadblock to comprehension - we are speaking here of areas beyond this as well. Other changes I've tried to make are the text size/titles to shrink things down a bit, and moving more repetitive details in the data itself to the header. The box to the right is all this. THEPROMENADER 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been sitting here for a couple months now. I modified the graphic to comply with all misgivings about the existing version (mostly its breadth) in a way that, should the lower table content be reduced somewhat, would allow it to be displayed at a much smaller size. If there is no further comment I'll put it in place and see if there is any complaint about it that way. THEPROMENADER 15:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I like this table, I think it should go in ASAP. -- Je suis _t\^c 20:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

This discussion is continued on the template page itself. Note: presently underway is a discussion about a possible merger with a Wiki-unique Template:Infobox City. See talk page there. THEPROMENADER 10:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

History Section - King of France ?

Concerning this quote from the article:

"By the time of the Carolingian dynasty (9th century), it was little more than a feudal county stronghold. The Counts of Paris gradually rose to prominence and eventually wielded greater power than the Kings of France. Odo, Count of Paris was elected king in place of the incumbent Charles the Fat..."

From my relatively small historical knowledge, i think there were no king of France at the time of the Carolingian dynasty. For most historian, "France" is a defined country only after Hugues Capet. Previous kings were kings of "Francia occidentalis". Although self-reference as its limits for an encyclopedia, you can refer to the wiki article on "western francia".

I'll make the update, up to you to revert if you have any good ressources. Kekel 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Expanding Article

This article on Paris is a great read, however the information I got, though useful was little. I recommend you take examples from New York City or even Berlin. Also, you should give it article more of a "Paris" feel by using or recreating and some how fitting in the template on Avenue des Champs-Élyées, which I got a quick, aweing sight of. This article has promise. --24.179.72.130 04:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the critique and compliments. For sure this article could use first some restructuring, and yes, something along the lines of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities that New York City follows. As for the infobox: I think the infobox here is of purely informative value, and should follow also the example set by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities - but this project for the moment is not very appropriate for 'international' cites with an administrative/demographic makeup different than that of many US cities. Also, I believe the consensus here is to create a 'modern' Paris article with as much as possible emphasis on the city's present function - I don't think an infobox styled like the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paris_Streets (the source of the Champs-Élysées infobox) agrees with that goal. Yet that very-styled Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paris_Streets infobox is NPOV in its own project, as it is styled directly from the signs used to mark Paris' streets even today - even those named this year. Personally I think the flags/map/motto/coat of arms bring enough 'Frenchiness' to the articles they are in, but that is just my opinion. Thanks for the viewpoint and idea. THEPROMENADER 12:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome, this is the same person, but I forgot to log on last night. I am going to give a more detailed critique, it will be in a list.

1. The twenty arrondissements of paris should be expanded and turned into a subsection
2. Climate should have its own subsection, and tell the average temp. and extreme temp.
3. Expand geography, and remove anything that doesn't have to do with the ground below Paris, Paris' size, or the Seine river
4. History section is good, but it could be better, with more information
5. Demographics need to be updated to at least the year 2003, if possible
6. Economy should have more information
7. Administration should have more about the politics of Paris
8. Transport is good, I think it has the information it needs, but you do have more information, add it
9. Culture is very important, and for the most part all I see is lists of places
10. City Function just needs to grow
11. There should a section on Tourism
12. There should be section about the Olympics
13. It needs, somewhere, a list of its sister cities
14. There should a section about Paris in Popular Culture
15. There needs to be section on Education
16. The See also should have more links
17. The riots of 2005 and 2006 should be a bigger role
18. More pictures, Wikicommons has tons of them.

And that's all. --Je suis 16:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a list ; ) but seems to go against the general effort to make this article shorter - I think much of what you indicate should go into sub-articles. Olympics: this could be integrated as a line in the "sports" section and link an article of its own. Demographics: only estimates for now, but finalised 2004 dates will be available soon. Sister cities: Yes sir. City function: this is brand new, but again, should be developed in its own article. Riots: (personally) I think this would best be explained in a section (demography?) about Paris' (non-) relation with its suburbs; this would put it in a proper and informative context. Education: Yes. Links: there has been so much 'ad cruft' here... Pictures? Perhaps change them more often. Tourism: yes, but where? New York City puts it with entertainment... I think this one should have brief mention but have an article of its own. Geography: don't quite get that, what do you mean by 'ground under Paris'? THEPROMENADER 17:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The ground under Paris means the hills in Paris, or the monutains around, etc. Why do you want to make the article shorter? Even though a lot of these can be sub-articles and they should also be a small sub-section sections in this Article, basically everything needs more detail, other then for a few. Some of the most important things are missing or stubs, such as politics and culture. Tourism could be it's own or a part of culture. And yes, it needs a entrttainment section. After all this (or what is agreed on) gets completed maybe we can get a peer review? -- Je suis 18:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Bloody affirmative, sir, and then on to Featured status! That was the goal here since... hem, forever it seems. As you can see, it got a bit chatty on the way. Now that I mention that: time to clean up the talk page a bit, it took forever to scroll down here.

I'm glad you see and agree about the sub-articles bit, and yes I see your sub-section point. What do you mean by 'more detail' - perhaps you mean 'less wordy'? There's a lot of detail already in there IMHO, but for sure nested in a generous nest of rote-bloat in some places. BTW, are you a 'local'? THEPROMENADER 19:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

By detail I mean some of the important things of Paris, need more information, like the landmarks, culture, history, economy, ect. and yes, just a little less wordy, wordy can be good, it is more welcoming for the reader, sometimes. BTW, I will be a "local" of Paris, currently I live in Berlin, but it's not doing a lot for me, so I decided to move Paris because of it's beauty, ect. -- Je suis 19:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Alles verstanden. Just one off-topic note: I see that you added a link to the Paris Portal, but the portal is not yet complete - there's tons of Categories to clean up beforehand. Can we wait for the portal to be done before connecting it to this page? Kind of embarassing as it is... thanks if you can. THEPROMENADER 19:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I'll remove but it looks developed as is, I like it already. -- Je suis 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about that - my bad for starting that thing without having a look around first - I didn't know the categories were so screwed up, and Portals depend on categories. I'll get to work on sorting things out - you too if you have the time please! French pages are not so 'high-traffic' for some strange reason so things have stagnated. Cheers and thanks already! THEPROMENADER 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Bonjour! I appologize for reverting the removal of the portal. I did not realize that the portal is incomplete. Desol'e. Please accept my appologies. --Starionwolf 18:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind the apology - in fact, I'm thinking now that I was quite stupid in requesting that it be removed. How else can attention be drawn to its incomplete state? Anyone can/should work there! Sorry right back at you. THEPROMENADER 18:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Eiffel pic revert

Sorry for removing that Eiffel image, but it was downright ugly - the tower's head and foot was cut off, and overall, on an awkward angle. Generally, though, it would be nice for you to leave a word here about your changes after you make them - not only would this make their aim clearer, it would allow other contributors to comment them. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Climate Box

A couple notes here - first, temperatures should be expressed in both Celcius and Fahrenheit, and since the country on which this article is upon uses the metric system, Celcius should have priority. I think the 'record highs and lows' info you removed was not so uninformative, but for sure it could have been written in a shorter and clearer way. Lastly - would you mind if I brushed up the language a bit? To something with a little more 'encyclopedic' sound. THEPROMENADER 08:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I love Fahrenheit as much as anyone else, I use it in the US and UK, but in France, Celsius is the way forward. Indeed temperatures in France are measured in Celsius, this explains my recent swapping of temperature data. I have kept Fahrenheit temperatures, although irrelevant as data should only be presented in the same form as the source and only translated/converted when presented in a non-standard formt, which Celsius is not. Captain scarlet 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make this box vertical? It is rather ungainly, and interferes with the objects around it, and when the pagwidth diminishes things get downright ugly. THEPROMENADER 11:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a horizontal box is more approrpiate since the climate section is ohnly a very short one. If the box was vertical it would impose itself as much as infoboxes do and be a hindrance rather than a benefit. Keeping a horizontal box means that the box does not overlap on other sections. It is rather narrow and not very wide so it is not too big for the article as it is barely more than the 2/3 of the width (on my 1024px wide resolution at work) and less for 1280px and above. Captain scarlet 12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I get you. I really wish it was flexible though - meaning that it could stretch with the page and not interfere with the box to its right.... there must be a %/margin way to do this. It would look much nicer and not create whitespace or interrupt the flow of the article - detail, mayhap, but I am a graphics geek. THEPROMENADER 12:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I managed to make the box fill the entire 'free space' width - but had to make an extra 'cheat' column of 'td's to do it. THEPROMENADER 14:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I really suggest a cleaning up of this new section - a more concise language, and text more to the point. Once sentence would serve outline the single subject it contains, and the detail should go to a more specialised article.

Only through a stretch of the imagination can it be said that the prévôt des marchands ruled the city as mayor - he perhaps filled a few of its functions, as he controlled weights and measures, collected some taxes and was responsible for controlling other commercial practices, but this is neither a political nor military role. When it wasn't the feudal-era Mayor of the Palace or Count of Paris, it was the Crown that had the final political and military say over Paris. The Prévôt de Paris, at first a direct representative of the King, later a sort of Police commissioner assigned by the Crown, did not "rule" Paris as a Mayor either - he represented the Crown's direct hold over Paris.

It doesn't matter what was there before: just make what's there concise. precise and clear please. thepromenader 22:08, 5 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)

a- I am perfectly calm. b- Promenader challenges every edit of mine. It has more to do with personal feelings than with facts. Hardouin 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true - and I think it would be hard to question anything on terms other than referencable fact. See below. ThePromenader 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

When you write "Today's insert takes a lot of space without providing much information" as you did above, you're not motivated by referencable facts but by personal feelings. If you were honest with yourself, you would recognize that you use that kind of offensive tone only with me. Hardouin 00:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to prove what's not, but if you will, here is a plan showing a quite intact Paris for the year 1800... In English as a selection for your better perusal. I have a quite extensive collection. ThePromenader 19:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your map is a general map of the city. It's not an administrative map. The fact that Paris was divided into several independent municipalities can easily be found on any of these websites listing past office holders, such as rulers.org for instance ([5]). Hardouin 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, it is silly to try to defend this any further. The préfet was above any arrondissement mayor, and just because this préfet had control over a larger territory than Paris doesn't mean that Paris "didn't exist" administratively. Again: Borders, tax laws. Not to mention jurisdiction: for example, the ministère des finances during the period in question oversaw the inspection/entretien of roadways within Paris, and another government agency without. Paris was a quite distinct and well-marked entity during all this period, and frankly I don't see the sense in trying to pretend otherwise.

If contibutors wouldn't introduce questionable content from unindicated origins in the form of seemingly quite original conclusions presented as fact, there would be little reason to question anything. ThePromenader 21:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"the ministère des finances during the period in question oversaw the inspection/entretien of roadways within Paris, and another government agency without". Any source for this? Hardouin 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree about the facts here, or just the interpretation? If it's just the interpretation, it's certainly up to Hardouin to find a reference stating that Paris didn't exist between 1795 and 1834. As the Promenader notes, the lack of a municipal government is not, as such, sufficient evidence - there was no central government for all of Greater London for a long time in the late 20th century, but that doesn't mean it didn't exit. john k 00:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? The key concept here is legal personality. When an entity has legal personality, it is as such a subject of law, independently from the people constituting the entity. It can be party in court and own assets. If an entity has no legal personality, then legally it does not exist, which means that the law applies to the individual members of the entity, and not to the entity as such. It cannot be party in court, and it cannot own assets. Now, the Greater London Council was abolished and disbanded in 1986 by Margaret Thatcher, and it was not until 2000 that the Greater London Authority was established by Tony Blair. If between 1986 and 2000 Greater London continued to exist legally, then how do you explain that all its assets had to be disposed of and sold by the London Residuary Body? If Greater London had continued to exist legally between 1986 and 2000, then it means it could have been party in court, which obviously was not the case. So the only conclusion is that Greater London legally ceased to exist between 1986 and 2000. That doesn't mean Greater London didn't continue to exist in people's mind, and probably many government agencies continued to refer to the territory of Greater London, but legally it did not exist, because it had no legal personality.

The same happened with Paris. Chartered cities, as they existed before the French Revolution, had legal personality. The municipality of Paris, headed by the provost of the merchants, could be party in court, and was indeed often embroiled in lengthy court cases. After the revolution, not only Paris was split into independent municipalities (called arrondissements), but even those communes of France which remained united had no legal personality. It is not until 1837 that French communes were finally given legal personality. You can find more details at Commune in France#Trends after the French Revolution. So if we ought to be super-strict, then actually the current text is incorrect, because the city of Paris did not legally cease to exist until 1834 (when the municipal council was created), but it ceased to exist until 1837 (when French communes were given legal personality). But I think for this article it makes more sense to refer to 1834 than to 1837, because 1834 shows the return of an elected assembly for the whole city of Paris, whereas 1837 is a more technical and legal date. Hardouin 01:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the technicalities of all this are very interesting, "Paris didn't exist legally" is more interpretation of fact than fact. Again, the fact that the then government avoided giving political independance to the Nation's capital does not mean "it didn't exist". This term is open to all sorts of wrong interpretations. It "had no single legal (political) representative" would be a clearer phrase - or better still, "it had no unfied representative council or Mayor".

Perhaps irrelevent to the discussion, but Paris and Greater London do not make the best of case comparisons IMHO - a French département is better comparable to the latter entity in administrative makeup and perhaps size - any départment besides the department of Paris itself, that is. thepromenader 10:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, are you suggesting that we say that London did not legally exist between 1986 and 2000? john k 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Greater London had no legal existence between 1986 and 2000, but the City of London has been in continuous existence since Medieval times. Hardouin 12:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't remain too long on the question, becasue the Greater London case is really not even comparable to Paris': Paris was a fixed entity with limits doubly marked with solid walls, and these limits served as jurisdictional limits for many government offices. Paris was a unique city, not a purely political grouping of towns (or communes) as Greater London was. The two have almost nothing at all in common. thepromenader 18:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, you are then saying that between 1986 and 2000, "London" could only properly refer to the City of London? This is completely ridiculous. Greater London may not have been a corporate entity during this period, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. john k 03:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Now *you* need to calm down. Nobody is saying that London only refered to the City of London. Besides, as Promenader already said, this is off topic here. Hardouin 18:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, that's pretty odd coming from the person who made the comparison in the first place.

Let's just consider the phrase "did not legally exist" at once vague, inexact by omission (of the reality of Paris' real existance as both city and jurisdictional entity) and melodramatic (for the trifling fraction of the truth it represents), and target it for correction.

"Between (...), Paris had neither a unified representative council nor Mayor" nicely sums up in one phrase the entire paragraph, and this in a way anyone can understand. thepromenader 20:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't getting all that worked up, I was just wondering what exactly you were arguing. And I don't see how it's off-topic to make a comparison with a similar recent occurrence. I agree with The Promenader's suggestion for alternate text. john k 21:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Hardouin: john k, I realise now that it was in fact you who first made the comparison. Now Hardouin, if you could clean this up yourself it would be quite kind. Perhaps it would be also useful to take note of the subject above and make some corrections in that vein as well. thepromenader 08:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the two of you still don't understand the difference between legal existence, and, how could I call it... "physical existence". A city can exist in reality, i.e. we perceive it as a city, and yet have no legal existence. This is nothing "melodramatic" as Promenader suggests. In fact it happens quite a lot in some countries. I agree with Promenader that the comparison with Greater London is not appropriate. Two good current examples, however, are Mexico City and Tokyo. I don't know if both of you are familiar with the administrative situation in these two cities. Simply put, the cities of Mexico City and Tokyo don't legally exist. The city of Mexico City was abolished and disbanded in 1928 and its territory merged with the Mexican Federal District. As for the city of Tokyo, it was abolished and disbanded in 1943, and its territory was merged within the Tokyo prefecture, which is much larger than the former city of Tokyo and contains rural areas far away from Tokyo. Today there is no such thing as a "mayor" of Mexico City, or a "mayor" of Tokyo. There's a Head of Government of the Federal District, and there's a governor of Tokyo prefecture, but that's not the same thing as a city mayor. You can find more details about these at Mexico City, Mexican Federal District, Tokyo City, and 23 special wards. Yet of course the cities of Mexico City and Tokyo, even if they don't have legal existence, exist "physically", and we perceive them as cities. There's nothing "melodramatic" in having no legal existence, and it's a situation that happens in many countries. Other examples of non-legally existing cities are: Caracas, Santo Domingo, Delhi (if I remember correctly), all the Chinese cities after the Communist takeover in 1949 (they have since been legally re-created), and several more.

The situation in Paris between 1795 and 1834 was most similar to the situation of Tokyo today. In Tokyo, you have 23 "arrondissements" (known as ku). They correspond to the former city of Tokyo. These 23 ku are quite independent from each other, and belong to the Tokyo prefecture. The Tokyo prefecture is made up of these 23 ku and of several cities and rural counties that were never part of the city of Tokyo. This is quite similar to the situation in Paris between 1795 and 1834. Then, there were 12 arrondissements corresponding to the abolished city of Paris and which were quite indenpendent from each other. They belonged to the Seine département, which was headed by a prefect, and which was made up not only of these 12 arrondissements, but also of scores of independent communes which had never been part of Paris. Of course for people then the city still existed "physically". People perceived the 12 arrondissements as the "city of Paris", same as today people perceive the 23 ku as "Tokyo proper". Yet legally speaking there was no city of Paris, same as today there is no city of Tokyo.

Anyway, the whole point of the paragraph I edited was to say that after the French Revolution the central government took control of Paris for 183 years, and what's more for a period of 39 years the submission of Paris to the central government went as far as to legally abolish the city. This is all that was meant, and I couldn't expect you would make such a fuss about it. Hardouin 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Melodrama" as in something that made out to be much more than important than it is. "Legally ceased to exist" is a phrase both vague and dramatic to the uninformed reader - I'm sure your quite aware of this. The comparison theorising above is based only on the similarities of each case - Paris during the period in question resembled little any of the abovementioned places in politics, urban tissue and quite established borders. Also, tacking "legally ceased to exist" on these examples does not make it so - this is just more theorising! The phrase in question presents only a fraction of the truth as the whole truth, so must be clarified or changed. And again, I really don't think this rather generalist article should need such a large amount of space consecrated to unimportant detail. thepromenader 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If that is "all" that you mean, then perhaps you can make your meaning available to all with phrasing all can understand and verify. Thanks. thepromenader 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No - on second thought, rewrite it: Wiki is no place to publish personal interpretations of fact. The only theories admissable here are mention of third-party theories - that is to say, an indication that many adopt a theory. Not only is the phrase in question is a real head-scratcher vis-à-vis Parisian history, it only represents a fraction of the truth and, because of all the text needed to explain the "Paris did not legally exist" theory that, in addition to being a theory, has little place in this generalist article. To preserve it intact I suggest moving it to the History of Paris article, or why not starting a new Administration of Paris article. thepromenader 09:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "theory", this is fact. I already presented the evidence. As for the phrase "legally ceased to exist", I don't see how it's vague as you insinuate. It means precisely what it says. That section is devoted to the nitty-gritties of Paris administration, so it makes sense to find technical and legal content there. It's not a section on the general history of Paris, where such a mention of Paris's legal existence would be a bit off-topic. Hardouin 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Only a widespread and often-cited theory can hope to be taken as fact. References to echoes such as these could be considered evidence, but a few selective and finally irrelevent comparisons cannot. One cannot take one aspect of Paris' then political makeup and present it, without explanation, as the entire conclusive truth. Paris existed quite solidly and quite legally through the jurisdiction of many offices, and it is error to mislead the reader into thinking otherwise.

I think it would be best for all if article content remained true to existing reference - like other recent contributions, this phrase is at best a personal interpretation of fact. The fact that it is echoed nowhere piqued more attention than my own, so perhaps you would be so kind as make corrections. If you choose not to then I'm sure I can count on your understanding if others should do so in your place. thepromenader 18:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Paris in American is funny short films

What do you guys think of www.parisinamerican.com? I think you can download the podcast into your itunes and watch HD video through itunes? But I dont know if Itunes is broadcasting in HD yet? Also does living in France mean itunes is worse? There is no American content on the foreign Itunes Store.

Whitwell, Rutland, UK

I see no mention of Whitwell on this page, but I found out this week it's twinned with Paris. I'm not sure how much Paris knows about it but it's true. Look [[6]] [[7]] Jimmmmmmmmm 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The question of partner cities came up not so long ago - many are uncertain a) how many there are b) what being a partner means and c) if all of these are 'official' partners or declared partners, etc... Is there a comprehensive list of any sort anyplace? Myself I haven't been able to find one - mind you, I haven't spent too much time looking, either. I like your name - I assume "Jim" and "Jimm" and "Jimmm" (etc) were taken - how about Jim⁸? Anyhoo, cheers. thepromenader 17:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimmmmm, it is of course a joke. Very british, and quite funny. They unilaterally decided they were twinned with Paris (which should have had enough sense of humour to give an answer). It reminds me of The Mouse That Roared (the movie)... I hereby declare that I am twinned with New York City. Thbz 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well of course it's not a true twin city but I've never heard of this kind of thing happening anywhere else and it quite funny and interesting. There are actually signs as you go through Whitwell so joke as it may be it's a pretty perminant one. Jimmmmmmmmm 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It deserves to be mentioned on the page of Whitwell, Rutland (I created the article on the French Wikipedia thanks to your information). I don't think it deserves to be mentioned on the Paris page, because there are probably many jokes about Paris in the world... Thbz 06:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Food for thought

Well, I've compared Melbourne and Paris' size and populations before, but this was interesting:

At 3.6 million, Melbourne's population is just half that of Paris, but the Victorian capital is twice the geographic size of France's and now occupies double the space it did when Daddy Cool recorded Eagle Rock in 1971. [8]

Maybe you guys can make sense of that one :) They've apparently come up with a figure of 7 million for Paris' population (vs the 10 million or 2 million that usually get argued here), and roughly 3,800 square kilometres for its area, bigger than the stated "Urban area" of Paris, but far smaller than its "Metro area". Time to rewrite the article? Stevage 13:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, no. We should rewrite this article on the offhand and approximative comparison by a single news article - on Melbourne - that, according to all the official statistics we have here, is wrong? You must be rooting for some more fun : ) thepromenader 15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously Royce Millar doesn't know what he's talking about, and The Age should be ashamed to publish bogus figures. The Paris metropolitan area reached the 7 million mark at the end of the 1950s. The 1962 census reported 7,384,363 people living in the urban area (which is smaller than the metropolitan area). So your newspaper is about 45 years late. As for the City of Paris proper, it simply never reached the 7 million mark. It peaked at 2.9 million in the mid-1950s, and has been declining ever since. I say send an email to the newspaper and let them know the real figures. In 2006, the Paris metropolitan area has approx. 11.6 million inhabitants. So Melbourne's population is more like a little less than one-third the population of Paris.

I had a look at the Melbourne side of things, but I left my message on Stevage's talk page. Those numbers are puzzling - and most likely an allusion to the Urban Area if the journalist is indeed talking of city spread. Get this guy a Google button. thepromenader 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurostat's Urban Audit II has defined an additional level for Paris that includes the Petite Couronne. This was done for a better comparison with Greater London. Similarly a smaller unit for London -- Inner London -- was used for comparison with the City of Paris. It is possible that the 7 million figure for Paris being referred to includes the Petite Couronne. --Polaron | Talk 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Municipality bis

User:Hardouin, the corrections you reverted were to an inaccuracy - merchant trade guilds could hardly be considered a complete municipality and the city itself was still under crown control then. If I must cite my sources than I will. How about tending to yours - ? Thanks. thepromenader 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi User:Hardouin, up to your usual shenanigans I see. My changes were perfectly legitimate and I have explained why both here and on your talk page, so thank you for not reverting a third time. Since a revert war symbolises a disillusioned immature self-preservation more than anything fact, I will let it go for tonight, but your erroneous 'corrections' to my corrections (to your errors in your 'corrections' to my edits) must be corrected sooner or later. Quite another ridiculous situation by the same author as always, I'm afraid. thepromenader 23:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Look Promenader, this has already been discussed here before. Your reverting the article now to your former prose is total disrespect for other people who have edited the article since your original version. For the umpteenth time, the provost of the merchants was the leader of the municipality of Paris. He was not just the head of a merchant guild. The name is confusing, I know, but if you're not knowledgeable about this subject, it's better you abstain from making stupid comments, and worse, from reverting other people who are more knowledgeable than you. There existed a municipality of Paris before the Revolution, it was called the "bureau de la ville", and the city was only partly controlled by the crown.

A claim to greater knowledgeability is not a license to present interpretation as fact, and as for that claim, well, you can't just expect people to take your word for it. Your edits must reflect a greater knowledge, and in this case, they lack even a basic common sense. In the text you would allude from the crown control that I insisted upon, yet you mention it as fact here - there is no sense in this. thepromenader 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, since you're denying history against all evidence, I opened the famous Encyclopédie, which was written before the Revolution, and this is what they say about the provost of the merchants: "L'office de prévôt des marchands est municipal; on ne connaît que deux prévôts des marchands en France, celui de Paris & celui de Lyon, ailleurs le chef du bureau de la ville est communément nommé maire."

I deny nothing: I question only your presenting your own interpretation as fact, and that more than one week ago. A "Prévôt" (from latin praepositus to French préposé) is official or "officer" over a certain jurisdiction ("Prévôté"), and what he "offices" is in his title. I think the meaining of "Prévôt des marchands" is pretty clear - officer of the Merchants. Your book says "commonly known as mayor" - this does not mean that he was a mayor as we know the role today. Go figure. thepromenader 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And this is what they say about the City Council: "Conseil de Ville, est l'assemblée officiers municipaux d'une ville qui s'assemblent pour délibérer de leurs affaires communes. A Paris & dans quelques autres villes, ce conseil est composé du prevôt des marchands & des échevins; dans d'autres villes, c'est un maire qui est le chef de cette assemblée; à Toulouse, ceux qui composent le conseil de ville sont nommés capitouls; à Bordeaux, & [p. 23] dans quelques autres villes, on les appelle jurats: dans d'autres, bailes & consuls, syndics, etc."

The above mentions little of the actual role of the council and only some of the passage concerns Paris - "deliberate their common affairs" is pretty vague. It also neglects to mention the Prévôt de Paris whose attendance was obligatory for any judgments of a political, military (police) or legislative nature, and this officer was a direct representative of the King. thepromenader 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It can't be more clear. The Encyclopédie can be easily consulted on Gallica. In the face of this, I can only consider further revert on this matter as pure and simple article appropriation and vandalism. Hardouin 23:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, not much was made clear at all, actually. But you know what? I was wrong in my explicit "Paris' trade" - it was an overstep in the opposite direction. So this I will leave as it is. thepromenader 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the 'shooting' incident, well, this as well I outlined more than a week before. As it is written it would seem that Paris had a mayor because the Prévôt was shot; this is wrong. Paris would have had a mayor anyhow because of the commune laws voted that year - and this is more important to this section than the agissements of an angry mob. In fact, this insertion was made in total disregard for the article, as it is a 'instance' event tossed into a section written in a summary and general tone. And a stone thrown into a pond, lingusticly. As I've mentioned before, this section would be better in the "history of Paris" section, and even then it is too much of a detail for this quite summary article. There you have several reasons why it must go. thepromenader 00:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Again an interpretation of fact. "Partially governed" is not "governed". "Is municipal" is not "a municipal government" The "city council" then had hardly the role today's Conseil municipale has, as the city was always under the direct control of the Crown in one way or another, so any governance was only partial. If you think something just edited is wrong, open a discussion, but do not revert outright in leaving cherrypicked arguments as a form of justification. Such behaviour can be seen as a form of harassment and, in any case, is an annoyance.thepromenader 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was always that the Provost of Merchants was more or less equivalent to a Mayor of Paris under the ancien régime. Obviously there are differences between the role of the Provost and the role of today's mayor of Paris, but it's silly to get hung up on that. BTW, what on earth is with you guys? Do you know and hate each other in real life, or something? You seem to constantly fight about just about every possible subject relating to Paris. john k 23:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All I wanted to do was make that "more or less" clear in the text - not a hard thing to do, if you look at the page history. Hardouin would like to insinuate that the Provost ruled the city as any independent municipal government would, which is simply not true. Any mention that the crown had political control of Paris was removed. Again a question of a couple of words blown out of proportion by nonsense. thepromenader 00:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What is so silly about reverting my 'provost' corrections is that it was my own writ I was trying to correct. The part about the Provost being shot was very hors propos for this generalist article - besides, it insinuates that this is why a mayor was elected. Every commune in France had one as a result of the law that year. I had already pointed this out on Hardouin's own talk page a week before. thepromenader 02:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Promenader. For the past 10 months he's spent his time criticizing and debunking each and every of my edits. If I say green he'll say yellow. It's as stupid as that. Hardouin 00:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Hardouin's outright reverting that is the main cause of annoyance. There are reams of talk page discussions about what should go into this page, but these prove useless when a single contributor will only partake in any discussion only after having reverted the modification of another - even if these modifications were discussed well beforehand. Even then, the only 'discussion' is only around the reverter's 'justification' of the revert. Should debate die, the article is left in a state of stand-off stagnation (under the threat of further reverting), that is until other improvements are made and reverted and the cycle begins again. Not the most sympathy-abetting way of contributing for sure. thepromenader 00:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, you don't have to highlight my screenname each time you write it. That's another very irritating behavior of yours. Hardouin 00:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:TEA, both opf you, right now. Write something nice, then come back here. HawkerTyphoon

It is wrong to say that Paris spent much of its history without any political independence and was ruled directly by the State. First off, from the 5th to the 12th century, there was no State, so Lutetia and Paris ruled itself quite autonomously in these troubled times. Then from the 12th century to the French Revolution there was a French State, but Paris, like all other chartered cities, kept autonomous institutions, and royal control over the city was only partial, and sometimes totally absent (reigns of Charles VI and VII, Religious Wars, Fronde). So I removed this exagerated statement.

About the French Revolution, it is because a commune and a mayor were elected in Paris that a muncipal law was passed for the rest of France, not the other way around. And the reason why there was a commune and a mayor of Paris in the first place was because the provost of the merchants was shot and the medieval municipality disbanded on July 14, 1789, so it is important to mention this event. I would appreciate if Promenader wouldn't delete each and every of my contributions. This has been reported to several admins anyway, who will no doubt keep an eye on this. Hardouin 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That was "ruled directly by the highest power of the time" - a phrase 100% simple accurate and covering all possible circumstances through all the ages; it is your pretending the word "state" was used - and basing your revert on this - that is wrong. The Provost was shot because he was accused of being a crown sympathiser - this has nothing to do with any administrative subdivisions, and the law creating communes was not made overnight and not at all because of this event as you would insinuate. Even if your assertions were accurate, this is no for an ad litteram wholesale revert to your "own" version - you must stop this quite arrogant and irritating habit, especially when what you are reaverting to is misleading or in error. You have turned this once again into a game of "Hardouin says" without any regard at all to accuracy and reader comprehension, complete with the usual post-revert "arguments" selectively concocted to defend only "Hardouin's version", not the accuracy of the phrase itself.

Hardouin, I'm not the one reverting other people's contributions to my own quite often unverifiable version. If you would like to call the attention of admins, then you are very welcome to, but if you again are making unfounded accusations you will be hearing from me, and extensively. An article talk page is no place for insinuations or threats, so limit this sort of 'contribution' to my talk page please. THEPROMENADER 22:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, in answer to your message on my talk page - You are the one reverting, so you yourself should provide the evidence before you revert. Telling me "where to read" is not this. Again you are imposing an event that, only a sliver of importance in the creation of Paris' (France's) municipal commune system, would appear to be the entire cause. This does not take an entire talk page to "explain". Even the commune in France article (written largely by yourself - and quite a quite good piece of work I must add) shows that the commune was a next step to the abolishment of the office of provost, not the shooting of the Provost himself. THEPROMENADER 00:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The misleading and quite irrelevent "provost shooting" must go for all the reasons stated above. I don't have any real problem with the rest, although its language has in places returned to its former maladroit state. THEPROMENADER 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you can't alone decide what should be deleted from this article. So far I can see no consensus on this talk page to remove the sentence mentioning that the provost of the merchants was shot by the crowd on July 14, 1789. Deleting without consensus could be interpreted as page appropriation. Hardouin 13:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Save the threats. Do you really think that a non-sequitur event really has a place in a passage outlining the limit, scope and function of Paris' administration? THEPROMENADER 13:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's a warning. If you delete the sentence again, I will notify some admins, who will see that you have been warned but deleted nonetheless. If you end up deleting that is, which you hopefully won't. Let's keep faith in the good nature of people. Hardouin 14:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(Grinning) - or in other words "I don't care if it's right or wrong: leave my edit alone or I'll sic my admins on you". Drop it please. How about just answering the question? THEPROMENADER 14:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I already answered the question above. The shooting of the provost of the merchants the day the Bastille was stormed, and the election of the Commune of Paris the next day, was the single most important event in the administrative history of the city: the chartered muncipality that had existed for centuries was abolished, and a new system was born. But then you're not interested in hearing facts that do not fit with your vision of history, that's why I say it's better we leave this to consensus from other editors instead of your starting a revert war again. Hardouin 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And we both know how many "other editors" contribute to the Paris articles. Practically nothing changes here when you and I aren't editing, and the proof of this is in the article history. How about addressing my questions instead of making a show for those you think are watching? THEPROMENADER 17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"The shooting of the provost of the merchants the day the Bastille was stormed, and the election of the Commune of Paris the next day"

But this is where the problem with the phrase lies: the two events are hardly connected, and not even you can say they are. The elections were not held because the Provost was shot. The provost was shot, one event amongst many that day, because he was targeted as a royalist. To single out a single event and tie it to an entire conclusion makes that event look like the sole cause of the conclusion. This is not a vision. This is apallingly simple.

The two events are completely connected. Why do you always have to deny history? I don't understand. This document, among many others, show that the two events are connected: [9]. As the document reports, the crowd shouted: "No more Provost of the Merchants; a Mayor!" Hardouin 18:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Now why didn't you begin by providing a reference instead of resorting to all the revert nonsense first? According to this rather dramatic recounting, you have a mayor before a municipality, which is also not what you have written. Remember also that the law actually creating Paris as a commune municipality did not happen until December of that year. The killing of the Provost was only one segment of a chain of events leading to an end result months later - not at all what you have written. THEPROMENADER 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference [10]. Also see "commune" here. As you can see, the question of a municipal government wasn't even considered until November that year. Flesselles was assassinated on his way to trial at the Palais Royal - his office already defunct, his death was a single event among many in the overthrow of the Old Regime that allowed the creation of the commune. Or, in other words, Paris' municipal government was an outcome of the entire revolution, not the death of one person.
THEPROMENADER 09:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your links substantiate what I said before. The law creating municipal governments was passed by the National Assembly only because the old chartered municipalities had vanished after the shooting of the provost of the merchants on July 14 and the election of a Paris commune on July 15. There would have been no law if the chartered municipalities had not disapeared in the first place. And the chartered muncipalities throughout France would not have disapeared if the provost hadn't been shot on July 14 in the first place, leading to the disbandment of the Paris chartered municipality the next day. And for your information, when the provost of the merchants was killed, he was still provost of the merchants. It is only the next day that the chartered municipality was disbanded with the election of the Paris commune. Hardouin 12:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My links do nothing of the kind, otherwise there would have been no point in my posting them. "And the chartered muncipalities throughout France would not have disapeared if the provost hadn't been shot on July 14 in the first place" - really? Just because you say so? Everything representing the Ancien Régime within Paris was abolished that day and those following - defense of the ongoing revolution came first, reconstruction and municipality later... please. You're defending your pet phrase, not fact or comprehensibility.
THEPROMENADER 12:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, in light of my criticisms, why did you not propose an alternative version both correct and comprehensive to all: "Paris' last Provost of the merchants was slain..." ? This would have been both correct and in the context of the existing article. Instead this silly ad litteram revert nonsense to a version both doubtful and contested. THEPROMENADER 20:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never started a revert war, and I defy you to prove otherwise. Until then, do not make this accusation again. THEPROMENADER 16:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your block log proves the contrary. Hardouin 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. You are always the first to revert thus always the first over the line, and always willingly so. I did follow you on a few occasions some time ago when you were being particularly obnoxious. Lordy, look at yours : ) Now how is that an argument for irrelevant and misleading phrase? THEPROMENADER 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In trying to understand the 'no compromise' obsession with maintaining the phrase where it is exactly as it is, I did a 'Wiki search' for the assassinated gentlemen in question. The author of the first [11] of only two results is quite evident, but finding the author of the second result, now here, was a bit more problematic - one would think at first glance that it was myself - but I had simply moved it from the Paris article into an article of its own. In looking back in the Paris article history, we can find its author and its original form at the date it appeared in August 2005. A time even before my first edit to the Paris article. Article appropriation? Go figure. THEPROMENADER 11:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you blaming me for exactly? I fail to see your point. The purpose of Wikipedia is to let people edit articles. Blaming me for editing articles is a bit odd, to say the least. Hardouin 12:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no blame in the above - only observation. The facts speak for themselves. THEPROMENADER 12:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposition

---

Paris' last Prévôt des marchands was assassinated the same afternoon as the 14th of July 1789 uprising that was the French Revolution Storming of the Bastille. Paris became an official "commune" from the creation of the administrative division on December 14th the same year, and its provisional "Paris commune" revolutionary municipality was replaced with the city's first municipal constitution and government from October 9, 1790.

The above is essentially the same as what Hardouin was trying to say, but in a proper context and without the speculation that one event was the direct cause of the other. The event written in this more 'distant' way is also less disturbing to the 'summary' tone of the text around it. Brackets enclose perhaps unneeded elaboration. This may be longer, but if the event is to be included it must be explained correctly.
THEPROMENADER 22:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrase in question was targeted because it is both hors propos and in error, and it cannot be left that way. The above is a compromise (where normally no compromise should be needed - we are not here to re-impose texts of our own written one year before), so with no further ado, I will be using it as a solution. Thank you for your understanding. THEPROMENADER 09:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your new sentence proposal is basically saying the same as my edit, in a longer-winded way. It's awkwardly written though (the provost was shot the day the Bastille was stormed, not in the aftermath of that day), so I've asked Stevage to have a look and improve your sentence. Hardouin 10:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The subject is the same, but the phrase has not at all the same context: your sentence would suggest that Paris had a municipality because the provost was shot; the fact of the matter is that Paris had a municipality because of the entire revolution, and this only after it was certain that the revolution would not be overturned. The storming of the Bastille did not take all day; the provost was shot later the same day. You ignored my "brackets enclose" specification. Anyhow, I wouldn't think language a reason to stall the correction of fact. But whatever you like. THEPROMENADER 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Paris had a municipality because the provost was shot. Paris had a municipality for centuries before. I said Paris had a new municipal system, the commune, because the provost was shot and the chartered municipality disbanded the next day. This was later endorsed by the National Assembly which passed a law formally creating communes throughout France. Again this is clearly explained at commune in France. Hardouin 13:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Paris had a new municipal system, the commune, because the provost was shot and the chartered municipality disbanded the next day."

Whether for new "Municipality" or "municipal system", for what must be the fifth time, this disband/death connection is only your own conclusion. For what I hope is the last time: The provost was shot on his way to an impromptu trial at the Palais-Royal, already condemned by the crowd. No matter who was killed and who wasn't, most every royal office was abolished. You simply cannot say that a new municipality was created because of one man's death, and especially when no history book shares this point of view. Subsequential events are not automatically consequential, and certainly not because one Wikipedian says they are. THEPROMENADER 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Contrary to what you say, "most every royal offices" were not abolished on July 14 or the following days. In fact the only institution that was abolished was the chartered municipality of Paris, a direct consequence of its leader, the provost of the merchants, having been killed on July 14 and his office being then vacant. Other monarchical institutions were abolished by the National Assembly (not by Revolutionary crowds) in the years after 1789, in a cold manner, and not in the heat of an uprising, unlike the Paris municipality. The National Archives of France state that the Parlement of Paris was in existence until 1790. The Châtelet of Paris (the city's civil and criminal court) was in existence until 1791. A royal court still judging people 2 years after the Storming of the Bastille? So much for your claims! Check the National Archives of France's website, and in the future please refrain from making unfounded accusations. Hardouin 22:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Look- drop the fog of looking for places where I am wrong - this will never make yourself right. Also, there is no "heat" or "same day" in the phrase " most every royal office was abolished " , so thanks for not putting words in my mouth. The revolution took years - yet another reason one man's death cannot be indicated as being the direct the cause of anything. Pointing out this error is not an "accusation", so thanks for holding such words that in this context are accusations. THEPROMENADER 23:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On their website, the National Archives of France also state that: "Le Bureau de la Ville de Paris fit office de municipalité parisienne du Moyen Âge à la Révolution." That's what you denied for weeks, until finally acknowledging that there was a municipality of Paris before the Revolution. And further down they state that: "Le Bureau de la Ville ne survécut que peu de jours au dernier prévôt des marchands, Jacques de Flesselles, massacré le 14 juillet 1789." Clear link between the killing of the provost of the merchants and the disbandment of the municipality, stated by the National Archives of France themselves. So much for your "no history book shares this point of view"! Again, in the future please refrain from making unfounded accusations. Hardouin 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"A municipality" is not "a municipal government" - there was not even thought of making a municipal constitution until November the same year. One of the very purposes of the "Paris committee" assembly, with the National assembly committee, was to make one. The temporary "Paris commune" municipal system based on the old was dismissed, not endorsed, when the first real municipal elections for a real municipal government were held in October 1790 - more than year after any killing. [12] ([13] - "not until October 9, 1790...").

Concerning your National Archives citation: "only survived by a few days the death of the Provost" is a clear indication of time but not of cause - and, what's more, that phrase appeared in the context of an article describing the time span of archives concerning the Bureau de la ville de Paris. This article has no such context.

Conclusion - You have stated quite explicitly above that you think Paris' municipal whatever was the direct cause of the Provost's death: this is exactly what your "pet phrase" from one year before conveys, and this is exactly where it is wrong. Again, if you insist on including the event that was the Provost's death, you must provide a proper explanation and context, which will of course make the article longer. I have done exactly that for you in my suggestion above.
THEPROMENADER 23:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you guys struggle so much. I'm travelling atm so can't really do a proper job (hi from Prague!) but anyway, TP's proposition is pretty bad: three sets of brackets, plus nested brackets! What's so hard about inserting a "perhaps coincidentally" or "meanwhile" to clean up this perceived ambiguity of causality? It seems like you take exception with one minor detail then rewrite the entire paragraph? Anyway good luck. Stevage 18:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one struggling : ) You missed this part : "Brackets enclose perhaps unneeded elaboration. " - I only expect that it can by cut down. Hardouin has made very clear his unwillingness to alter his phrase in the slightest. I do agree with you. Have a safe trip. THEPROMENADER 18:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So how is it now? Not only does the passage have context but explains everything exactly how it happened with no interpretation and references to boot. If there is no further ado we can put things in their proper place. THEPROMENADER 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your sentence is still extremely awkward. What does "14th of July 1789 French Revolution uprising " mean? The French Revolution didn't take place on July 14, 1789. It took place from 1789 to 1794. Also, you're simply dropping any reference to the fact that the new municipality was elected the next day (July 15). Basically you still believe that the Paris commune is the result of a law passed by the National Assembly, which is legally exact, but not polically true. The new municipality is the result of the shooting of the provost on July 14 and disbanding of the chartered municipality the next day. The law passed by the National Assembly many months later was just an endorsement of what had already happened. Hardouin 22:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For the final time:

The new municipality is the result of the shooting of the provost on July 14..."

No, this is just your own opinion. No reference echoes this. Subsequence is not consequence.

The new municipality is the result of the ... disbanding of the chartered municipality the next day."

Even this would be closer to fact... but not fact. Paris' municipal government was a joint effort of the municipal and national assembly committees, and not enacted until Oct '90. Until then it was a chaotic and often-changing system derived directly from the old: nothing of the kind was ever endorsed - it was disbanded.

I have provided full references attesting to all this, as well as providing the context in which you can accurately include your cher shot provost. Please be happy with this compromise. THEPROMENADER 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you've wasted enough time. If the English is beyond you, then best not to criticize it - a "French revolution uprising" is an uprising part of the French Revolution, not the whole thing. There was no thought of any municipal constitution or government until months after the time you indicate. How it is written is how it happened, and this is very clearly stated in the references I provided would you care to read them. Good night. THEPROMENADER 23:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

PROBLEM

...I have a big problem...I delete the end of this article...

Problem seems to be solved now, thanks to the vigilance of some. No worries. THEPROMENADER 08:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a Paris Stock Exchange

There is a Paris Stock Exchange, but perhaps it would be better to intgrate/link this little factoid into the text somewhere instead of leaving it hanging out all on its own. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Central Paris

Sigh - another pointless revert. Hardouin, "Central Paris" is the I-XI arrondissements. Since you're focused on the issue I trust you'll fix this error yourself. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 23:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you do not fix this then I will be rolling back your revert later today. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 14:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did nothing of the kind - I changed "central paris (within its périphérique)" to "Paris within its périphérique" - this retains a borderline insinuation where there was only blatant misinformation before. Again a compromise with fact - because of nothing fact. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Hardouin has reverted back into misinformation once again. Now it would seem that there is a City of Paris outside the périphérique. Unless of course he's referring explicitly to a heliport and a couple of forests. Rather pointless, mon cher. THEPROMENADER 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're never ever satisfied with my edits. Simply put, there's always something wrong in what I edit. If Stevage had written the exact same thing, would you be complaining the same? Your perpetual criticism is what contributes negatively to the editing atmosphere here. Hardouin 23:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so there is a "City of Paris" outside the périphérique? Actually, it is obvious that your original edit ("central Paris" == "inside périphérique") was made with provocation in mind - Wiki is not an arena for behaviour such as this. Stick to fact and you cannot have any problem with me. THEPROMENADER 08:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)