Talk:Paris/Archive 6

message: Concerning what most likely inspired the comment that opened the thread above, there are a few things that should change/be understood before (speaking for myself here) any request to have the page lock removed is forwarded:
1) A general public ignorance of particular subjects and details is no justification for publishing untruth. The Paris page contains factual errors, and these were imposed on it by many means to get a point across. The most glaring example is, just by 'hazard', again the metropolitan area: the INSEE had never made any 2004 or 2005 estimations on this subject, yet this fictitious insert is present in both the article and the oversized infobox.
2) The wholesale reverting, in part or complete, must end. When a contributor sees fit to edit a passage, that means that there's something to be improved. If there is something to be improved in the new edit, then it should be edited in the same way. Simply reverting in part or in entirety whole passages of text is an act both seemingly protective, lazy and in total disregard for the research and edit time spent by the editor making improvements - and this especially when it becomes known that the reverter is the author of the passage targeted.
3) All statistics and seeming opinions must be verifiable. A reference is the only argument possible for presenting anything that fits into one or both of these categories. This article contain(s/ed) many authoritatively-toned phrases comparing one region or another or presenting personal conclusions as evident fact that in fact, when verified, turned out to be inaccurate or simply untrue.
I for one would like to use the talk page more constructively. Do you want to talk about what's good for or what needs to be changed in this article? Let's! It would be nice to discuss in a forward direction for a change.
THEPROMENADER 10:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardouin, if you agree to the above, feel free to request that the page protection be removed. THEPROMENADER 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending the Editing Lock 

message: The introductory paragraph asserts that Paris has a reputation as the heart of Europe. Assuming that such a reputation exists, this needs to be clarified with some qualifying words: many people in Europe, for instance, do not know of this reputation. Is this a reputation that Parisians believe exists ? Is this a non-European perspective of Paris ? Or is this French government propoganda ? (Yes all that the state authorities say in France isn't necessarily true - witness the cover-ups of the Paris massacre of 1961). Either way, it would be more correct and interesting to know the background to this phrase. --jrleighton 08:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The referenced event is quite questionable in existence. I wouldn't be so quick to assert it as typical of French policy. I really don't see how it has any connexion at all with the topic in question. --Aquarelle 13:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Paris has a reputation as "a romantic city" and as "the heart of Europe" was added by (Australian) User:Stevage on January 3, 2006 (). You may want to ask him directly why he added that. I remember he argued that Paris was regarded by millions of people as a romantic city, so it ought to be mentioned in the article. Personally, I think that to refer to Paris as the heart of Europe is a bit excessive (as excessive as English people who constantly refer to London as the capital of Europe). I also think that the mention of Paris as a romantic city right in the introduction is a bit of a cliché. Hardouin 23:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't see the problem here, after all it is referred to as a "reputation", individuals may disagree with it but it's rather hard to deny that reputation does exist. And yes, the "romantic city" may also be a cliché but it's still a very popular one (and for better or worse abundantly exploited by tour operators all over the world!). I take "the heart of Europe" to refer to that and to the cultural importance of Paris in Europe, just like London's significance in both cultural and financial terms - I don't think one should avoid acknowledging that kind of importance just because some people take it to competitive "who's better than who" limits. Pepita 09:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say that I have ever heard of anyone who professes either of London or Paris to be the heart/centre/capital of Europe/EU. A note about a romantic city, yes; but let's remove this reference to the heart of Europe - unless somebody can come up with any credible evidence to the contrary. --jrleighton 09:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's little doubt that neither Paris nor London is generally considered to be the heart of Europe. Geographically, they obviously are not. And culturally, the term "heart" sits uneasily in a continent (as opposed to a country) composed of a vast swathe of languages and historical traditions that are completely distinct and even today know little of each other. The only context in which I've heard people talk of the heart of Europe is in reference to the central European countries - Vienna, Prague etc. Try a search for "heart of Europe" on Google. I'd vote to remove the reference - I don't think it's accurate. Adrian Robson 15:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. I agree with the removal, after all "heart of" was too vague and bound to be read differently. The new "one of the main cultural and political centres in Europe" sounds much better (that's how I'd read it anyway, not in the geographic sense). Pepita 14:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Heart of Europe" 

message: Three weeks is enough. Time to edit. --Tony Sidaway 12:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: I have archived most of the discussion partly to give a fresh start to the page and partly because it had reached 220 KB. There is now an archive navigation box at the top right to make it easier to access the talkpage archives. Happy navigating :) Green Giant 14:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Archives 

message: Hardouin, I'm getting really sick of this. Again you have reverted in many places past many edits from many users to texts you abviously store on your hard drive. Again the numbers you post are NOT from official sources, and again you ignore a previous discussion on this. Again you re-insert 'chip-chip' phrases such as 'the population of Pairis' metropolitan area is...' This is not an article on Paris' commuter belt, this is an article on Paris. Will you kindly stop with your obsession please, and show some respect for other contributors? Thanks. Your behaviour is very provocative, especially to those who know the real truth and context of what you write. 
: PS: I noticed that you masked your many reverts under a single 'inserting standard infobox...' announcement - what sort of 'editing' is this? THEPROMENADER 08:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PPS: And you even re-inserted the vague, pompous and oft-complained about "bigger than" phrases... I really have no time for this. THEPROMENADER 08:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that I've had a look at them, the most annoying thing about the above reverts is that none of them are marked improvements; most all are simply returns to "how Hardouin wrote it before." It is with actions like these this that we are to raise this already trodden-upon article towards 'featured' status? How is one to re-install the improvements effaced by the above reverts - re-revert, as usual? It's conditions like these that create a childish and anti-productive 'last revert wins' war that has little to do with anything quality. Rather than play this silly game, I'm going to try to garner enough editing interest in this page that both our edits will become only a fraction under/of future better-quality contributions. THEPROMENADER 18:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts, and Metropolitan Area once again 

message: User ThePromenader keeps deleting the 2006 estimate for the metropolitan area of Paris (11.6 million people) without any valid reason, except that it doesn't come from INSEE. As if there weren't already enough INSEE references in the article... Did he prove the figure to be wrong? No. Yet he keeps deleting it. INSEE is certainly a great organization, but it also has its flaws, in particular it is not very good at updating figures. The last time they offered French metropolitan areas statistics was in 1999, and FYI there won't be new official figures from INSEE before the year 2009 or 2010 (when the current 5-year census campaign is over). After 2009-2010, ThePromenader will be very happy (or unhappy), INSEE should publish revised figures for French metropolitan areas every year, or so they promised. In the meantime, World Gazetteer is a respected source of information and is used in many Wikipedia articles. Moreover, whenever I use figures from independent sources that are not government sources I always double-check the figures to make sure I am not copying something wrong or invented. In the case of the 11.6 million figure, I double-checked and found no problem with it: INSEE officially estimated the population of Ile-de-France at 11,362,000 as of Jan. 1, 2005. That's a 409,989 increase compared to IdF population at the 1999 census. Given that 99% of IdF population live inside the metropolitan area of Paris, that means the metropolitan area of Paris had a population in 2005 very near: 11,174,743 (1999 census) + 409,989 = 11,584,732. So I don't see what's wrong with the figure reported by World Gazetteer. Hardouin 01:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments are vague at best, and essentially amount to nothing. The ile-de-France region is not the statistical aire urbaine  so you cannot use the former's numbers as the latter. I am not the only one to have told you this - at least a thousand times already - and such manipulation but amounts to Original research. Nice that you find the 'all from the same sources' argument convenient but again you misuse this - statistics are gathered by one source, and it is best that the 'source source' be cited. In the INSEE's case, if they haven't published the numbers, they don't exist - unless you know of another organisation conducting a census of their own. Run the numbers yourself all you want, but again this is original research. Wiki is intended to be an archive of re-published fact; it is not a soapbox for a thesis supporting the opinions of User:Hardouin. THEPROMENADER 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And Hardouin, even before you posted, I think by reading through the above you would have seen that there is already a consensus on this subject - perhaps you could do this article the service of fixing your errors yourself. THEPROMENADER 08:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Gazetteer figure 

message: What exactly is going on here? This is too odd for words. Here we have two editors editing the same phrase within hours of its being changed - one returns the first phrase to its original clunky and repetitive English:
 "The city of Paris within its administrative limits has an estimated mid-2004 population of 2,144,700[3], but over the last century the city has grown well beyond its administrative boundaries" 
... and the second reverts the phrase outright to its original form, down to an unneeded and dubious website reference. Neither editor has changed anything else in the article. I'll just chalk this up to coincidence again, I guess.
The argument:
 "A metropolitan area is more than just an "area of economic influence" " 
...is not at all a justification for a total revert. If a commuter belt is not an area of economic influence - a sum of who does what job where - I don't know what is. The phrase is back in its exact former state save for a colon - and this wee change in fact this makes the sense of the phrase even more untrue: Paris has NOT grown to the limits of its metropolitan area as its present form would have us believe. This is just plain wrong.
Clunky English, grandiose insinuations and dubious sources for selective and unneeded detail should be the norm here? What about the simple, well-written truth? How is one to accomplish anything here if a single contributor reverts any effort to this end? How frustrating.
THEPROMENADER 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I'm going to be re-inserting the much-shortened version of the 'Demographics' section reverted by Hardouin: for reasons why, please (re) see the #Sloppy re-inserts comments above. All the same, there were some misgivings with the 'Towers' section - what would be a good replacement? My original meaning was 'a relatively homogenous mix of office/living space' - yet without stating the proportions (ratio) of office/living space. I don't have the source for this - but perhaps it is not necessary to go to such detail. For the 'empty of habitation' office skyscrapers brought up by Gnetwerker , I get the point and this will be changed too. For further improvements, please work from here. THEPROMENADER 21:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again single-handedly deleting the contribution of other users? And for what? for your jargon-esque prose, full of clumsy and inapropriate expressions: e.g. "Paris enjoyed a role as France's productive leader". A "productive leader"? what's that? and why the past tense? Not to mention your reference to a "de-habitation tendency". "De-habitation" is not an English word, check your dictionary. I see no justification for deleting information and contributions from other Wikipedians to replace them with your poorly written and often biased prose. Hardouin 11:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really have to love how you simply turn accusations around at the person making them. It is you who eliminated the work of at least three contributors by re-pasting your months-old needless comparisons of your own writ - not that of others, so you do not state truth here - and needless because consensus decided it that way. The rest of the information is still there. Biased prose? This is a baseless accusation. Your criticisms are noted, all the same. Anything else that can be improved? THEPROMENADER 13:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Gnetwerker.  – Aquarelle 18:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as the topic concerns edits with a goal of improving quality and content I can have no stones to throw. When one contributor wholesale reverts/needlessly 'stamp edits' all other's (namely one's) attempts at improvement for reasons outisde this, there is issue for discontent. One can't just expect one editor to silently accept this sort of treatment from another in the name of 'let's not bother everyone else' - otherwise this article would never change. I would even argue that this is the goal behind such practices; most 'arguments' presented after such abuse are tailored for 'first sight validity,' but in essence are all either trifling or invalid, and in no way are nowhere near enough to justify reverting entire sections of text. It is unfortunate that there is only one person who reverts like this, but as long as this goes on the talk pages will be full of reasons why this is wrong. Anyone can criticise and correct edits all they want, but this wholesale reverting must stop. THEPROMENADER 02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Demographics is re-shortened, but modified in light of above criticisms. If there is anything 'missing' not present already in the Demographics of Paris article, please add it there. THEPROMENADER 18:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics re-shortening 

message: Hardouin, in re-pasting your own writ from months ago over the improvements of several contributors , and in addition to your blatant disregard for these, it seems that you didn't even look at the rest of the article you were pasting into and the result is jokingly sloppy. In the demographics section, for example, where you unabashedly re-pasted ab litera the 'density' section (again your own writing from almost a year ago), you didn't even think to modify the existing text that was in fact a result of a merge of 'population' and 'density' - now there are two variations of the same 'Paris' population is rising again' phrase, one in each section. 
As for the rest of the re-pasting: the language is extremely wonky in some places, breathless in others (many of these a result of trying to create association between normally unrelated elements), missing commas which render sensless some passages... all this and re re-appearance of jokingly insinuative phrases such as "81% of people in the Paris metropolitan area live outside of the city proper (1999 census figures)" (what is this article about?) - this one begins with a number, a no-no known to anyone with even a basic command of English grammar. This would not be a problem if the edits were a first draft - but your hasty pasting was an obliteration of time-consuming efforts by many to improve this article.
THEPROMENADER 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy re-inserts 

message: I totally agree with what user Metropolitan wrote above. So much has been removed from the introduction now that it defeats the purpose of an introduction. There's not one word anymore about how many people live in Paris. Guys, seriously, do you step back sometimes and consider what you're doing? This, now, looks like the introduction of an old Wikipedia article from 2002 or 2003 when articles were so short and incomplete. I mean, even the most obscure Chinese city gets an introduction longer than this. Can some sensible contributors express their opinion here? Hardouin 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro should follow WP:LEAD, if it doesn't you should edit until it does. -- Gnetwerker 20:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you may have noticed, we have been threatened by Green Giant (read above) if we dare to edit his edits. Not what I would call a very positive way of working together. Hardouin 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure if I missed something but I only saw Metropolitan speaking of the entire article, not only the introduction. Even then, the introduction depends on the detail the article will go to - if you're going to repeat it below, you don't say it in detail up top. If this were to be but a three-paragraph summary the situation would be completely different. Balance against redundancy. Now, what do you mean by asking for 'sensible contributors' - do you mean to suggest that some of us aren't? Please be careful in how you say things. And again for the 'threats' - you are again putting words of your own into someone else's mouth - where does GG say anything about anyone's, never mind his own, edits? - but perhaps he was referring to the very anti-'working together' act of wholesale reverting the work of other contributors. And even then, those 'threats' you so expound are... promising to instigate perfectly normal Wiki procedures against anything disrupting the course of open and honest editing? What can anyone have against that? THEPROMENADER 23:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel threatened by my intentions to follow the normal procedures then that is really sad. As pointed out above, I fail to see where I have threatened anyone for editing my edits. I see nothing wrong with adhering to the guidelines used by countless hundreds of others. I do see something wrong when not having named anyone specifically, I get a barrage of criticism from one editor who feels threatened. I don't see anyone else complaining so perhaps we can move on and work to improve this article? Green Giant 23:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction nonsense 

message: Did it bother anyone that I moved the TOC down and to the right? It certainly solved the layout problem, but perhaps some would think it 'against the rules'. Just wondering at the consensus on this. THEPROMENADER 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC move 

message: This replaces an earlier knee-jerk post. Actually the edits aren't bad, alhough I still don't see why 'bits of Hardouin' appear there. I understand completely the 'relevency' of Paris as an agglomeration, but Paris as an agglomeration is the Paris agglomeration and not simply Paris - my problem is with a deviance from standard naming practises, not with the subject spoken of. The text is still fine as it speaks first of Paris, then of Paris as an agglomeration - this is called putting things in context. You see, it is possible to make progress without filling the talk pages with accusatory sh*te. THEPROMENADER 15:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (rolling eyes) of course I must say something about the "81% of people living in the metropolitan area don't live in Paris" part - this is not only obvious because of sheer size difference - Why are we skipping the most relevent part in saying this - shouldn't the Paris agglomeration be the reference here? Wouldn't it be more logical to say that a certain percentage of a city's natural growth (density!) is within the city limits? Digging to the very limits of the sparsely-populated farm-and-forest commuter belt even defeats the very purpose of this phrase. I'm sure you can find the proper numbers somewhere. THEPROMENADER 16:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You're so totally illogical Promenader. The section as I had originally edited it spoke first of Paris, and then of Paris agglomeration. Yet you deleted my edits. When it's me who makes edits it's always wrong, but when it's someone else doing the very same edits, then it's fine, except for the "bits of Hardouin", as if everything I wrote had to totally disappear. If you don't like me, I can't change it, but don't let your personal aversion pollute this talk page and this article. And I would appreciate if you could abstain from censuring all my edits as a matter of principle. Thank you. Hardouin 15:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Say, would you mind holding the inventive accusations and insults please? Thank you. I only look at what's written, and improve what I can if I see that it is needing of improvement; as for you I've been doing my best to ignore you, but it's a bit difficult to do when you and your muddy-meaning-ed texts keep reappearing - unchanged. THEPROMENADER 16:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not upset at you, I'm upset at Promenader's petty censure of whatever I edit. Hardouin 10:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your accusation is completely unfounded, Hardouin. Remove "petty", trade "edit" for "revert" and your statement would be accurate. That aside, and the note above aside (you do see the logic in it, right, Metropolitan?), in reading it two days later I actually quite like the end result. For sure it is not an easy task to add detail and retain interest and readability. Bravo. THEPROMENADER 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics Edits