Talk:Paris/Archive 10

20th Century history
"On 14 June 1940, five weeks after the start of the Battle of France, an undefended Paris fell to German occupation forces. The Germans marched past the Arc de Triomphe on the 140th anniversary of Napoleon's victory at the Battle of Marengo.[31] German forces remained in Paris until the city was liberated in August 1944 after a resistance uprising, two and a half months after the Normandy invasion.[32] Central Paris endured World War II practically unscathed, as there were no strategic targets for Allied bombers (train stations in central Paris are terminal stations; major factories were located in the suburbs). German General von Choltitz obtained the title "Saviour of Paris" by refusing to follow his orders and not destroying all Parisian monuments before any German retreat, as ordered by Adolf Hitler on his visit in 1940.[33]"

This paragraph is practically unsourced - source #33 does basically not deliver any of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.103.129 (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I added it because it does support most of the final sentence.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Which part exactly? The words "Savior of Paris" do not exist in the source. The claim that Hitler ordered it during a visit in 1940 does not exist in the source - instead it is indicated that the orders came years later when Allied attacks on Paris were imminent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.103.208 (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sociology
I completely rewrote the sociology part. The previous version, talked about a "Paris-Ouest", that had social hegemony in French popular culture as well as in some masterpieces of French literature such as Balzac's La comédie humaine". That is not very explicit, and actually if you had a look at the details, it was rather inacurate. It also referred to a Left bank that "implies a sense of bohemianism and creativity". Marketing may try to have us believe that, but for the most part, it is out of touch with current reality. I would love to replace all those vague assertions with more precise and better sourced statements on the same topic. Unfortunately, I could not find very good sources for that. The Pinçon-Charlots seem to be the best known writers on the subject, especially on Paris upper classes. However from what I see, not all their works appears to be extremely rigorous methodologically, and it is often political in tone. So even if it can provide some interesting insights, it certainly needs to be supplemented by other sources. As I have not sufficient academic knowledge of the topic, I went an easier route instead, and I added figures on income and education. Age, and geographic origin (province, immigrants) would probably be interesting as well. Obviously, that feels a bit incomplete, but at least it shows what kind of people Parisians are, without too much subjectivity, or too much availability bias. --Superzoulou (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Paris
Paris is the capital city of France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.68.128 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC) PIE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.30.172 (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A few suggestions
This is an important and difficult topic, not at all easy to cover. Here are some suggestions for further improvement from a general reader. I read most closely the sections down through "Climate", then just skimmed through the rest. I made a couple dozen minor changes to the early sections.

Lead
 * "Paris and the Paris region account for a quarter of the gross domestic product of France and has... " - "Have" rather than "has" since the subject is plural?
 * "Considered as green... " - Link "green" to environmentally friendly?

Etymology
 * The second paragraph has claims about Baron Haussmann and Napoleon III that lack sources.
 * "baron Haussmann" - Cap "B" and link Baron Haussmann to Georges-Eugène Haussmann?

Origins
 * "building a trading settlement on the island" - Use the island's name here rather than the more vague "the island"?

Middle Ages to 18th century
 * "Paris' reputation grew on the writings of its intellectuals such as Voltaire, discoverer of electricity, and Diderot, the first volume of his Encyclopédie being published in Paris in 1751." - Voltaire did not discover electricity. Perhaps this claim confuses him with Alessandro Volta, an Italian credited with making the first electric battery in about 1800.
 * Link Voltaire and Diderot.

French Revolution
 * " Paris was the centre stage for the French Revolution - a bad harvest... " - I don't think Wikipedia uses spaced hyphens for anything. I replaced a few, but the others should be replaced with spaced en dashes, semicolons, terminal periods, or some other punctuation, depending on the context.
 * Since I don't have access to the books cited in the article, I can't check for copyvios or too-close paraphrasing. However, passages such as this one look suspicious to me: "The city's largest transformation came with the 1852 Second Empire under Napoleon III; his préfet, Baron Haussmann, levelled entire districts of Paris' narrow, winding medieval streets to create the network of wide avenues and neo-classical façades that still make up much of modern Paris; the reason for this transformation was twofold, as not only did the creation of wide boulevards beautify and sanitize the capital, it also facilitated the effectiveness of troops and artillery against any further uprisings and barricades for which Paris was so famous." Please check to make sure that passages like this one have not been lifted intact from elsewhere or imitated too closely.
 * Some of the claims in the third and fourth paragraphs of this subsection lack citations to reliable sources.

21st century
 * " which will consist of 150 kilometres (93 mi) of rapid-transit lines connecting the Grand Paris... " - Needs an inline citation to a reliable source.

Cityscape
 * Many paragraphs of this long section are not supported by reliable sources.
 * Captions consisting solely of a sentence fragment do not take terminal periods.

Culture
 * Many paragraphs of this long section are not supported by reliable sources.

Administration
 * Many paragraphs of this long section are not supported by reliable sources.

Education and Transportation
 * Many paragraphs of these long sections are not supported by reliable sources.

References
 * In the citations, use p. for single pages and pp. for multiple pages. Citation 11, for example, should be p. 26.
 * Page ranges take an en dash rather than a hyphen.

Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013
Hello there,

I suggest to modify this "Paris (English /ˈpærɪs/, i/ˈpɛrɪs/; French: [paʁi] ( listen)) is the capital and largest city of France." into this "Paris (English /ˈpærɪs/, i/ˈpɛrɪs/; French: [paʁi] ( listen)) is the capital and most populated city of France while not the largest by its size."

The reason is that Paris is NOT the largest, by size, city of France, by far. Here's a link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_communes_by_surface_area#Largest_cities_in_Metropolitan_France My wording is a suggestion, the most important being that Wikipedia shall not provide the information that Paris is the largest French city.

Thanks

94.252.110.237 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I changed it from "largest" to "most populous" due to the ambiguity. I don't think it's necessary to add the last clause to clarify something which is no longer unclear. Thanks, -- El Hef  ( Meep ? ) 20:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo
Is the current photo montage of the city (with clickable parts to take readers to the subjects of the picture) appropriate? If not, what would be more appropriate?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 16:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The collage has a very low quality and is totally outdated, it makes no sense to illustrate Paris with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.10.149.222 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC) This discussion is a case closed Gilderien. A montage doesn't add any value to the article and wouldn't help it being better rated. I don't understand why you're getting so stubborn about this. A wikipedia article isn't a visitors attractions guide. Metropolitan (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The photo montage doesn't illustrate the city but only a collection of tourist clichés. The view from Montparnasse with the Eiffel Tower and La Défense illustrates perfectly multiple dimensions of Paris: the Eiffel Tower which is the city symbol, the Parisian unique urban layout, and the skyscrapers district of La Défense for its economical significance worldwide. One picture telling so much is better than 5 pictures telling so little. For those interested in Paris monuments only, see this article: List of tourist attractions in Paris. It's been years now that the view on the Eiffel Tower illustrates the article. This has been debated multiple times. Metropolitan 18:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the previous comment. That, plus the fact that the view of La Défense in the montage is outdated (why not a view from the 1970s since we're at it?), and that pictures of individual monuments of Paris infringe French copyright laws (whereas a general view of the city with some monuments in it doesn't). Der Statistiker (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree, Wikipedia article is not a tourist guide, it is an article about the reality of the city. I see the picture of the Eiffel tower with la Defense behind much more representative than a collection of tourists cliché as said in the Metropolitan comment.Minato ku (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you point to where this has been debated before? A single view of the city cannot provide as much as a montage of images. Furthermore, it would not take me very long, now you have raised the issue, to replace the 1970s picture with a modern one. It could even be an view from above like the current one. Also, saying "STOP THE REVERT WAR => SEE DISCUSSION" in the edit summary is mis-leading: I was following the WP:BRD cycle, which was inspired by WP:BOLD, so really the one who was reverting to get their preferred change was Der Statistiker. The argument about french copyright laws is not relevant - firstly I checked out a few other articles which are adorned with pictures which, according to you, would be illegal, and secondly, the Foundation's servers are in Florida, so french law does not have, IIRC jurisdiction over them.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed in 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paris/Archive_9#Infobox_image. It's been discussed in 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paris/Archive_9#Photo_at_the_top. It's been also discussed on the French version of the article in 2009: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Paris#Montage_photo. Each time the view of the urban landscape with the Eiffel tower in foreground and La Défense in the background has been considered the most relevant to picture in minimal space different aspects of Paris. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a tourist guide. Considering copyright infringement, there's been already multiple photos of French monuments which have been removed from Wikipedia because of French law. Sorry I don't have the time to look for it but I remember it happening. Sorry for the use of caps letter to say "stop the revert war", but it's been years I'm on Wikipedia and I know many editors use that process to enforce their view on others. It wasn't meant at you at all as I know you've started this discussion, it was just a way to discourage others to play that game. Metropolitan 20:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look, and all the images in the montage are from Commons, and are thus not restricted by copyright. I also had a look at other city articles to see which had montages, and which had a single image, and London, New York City, Washington D.C, Los Angeles, Lyon, Marseilles, Beijing, Canberra, Berlin, Warsaw and Delhi, whilst the only one I found with a skyline was Sydney. There appears to be considerable precedence for using a montage rather than a single image to convey the many facets of a city.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As already answered in the discussions I've pointed to, there's no rule for this. It's not because others do it this way that it means Paris should do the same. Metropolitan 21:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I read those, and most of the debate seems to be about the copyright status. Furthermore, there were several points about "information value" - how does a single picture provide more information than a captioned collage, with clickable links so readers can find out more?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, the picture proposed is ugly, the actual picture is much better. I don't like those selection of several photo, in my opinion this doesn't really work for small picture. Minato ku (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I thought the proposed picture was better, although that is just aesthetics, what as an encylopaedia we should be concerned about is maximum informational value. The montage has fewer pictures (and larger) than many others I have seen, and anyway it can be updated, that will not pose too much of a problem.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 11:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not a case closed, you haven't responded to several of my points. The montage had been there for some time without being challenged, so in accordance with WP:BRD, when Der Statistiker's edit was reverted, the change should be discussed to determine consensus, not re-done and then discussed. I am "stubborn", in your words, because I believe the montage, especially as it was clickable for readers to find out more, offers more educational value than a single image. The reason cited for the removal of the montage in the first place was that the image of La Defense was out of date, which it was, but I have replaced it with one from 2009, so it no longer applies and so I re-instated it. If you disagree with my re-instatement of the image after reading this and trying it out, I am open to holding an RfC to determine the consensus among the community as a whole, not just from those who regularly participate here, but please do not revert it until consensus is established. I am also open to email if you would rather discuss improvements to the article that way.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is best served by the montage. Nearly all other major cities articles have montages, because major cities can't be adequately represented by a single image. I can well imagine what might be said by my friends in Brooklyn and the other boroughs if the NYC article was represented by a picture of the Manhattan skyline. If any of the montage pictures are old or somehow inferior, then just upgrade them. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's already been explained many times that pictures of individual monuments are protected by French copyright laws, and are therefore not valid on Wikipedia. Only pictures of monuments shown within some larger views of the city, where they appear as just one element of the skyline/streetscape, do not violate French copyright laws. As for montages serving better an article than a single picture, it's a rather moot point considering the number of landmarks in Paris, which can't be all shown in a single montage. Der Statistiker (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your copyright claim is not at all true: the only picture that would be subject to copyright laws would be a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night, as the SNTE have copyrighted the 'artwork' that is their lighting. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  08:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't agree with ~either~ of you... La Défense is not (yet!) part of Paris, and Paris is indeed more than a sum of tourist attractions. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  09:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering that many images necessarily tells more than a single image is a flawed concept. Any professional illustrators will confirm. Here, 5 close-up views on landmarks don't tell anything about Paris as a city, it just sums it up to a location hosting 5 landmarks. It's not because other cities are wrong that it means Paris should be too. As for considerations regarding borders, it's been years that it's a given rule on Wikipedia that city articles don't strictly refers to administration. Paris La Défense, Paris airports or even Château de Versailles for the matter all play key roles in different aspects of the city. Obstructing those aspects would only give a limited perception of the Paris reality. Metropolitan (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

All of these have already been debated several times during years, and at the time Promenader you expressed yourself against a montage: It would probably be use useful if third party could also take in considerations everything which has been told then. And please note that I hadn't even participated to any of those discussions personally. Metropolitan (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2010 English discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paris/Archive_9#Infobox_image.
 * 2006 English discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paris/Archive_9#Photo_at_the_top.
 * 2009 French discussion: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Paris#Montage_photo
 * Well, I would challenge the idea that the montage is simply "5 close-up views on landmarks" - two of the images are in fact much larger views of the centre of Paris (The Ile-de-citie) and La Defense. However, I would be amenable to replacing one (perhaps the Palace de Versailles, which seems the least useful) with another image which could illustrate the wider city better?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC
Which image in the infobox offers the most educational value to readers and thus should be used - the montage in this revision which is clickable and linked, but has smaller images, or File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg, which is a larger single image illustrating the Eiffel tower, as well as La Defense?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 13:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Montage

 * This RfC seems expired, but I'll comment anyway. If it's of any relevance, we've faced the same issue on the Istanbul article (now an FA) with whether to put a single image or a montage as the infobox image. Interestingly, the Paris article was cited as an example of where a single image works. I agree with that sentiment; the single photo is such an iconic image of the city, so I believe it would make a fine image for the infobox (as it has done so over so many years). However, I do believe collages are generally better for city infoboxes, provided they have no more than about five photos, and provided the images in them are still informative and visible at their reduced sizes. From what I see with this particular montage, this is achievable. However, I feel the links in the image are confusing; I'd expect those clicks to go to either the page for the full collage or the pages for the individual images, but not to other articles. I also feel the photo of La Defense is a poor choice, with the blown-out white sky. I understand La Défense is not technically in Paris, but I'd be willing to let that slide considering it's an important part of the city's framework. But the Chateau de Versailles? That's not an important part of the city, and it's not in Paris, so it should be removed from the montage.
 * So, take this as a vote in favor of the concept of a montage. But given the choice between this montage as it is, and the single image over the Eiffel Tower, I'd prefer the latter. --  tariq abjotu  04:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Single Image

 * Example - I think the single image is superior due to A, B, and C.

Discussion

 * , my concern with both images, but mostly with the montage, is that they seem more suitable for a travel guide than for an encyclopedia article. I would be fine with using an estethically less pleasing, but arguably more informative image like File:Pano 0519.jpg. --Superzoulou (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Superzoulou. File:Pano 0519.jpg, to me, says "massively important CITY." GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see eye to eye on this. Just as a flag is a symbol of a country, landmarks are often symbols of a city. I don't believe there is anything wrong with highlighting those in the infobox. --  tariq abjotu  14:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 May 2013
Hi!

The coordinates in the article seem to be entered incorrectly. They should be entered in the style: "\{\{Coord|48.8738|N|2.2950|E|region:FR-75_type:landmark|display=title}}" Alternatively: "\{\{Coord|48|51|56|N|2|19|16|E|type:landmark|display=title}}" (Info of-course needs to be changed to appropriate data)

And not in the infobox in the style:
 * latitude =
 * longitude =

Using the infobox will cause api-calls trying to access the first paragraph to return the coordines, instead of the article content.

Example of api-call for paris: |coordinates&explaintext=True&exsentences=5&format=xmlfm Paris

Nevez 2010
The article cites Nevez 2010 which is not listed in the Bibliography. Aa77zz (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Tourist guide
Is this article meant to be a tourist guide? 20 subsections about the landmarks in the 20 arrondissements of the city proper. Are you guys serious?? (Why not the landmarks in the suburbs by the way?) Der Statistiker (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved the 20 subsections to their own article: Landmarks in the City of Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add that it is unacceptable to remove informative content from this article and simply delete it completely from Wikipedia, or dump it without order in some other articles. In particular, I discovered that 80% of the very informative demographics section had been cut and dumped in the Demographics of Paris article, simply dumped there, without paying any attention to the structure of the Demographics of Paris article, or to the fact that it now contained many doublets and repeated information in haphazard order. I have restored that content in the demographics section of the Paris article, and unclutered the Demographics of Paris article.

If obtaining a GA nomination means deleting informative content (I suspect there is much more content that has been deleted than what I've seen so far), or trimming and dumping 80% of the Paris article in some other articles without any order, then I'd rather we do not try to gain a GA nomination. Der Statistiker (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Editor lazily moved 80% of the content to the top of the Demographics of Paris article without even making any effort to restructure that article and prevent repeated information and doublets!!)" Lazy? You're having me on. I've spent many hours trimming down the article to what is relevant and Tim wouldn't have passed it if he didn't think I'd done a good job with editing it. I disagree with your extreme cutting of the by district guide, that's lazy.. I think it is important to give an insight into each district of the city and the article is much better off having the information; I intended condensing and sourcing it in the next few days, I've been busy watching Wimbledon today. Restoring an unsourced bulleted list is unacceptable, the dmeographic section is now bloated with tables containing data which the average reader would find excessive. Always has to be somebody causing problems doesn't there? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've spent many hours dumping the content of the demographics section in the Demographics of Paris article? Hard to believe, considering these two edits which show that you simply dumped everything en masse on top of the article and didn't even care to check whether the information was already contained in that article (like the immigrant table that was already there):,.
 * As for giving an insight into each district of Paris, you seem to forget that "Paris" is not just made up of the 20 arrondissements of the City of Paris (same as "London" is not just made up of the City of London), but it is also made up of more than 400 suburban districts. So good luck with describing the landmarks in each of the 400+ districts that make up Paris in the wider sense. It did not occur to you that La Défense, Vincennes, Versailles, or Disneyland Paris were some major landmarks of Paris, just as Kew Gardens and Hampton Court are major landmarks of London, even if they are located in the suburbs? Obviously, detailing the landmarks of those 400+ districts would defeat the purpose of trimming the article, so it's better to leave that for a/some separate article(s). Der Statistiker (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the demographics section of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&oldid=563283225#Density was better. --Superzoulou (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides, the behavior of Dr Blofeld, supported by a few editors he's networking with, will deter other editors from contributing to Wikipedia in the future. What's the point of spending long hours researching data, information, sources, and presenting them in a coherent fashion in an article, if 1 or 2 years later a single editor is going to remove all the hard work contributed by many editors over several years? I remember one editor in particular had worked hard trying to explain how the Paris agglomeration has outgrown the administrative borders of the city, even creating a map that probably required lots of efforts and was very informative, but this has been completely deleted by Dr Blofeld, without referring to anyone, and if you try to restore that content, you're reverted by his friends. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * About landmarks/tourism: That seems a bit out of place to me, especially now that we have Wikivoyage, but judging by the feedback, that seems to be something many readers are looking for. In any case, rather the removing parts about landmarks, I think it would be much more useful to add more political/economic/sociological info (we can take some from fr:Paris).
 * Organizing data by arrondissement is simple and intuitive, but I do not think it makes much real sense. Architecturally - and sociologically - Paris is not really structured by arrondissement. How much should we info about places outside Paris proper should we include ? I guess there is no right solution for that, just editorial choices. Politically, the difference between Paris and suburbs is still very real, and has substantial consequences, but at the same time we have just one integrated urban area. This is very different from London, because the political entity called London is much larger (it is not just the city of London).  --Superzoulou (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, If I can put in my two cents here: I'm not really for including an 'arrondissement by arrondisement' list of... attractions in this article, this should be in an article of its own. I even question the logic of separating monuments between arrondissements: this city has developed in 'quarters' (St. Honoré-Vendome, le Marais, etc.), city visits are usually oriented around these, yet quarters often span more than one arrondissement, so for one uninitiated to Paris' administration, this could be confusing. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  06:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

GA version
Very sorry to see a one-person crusade against the article (which I have just had the pleasure of promoting to GA). Very pleased to see, and wholly support User:SchroCat's reversion to the GA version. Tim riley (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I also support User:SchroCat's reversion to the GA version. The recent changes by User:Der Statistiker seem poorly conceived to me. If anyone has ideas for major changes to the article, I suggest that he or she introduce a proposal here to see if other editors have considered or have an opinion regarding such a change and to see if a consensus can be reached.  Otherwise, your changes will likely not survive review by other editors.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's support reversion to outdated figures (I gave 2010 census figures, but it was reverted to 2009 census figures, very logical!), factually wrong information (like indicating in the lead that the City of Paris covers 87 km², when it covers in fact 105 km²), unsourced figures that I had sourced (like GDP in the lead of the article), etc. I suppose that warrants a GA nomination. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The reality is that I put a lot of work into this article and spent considerable time trimming it and sticking to the important points. It's not as if I lazily just blindly chopped text, that just isn't true and I'm sure the others would agree with me. I'm still working on the landmarks and aim to condense a bit and source. But for the main article all of those demographic tables and excessive data seems to suit nobody but "Statistker" guys like yourself. I think it is important to provide some information about the 20 arrondissements and having read the article and researched it I now have a very good idea of the city layout and know quite a lot about it, which is the purpose of the article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Statistiker's point about the area of the city: as is made clear in the main text, the larger figure includes les Bois, which are outside the Périphérique and arrondissements. The smaller figure is the more useful one to the reader, I think. As to GDP etc I think the more arcane statistics are unhelpful to the reader, and should be kept to a minimum. If I had been writing the lead I'd probably have omitted the words "with €607 billion (US$845 billion) in 2011", leaving such specialised detail to the main section. That figure is most adequately cited in the appropriate place, BTW. We don't want the lead peppered with needless citations: see Manual of Style/Lead section. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Then why is the London lead peppered with endless citations and boastful claims? Very surprising not to see you so zealous with that article. Apparently it's ok to trim the Paris article to the bone, and leave all the bloated hype in the London article. Double standards? Der Statistiker (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And again, as per the discussion above from May, there was no consensus for a montage at the beginning of the article, so on what ground has Dr Blofeld single-handedly forced the montage as the main picture of the article when a discussion involving several editors led to no consensus? I think this is looking more and more like a case of WP:OWN, with complete disregard for the hard work of many editors over many years, supported by a few editors that Dr Blofeld is cleverly networking with: . Der Statistiker (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please try and retain a degree of civility while discussing matters? Throwing off cheap insults and accusations of ownership is rather over-the-top. Bringing in an unconnected article to compare seems a little odd too: we're talking about this article and whether it fits with the good practice of the site, as laid down by the MOS. Could I suggest you try and dial down the slightly aggressive stance you have and confrontation language you're using? Go for a walk, have a glass of beer, whatever it is you do to relax, and then come back and post in a more constructive frame of mind, rather than in the rather abrasive manner you've approached this so far today? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would post in a more constructive frame if you hadn't reverted ALL my edits yesterday, including the updates from the 2010 census (you reverted to 2009 census figures, seriously!). I would also post in a more constructive frame if one editor, namely Dr Blofeld, hadn't suddenly decided that this article about one of the major world cities belonged to him and that he was going to rewrite it entirely, disregarding the work, efforts, and time spent by many editors over many years. Expect a backlash when they find out all their work was deleted (they probably haven't realized yet). Der Statistiker (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have reverted if they hadn't been in such a mass of WP:pointy edits and reverts, and if one or two justifiable points were erroneously deleted along with the rest, then I am sorry for that. As to the other editors, maybe they will look at the major re-write and new standard that the article has as an opportunity to push on to bigger and better things, rather than a battlefield? Let's hope that they look at the bigger picture and the possibility of pushing this through to FA level now that such a forward step has been taken. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

" Dr Blofeld single-handedly forced the montage as the main picture of the article". On the contrary it seems you're the one guilty of WP:OWN issues brought on by the changes to the demographics section. Most articles on major cities have montage images which highlight the most notable landmarks. I have requested that the infobox is converted to standard, so far no response.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion in May above, no consensus emerged for a montage, you imposed it single-handedly, without consulting anyone, you can't deny that. Der Statistiker (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Will you please stop the belligerence?? I didn't impose anything, I simply thought the montage image looked superior without knowing what anybody else thought. I did what I thought was an improvement. Not for some malicious dictator-like purpose as you seem to imply. Please stop. The first rule of wikipedia is "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—" . Content is frequently edited and improved all the time on here, nobody owns the text, and if you can't accept that your text will be edited "mercilessly" by others then don't contribute here. Whoever wrote the text in this article several years back is appreciated, and the article retains a lot of text, but I've simply condensed some of the sections and revamped it in good faith, believing that my edits improve the structure and coherence of it. That in the process I removed some sentences written by others is unavoidable if I am to try to improve the focus and relevance expected of a higher end article. Seriously though, if we had that outlook on every article "thou must not edit the work of others" wikipedia would not develop into something better. Condensing, sourcing and improving structure and balance is an integral part to wikipedia editing. As an encyclopedia we constantly need to revise our texts to improve as a resource. If you can't see this I'm sorry that you feel this way but this is what wikipedia editing and development is all about. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If your intent wasn't malicious, you wouldn't have written to your friends to ask them to revert my edits. You would have discussed things beforehand (especially considering that I took the pain to explain each single edit I made). Enough said, everyone can see your attitude for what it is. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am an inclusivist, therefore I would oppose abject deletion. However, I do agree that the section needs some reformation... QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well abject deletion has already taken place, if you look at the history of the article in the past 2 weeks. I'm waiting for the other regular editors of this article to find out (not everybody spends all their days and nights on Wikipedia) and express their thoughts here when they discover that one single editor has deleted or removed most of their work. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't spend "all my days and nights on Wikipedia" I was sunning it large earlier and have a handsome tan to boot. My request for assistance was certainly not malicious, but rather an indication that I was very alarmed by the edits you had made which seemed to undo much of the work I'd done in condensing and sourcing it, and the sheer aggression of your edit summaries that you'd be the type to engage in an edit war if I personally reverted you. As for your "everyone can see your attitude for what it is", you're looking in a mirror pal. You're a nasty, disgruntled piece of work who has rather cast an unwanted black cloud over what were blue skies of the joy of promoting this article. Please get on with something new, why not expand Gottingen? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've restored your demographics section and while impressive, the reason why I condensed it was because I believed all of those tables were too excessive for the article and I don't think the average reader will be as statistically inclined as yourself. I think is warbles too much and if it was ever proposed for FA I'm pretty sure others would pick up on it. The by district section is different as it constitutes the city makeup and if you look at each section it is pretty basic and easy to read. Your attitude over this though has been most appalling. If you don't like your work being edited don't edit wikipedia. I'm leaving it as it is for now, but if it is ever proposed for FA both demo and cityscape will have to be condensed sensibly.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Civic Services subsection proposal
Given it is now mandatory to propose a change prior to executing it, I propose the creation of a Civic Services subsection, within the Administration section. This subsection would consist of sub-subsections Emergency Services (sub-sub-subsections for law enforcement and fire department), Healthcare, Maintenance, and Transport. What consensus can we reach? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Religion
Sorry, I should fix things rather than complaining, but that would be much more work :|, so listing my queries, hoping someone will try to make things better.

Almost everything, even the cited figures about religious affiliation, are about France in general, not Paris. Furthermore the following points are put in such a shortish form that they are rather misleading.
 * "Political instability in the Third Republic was a reflection of fundamental differences between the Church and the society.". Stated this way, that is arguably wrong, and I doubt anyone who does not already know that episode can get any idea of what it is about.
 * "the French Constitution makes no mention of the religious affiliations of its people and allows the freedom to practice any religion of their choice provided it was done as a private matter" I think law scholars that the more or less consider the "privateness" of religion as a constitutional principle by, but the Constitution does not really say as much (just: "La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l'égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d'origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances.") This is rather the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State.
 * "the state is still involved in the funding of Christian schools." Technically, the State funds "private school under contract with the State". Most of them are catholic for historical reasons, but I do not think that any official text states that it should be the case. At least one of them is muslim. --Superzoulou (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to know more about the subject that I do, feel free to contribute and improve it..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that we can get rid of much of this section, as it is rather off-topic, but I do not know what I should add instead. I suppose there are quite a lot of studies that can be used as source for the religious history of Paris, but I have not read them. And there does not seem to be any serious survey of the religious practices in Paris nowadays, while it would probably be the most relevant thing to add. Is it ok if I just delete things ? --Superzoulou (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's relevant, some of the background might not seem so but the info on the Muslim and Jewish population and the mention of the churches is necessary. Agree though that it would be good to obtain some data directly on religion in the city, perhaps our resident statistics expert can help out on that one..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, real data about Jews and Muslims are in the demographics section (#immigration). I do not know exactly how it should be structured. To me, it would make sense to make "religion" a subsection of demographics. --Superzoulou (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Clichés
I think Dr Blofeld (since he's now the owner of this article) forgot to mention the demimondaines, prostitution, French Cancan, Pigalle and the Moulin Rouge in the lead of the article. It's not clichéesque enough. Please add more. On an air of accordion of course. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You need some serious lessons in WP:AGF and "Treat others as you'd expect to be treated".♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Since Dr. B won't be editing this article again.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 13:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Done?? I'm sorry but there needs to be a discussion about this major rewriting by a single editor. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly we should not have too much of this sort of thing (and actually, hedonistic lifestyle is much more readily associated with the 18th than the the 19th century). I would agree that the previous version is better. I do not think we need to enter into specifics like Paris hostsLibération or the basketball team Paris-Levallois Basket (not in Paris proper, by the way). It tends to dilute the general idea, which is that the Paris region concentrates an overwhelming majority of the cultural and economic institutions of national importance.--Superzoulou (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead of the article one month ago: Lead of the article now, after Dr Blofeld rewrote most of the article:

Ah, it seems that our many-named suburban revisionist is back. My only criticism about the introduction is that it is overly-detailed: leave details like 'Michelin-starred' to their own section (in this case, Cuisine), yet there's nothing wrong with including a phrase outlining Paris' culinary reputation and other traits if they are described in detail later in the article. And, by the way, who blanket-converted this article into American English? Cheers. THE PROMENADER  06:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering Paris is an extremely detailed and complex city I think the lead is a damn good one. I'm guessing you're another of the disgruntled ones...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ThePromenader, where is there american english? I have tried to remove it all.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Namely the name of the city in its possessive state: this should be "Paris'" and not American "Paris's". I haven't checked the rest yet. THE PROMENADER  05:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

These edits were clearly done with good intentions, but they seem really problematic to me: some things are inaccurate, some things are rather unimportant, and it mixes up Paris and Paris urban area:
 * "450 kilometres (280 mi) southeast of London, 287 kilometres (178 mi) south of Calais, 774 kilometres (481 mi) north of Marseilles, and 135 kilometres (84 mi) southeast of Rouen by road."
 * If you speak English and do not know where Paris is, I do not know why you should care where it is located relative to much smaller cities like Rouen or Marseille.


 * "Oval in shape, it covers an area of about 87 square kilometres (34 sq mi) and is surrounded by an orbital motorway."
 * Actually, Paris is about 100 sq km within its adminsitrative limits. Besides, some parts of the lead assume that Paris = Paris urban area. In this case, it is much bigger than that.


 * "Countless books and novels have been set in Paris, including Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Les Misérables and Honoré de Balzac's La Comédie Humaine, classics of French literature."
 * Countless books and novels have been set in all major cities. Besides, La Comédie humaine is not a book, and only some parts of it are set in Paris.


 * "Although, the classical Conservatoire de Musique de Paris was founded in 1795, the city is better known musically for its Bal-musette and gypsy jazz music, with the accordion being a musical icon of the city."
 * That could be relevant in a 1950 travel guide, but that does not convey a very accurate picture of the Parisian musical scene, to say the least.
 * It is associated with it though and the accordion is strongly associated with Paris. But I agree it needs more on contemporary music in Paris. Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 16:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Associated by whom ? Image of Paris in the mass media may be an interesting topic, but I do not think it should be given too much emphasis in a general article. Fortunately, French cuisine does not start with "French cuisine is known for its use of frogs and snails" :). --Superzoulou (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "In the 19th Century Paris became known for the hedonistic lifestyle of some of its inhabitants, with the invention of the can-can, the rise of the demimondaines, and the proliferation of institutions such as the Moulin Rouge."
 * Not very accurate.


 * "In education, Paris contains several of France's most prestigious universities and high-schools such as the University of Paris (Sorbonne), ParisTech, Lycée Louis-le-Grand, Lycée Henri-IV, and many others".
 * That is a strange medley. The University of Paris has been abolished 40 years ago.


 * "It has numerous newspapers, magazines and publications including Le Monde, Le Figaro, Libération, and Le Parisien, and the Paris-based Agence France-Presse is France's oldest, and one of the world's oldest, continually operating news agencies."
 * As the article is primarily intended to serve people who know next to nothing about Paris, I do not think naming names is of great help. The key point is rather that Paris is home to all major media companies and publishing houses in France.


 * "Paris has the largest healthcare system for a city in Europe, overlooked by the Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) which employs more than 90,000 people in 44 hospitals, treating some 5.8 million patients annually."
 * Why should we enter into technicalities about the healthcare system ? That is rather complex, and slightly misrepresneted by this sentence. Anyway, there is nothing remarkable that one of the largest cities in Europe has one of the largest helthcare systems in Europe.


 * Paris is a major rail, highway, and air transport hub, overseen by the Syndicat des transports d'Île-de-France (STIF).
 * The STIF does not oversee highways or airports. Besides, if you want a general, tourist friendly article, I do not see why you need that things about the SITF (a somewhat complex technocratic structure). --Superzoulou (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you see problems, you change them, that's the beauty of wikipedia! Marseilles and Rouen I think are relevant for location in Paris though. Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 16:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is difficucult to do a good synthetic text. My general point is that the former version was better. And i really have no idea how it makes sense to locate Paris relative to Rouen :|

Why that long list of "things to do" by arrondissement ?
I fail to understand what value is added in that long list of tourist attractions divided in twenty subsections by arrondissement.

While I recognize the work which has been done, Wikipedia isn't the Lonely Planet. I'm very pleased to learn tourists can buy stuff at Louis Vuitton's store on the Champs-Elysées or can visit the Wax Museum of Musée Grévin, but there are other sections in the article for this and we don't need to emphasize the general article of Paris with so many details. This should be moved to a spectic article about "Visitor attractions in Paris by arrondisement" or something. Especially that arrondissements in Paris are very soft administrative divisions with low identity. The Ternes neighbourhood and the Epinettes neighbourhood are totally different in identity despite being both in the 17th arrondissement.

Paris is before everything the economical capital with the largest metropolitan GDP in Europe. For instance, it hosts more Fortune Global 500 corporations than London or New York. This aspect is totally disolved in a long catalogue of "things to do" for Paris visitors. I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia... I was probably wrong. --Metropolitan (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * " it hosts more Fortune Global 500 corporations than London or New York" -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds  14:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There are 30 Fortune Global 500 corporations in the metropolitan area of Paris (19 in the city proprer): Fortune Global 500 official website. Metropolitan areas or city proper, Paris is always ahead of London and NYC. --Metropolitan (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the relevant articles, there are 33 in Paris and 45 in NYC.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "According to the relevant articles". What's more relevant than the official list from the official Fortune Global 500 website? --Metropolitan (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright the official Fortune Global 500 list mentions 22 in the state of New York (18 in NYC, 1 in Armonk, Newark, Purchase, White Plains), 4 in New Jersey (Franklin Lakes, Morris Township, New Brunswick, Whitehouse station) and 3 in Connecticut (2 in Hartford, 1 in Fairfield). that makes 29 for the 3 US states. In the Paris metropolitan area, there are exactly 30 according to the same official website (19 in Paris proper, 3 in Courbevoie, 2 in Boulogne-Billancourt and Rueil-Malmaison, 1 in Clichy, Issy-les-Moulineaux, Levallois-Perret, Roissy). Paris hosts more of them both within its administrative borders and at the metro area level. This is from most recent list published by Global 500. --Metropolitan (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Metropolitan, I already created an article (Landmarks in the City of Paris) to move all the superfluous touristic content of Dr Blofeld, and restored many useful information about the current (2013, not French cancan 19th century) Paris, its economy in the globalization, its modern urban structures with its sprawling suburbs and new districts (La Défense, Val de Seine, Plaine de France, etc.), but all of it was reverted by one of his friends after he had complained to another friend . We are faced with someone who has decided to introduce a clear bias in this article (Paris, the city of love, accordion, French cancan, Amélie, etc.) and who is networking with some friends to keep his biased view of Paris, with disregard for the modern Paris that doesn't fit in the Amélie picture. We must call the attention of as many people as possible on this. A major world city like Paris doesn't deserve a touristic article full of clichés. When people open this article, they don't expect to find "voulez-vous coucher avec moi" and other such clichés. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Paris is a very touristy city, and many people know it mostly for the Eiffel Tower and a handful of clichés, and just want more of that. Have a look at the feedback....
 * That said, this is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. I think we should make clear that for travel-oriented content readers should refer to.

--Superzoulou (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs condensing I think. Not a problem, give me a few days. Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 19:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I left my two cents about this in the Tourist Guide section above. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  06:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Condensed. I guarantee that many article visitors will find that one of the most valuable parts of the article, I myself found it to be of tremendous use to myself in getting the basics of city layout, and wikipedia's function is undeniably as a travel guide to many people in an initial read for the background to the city. NOTTRAVEL doesn't change the fact that tons of people visit wikipedia to get a background on the cityscape of a city. It has millions of tourists a year. I think the article does its job wonderfully.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Demographics
I restored the bloated section purely because of your argument for the bloated arrondissements. As I've now cut that section considerably, the demographics section looks way too big and unnecessary, especially as it has its own article. Hardly childish, just that it is no longer feasible to keep it as it affects the article balance. Please change your attitude, it isn't doing you any favours whatsoever.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we more about demographics - what is more important about a city than who lives there ? - but we may need to change the emphasis. I would be more more concise about the density, and I would add a few things about age, incomes, and perhaps also about professional activities, household size and this kind of things.--Superzoulou (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There was way too much information included in that rather bloated section. There is already a separate article on the subject, so only the salient points need to be covered, rather than needlessly repeating huge swathes of text from elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Way too long based on what ? Frankly, I think the bloated part is still "cityscape" (especially "landmarks by district"). It is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. fr:Paris is far from perfect, but I think it achieves a reasonably good balance across topics. --Superzoulou (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cityscape is one of the most important sections in city articles and a decent article should adequately covers the most notable landmarks. For a city like Paris to cover all 20 city districts with some information naturally it isn't going to be short, but I've done a good job condensing it down with my details in the sister article. And I did the same with Demographics, only Der Stat can't be bothered to integrate the information. I had planned on doing it but was reverted. He's the one with the fetish, why doesn't he do it?♦ Ser Datistiker  17:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Way to long based on the rest of the article, which it distorts, having so much text on this topic. It may be vaguely fascinating to those with a statistic fetish, but is needless for most people, especially when it has its own article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the dedicated article is way too short, but the demographics section can be longer I think. Beside, it was one of the few things that was tolerably well organized in the article. I am sorry to tell this, I am aware that handling vast topics such as a large city is a daunting task, but this article is such a mess that I doubt there we can really distort it. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to what SchroCat claimed, that information is not contained in the Demographics of Paris article, so deleting it as Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer (he uses 2 user accounts, BEWARE) has done means deleting it from the entire Wikipedia, and that's not acceptable. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you complete the discussion BEFORE you try and force the information in. I'm surprised that we have an article about the demographics of Paris that doesn't include this information? Why is that? - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It did Schrod, check the history of it. I "dumped" it in the article while I was editing Paris and intended fully intergrating the text within a day but our disgruntled German friend reverted it and hasn't bothered to try to intergrate the information himself. I'm not going to do it, he'll revert it. He's just causing trouble, the text is available in the edit history of both articles which he should add into the sister article. If he refuses it, then that's his problem, decent information goes to waste.♦ Ser Datistiker  17:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask your friend Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer to do exactly that?? Why doesn't he complete the discussion before cutting and deleting 80% of the article? One single editor cutting and rewriting 80% of the Paris article in one month, crazy! Der Statistiker (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's called article development, which is why it was improved sufficiently in that time to move for something rather poor to something GA rated. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't edit war, it's rather childish while there is a discussion underway on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion started before Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer started his crazy cuts in the articles. So I'm waiting for you to also revert all the edits by your friend Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer while the discussion is underway. Waiting... Der Statistiker (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe you have reverted again, despite the ongoing discussion. That is uncivil behavior and it is highly unlikely that you will ever manage to reach a consensus with others if you do not at least attempt to 'play nice'. I strongly suggest you do not revert again: you have already breached WP:3RR and it would be unwise to make it a fifth revert. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And I can't believe you have again deleted some content from this article that cannot be found anywhere else on Wikipedia, just because you don't like stats (the lousiest excuse I've ever seen in the many years spent on Wikipedia!). Rest assured that this matter won't be dusted under the carpet. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It did exist but you reverted it rather than integrate it. You are still most welcome to edit the Demographics of Paris article and restore it there. Stop causing trouble and get on with something, our worlds don't revolve around Paris like yours.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The one who should stop causing trouble is YOU, Dr Blofeld (aka Tibetan Prayer). I discover you have also entirely rewritten the article Bangui, adding such encyclopedic bits as: "One visitor to the city in during this period remarked that "It was the only place in the world where I have seen almost the entire French community drunk at 10 o'clock in the morning."" . Der Statistiker (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we bring the discussion back to this article, please? -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's called an article expansion from something shoddy to something of sourced quality... And that quote gives an interesting insight into French colonial rule in the city and is perfectly acceptable, not that this has anything to do with Paris. Are you going to insult everything else I've ever done too, or are you going to drop your odious attitude and try to be more amicable? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A dubious quote from one traveler who may have had ulterior motives and whose statement cannot be checked. Very encyclopedic. Just as encyclopedic as your claims in the lead of this article that Paris is "better known musically" for the... bal-musette (!), and that the accordion is a musical icon of the city (I think you also forgot to mention the guillotine in the lead, to complete the collection of clichés). Der Statistiker (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of Karma Der Stat? "Treat others as you'd yourself expect to be treated", "If you haven't got anything nice to say don't say anything at all. I'm guessing you're a small German lad with a lot of life lessons to learn. If you're not young and have grown into an odious old man I feel rather sorry for you that you don't know how to interact with people.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem instead of addressing the issues with your edits that I'm listing? Interesting. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What happened to this article?
WTF? After finally finding the time to really read the article updates, I am disappointed for many reasons: a) the intro is ~way~ too long and filled with overly wordy and unneeded information that should appear later in the article. b) it reads like a self-aggrandisizing tourist guide c) this article isn't a p*ssing contest with other big cities, so save expressions like "if it was a country, it would be bigger than..." d) so much has been removed - city demographics are not important? There's no other city with demographics like Paris', and this needs explanation. e) 'Tourist attractions by arrondissement' - first off, this is impractical (Paris is visited by 'quarter', not by its administrative borders), and this is not a tourist guide. This section should be in an article of its own.

I'm sure I missed out on a few other 'improvements', but enough for now. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  06:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently, we have one editor here who doesn't like demographics, and he's supported by a friend of his. I still fail to understand the logic of adding grotesque clichés such as bal-musette, accordion, and demimondaines (!), but cutting valuable information about demographics, urban districts (which don't overlap with arrondissements), and administration. And to think that this article has been upgraded to "good article" status... which says a lot about the lack of oversight and control by the people in charge of managing that "award". No serious encyclopedia like Britannica for example would accept the article as it stands now. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * About your point d), Dr Blofeld responded this on my talk page ("The article was 128kb before Gilderien and I started, it got to 178kb at some point and is now 158kb. That is indicative of a surplus of information rather than a deletions. I've put the original article in User:Dr. Blofeld/Paris and as far as I can see virtually all of the content in it is in the current article we have on it."), which I found rather funny. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * About your point e), I already created an article of its own for it (Landmarks in the City of Paris), and moved the content there, but it was moved back to the Paris article by a friend of Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer. The guy networks a lot behind the scenes, beware. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * With regard to the "demimondaines", at least, you did ask me to put that in, so I did.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 12:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Very funny. How old are you? Der Statistiker (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't ask about my age. Although I would guess I am somewhat younger than you.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 12:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Der Statistiker, could you please reign back on you overly-aggressive language and incivility to others please. I'm sure it's not helping the situation and driving rather divisive wedges between all editors. This is just not acceptable, and neither is this edit summary. If you can't be constructive and move forward with further development on this article, then I am not sure that a consensus-led and collegiate project is going to be the best form of outlet for you. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"And to think that this article has been upgraded to "good article" status... which says a lot about the lack of oversight and control by the people in charge of managing that "award". " You've just insulted one of the most respected editors on the website Der Stat. Anybody worth anything on here knows this. Your comment about Tim as an editor/reviewer is like telling the late Roger Ebert that he's useless at film reviewing. Such comments only cause further embarrassment to yourself and only reiterates further how unfounded your accusations and claims that I've degraded the article are. You're a bitter, twisted troll who has no place here. Other editors, if you really want to progress with this, which I think you do, I strongly suggest you detach yourselves from association with this troll and communicate with me /us in a spirit of cooperation. Again I ask you all to compare User:Dr. Blofeld/Paris with this article, and you'll see that the majority of the text is intact and that any information in the demo, admin and education sections which was cut still exists in sister articles. This article is far superior to the Britannica article in terms of readability and flow, and that's largely due to the initial work done on this by the article writers which meant that dramatic changes were not really needed, only sourcing, condensing and balancing out with new info.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As to Promenade, "I am disappointed for many reasons: a) the intro is ~way~ too long and filled with overly wordy and unneeded information that should appear later in the article." The information does all appear later in the article, it is an effective summary of the entire article. Did you really bother to read it all?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems here that we have two camps of editors, each firmly rooted in their respective positions. This is not productive, it is even counterproductive. Perhaps this article was promoted to GA status because it 'seems' to fulfill that standard, but not even the most respected editors can know everything about everything, so it could be difficult to judge this article for its content if its subject matter is unknown to the 'judging' editor. I already have my doubts about the GA status because the intro has ~no references at all~ - this is just lazy. Was this article promoted before or after the article was rewritten? THE PROMENADER  14:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Detail appearing later in the article is not needed in the intro. The intro should be a global outline of the article to come. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  14:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"I already have my doubts about the GA status because the intro has ~no references at all~ - this is just lazy." You've just shown yourself to not be worthy of commenting on articles as any editor here who knows anything about editing knows that the lead should NOT be sourced unless the claims are contentious or very strong claims. Look around our featured articles And the lead should adequately summarize the whole article which this now does. Read WP:LEAD. And if you'd really bothered to look at how this article developed you'd see that the lead was only expanded long time after it was written and is the most recent development of it. We can go back to the original lead, I doubt you'd get support for it. The current lead is a little too long I think, but I don't see how it puts undue weight on any one aspect of the city and does summarize the article very well I think.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Blofeld, your first preoccuptation seems to be denigrating the 'qualification' of editors not sharing your point of view - even before I know what that POV is. Show me where it says that introductions are exempt from providing sources. I was a major contributor in this article's development, so perhaps you should do some research of your own before throwing accusations. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  14:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:LEADCITE. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I read it - but passages like "Paris and the Paris region account for more than 30 per cent of the gross domestic product of France and their city GDP is one of the largest in the world" are not 'generalist' descriptions. And it is clearly stated that introductions are not exempt from backing up sources - it says also that introductions generally should not contain challengable claims. THE PROMENADER  14:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That could be sourced but it isn't detrimental to it being a GA.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The information is in the Economy section, where it is supported by a citation - footnote 98. This is entirely acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You've probably put a lot of good work into the article Promenader. And if you have I think you can see that I haven't made too many dramatic changes to the body exception the additions and a cut of the overly long Admin and Demo sections. Yes, it is possible we overlooked certain things and that as a Parisian yourself you can help us further improve this so please do. The article is technically fine for GA. Is it perfect? No. If you genuinely want to help further improve this, stop implying that we're lazy and insulting the work that has gone into it but start working with us to further improve it, thanks.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what else you can call replacing an intro that is correctly referenced with detailed text containing non-referenced bold claims. Your condescending tone does not help matters, as it implies both ownership and superior knowledge, and I doubt that you even know who I am, the extent of my knowledge, or even my ideas about what a 'good' article about this subject should look like. I see quite a bit of heat in the arguments above, but I have, and will have, no part in that. I have just stated my views on those changes to this article that I do not consider an improvement. How about focusing our discussion on that? For the record, very little of the intro and the erradicated Demography section was written by me, although the plans were my work. Cheers. THE PROMENADER   15:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Promenader, you could be France's leading expert on Parisian studies at Sorbonne, it doesn't change the fact that we know what we're talking about in relation to what constitutes a GA article. I'm not disputing that you know more about Paris than I do, but if you want to see the article improve you're going to have to offer constructive criticism and work with me towards improving it and not resort to the dirty, rotten approach resorting to personal attacks as Der Stat has been doing. If you want to provide some pointers on what you think needs improvement, without insulting the current articles, and are indeed willing to contribute, you're most welcome. But the demography section was definitely too long for the article in relation to the rest of it, and your work is now in Demographics of Paris, nothing has been lost. but why does the article need all of those big tables? If you believe some the text filtered out was of vital importance, we can discuss it and reintroduce some of it, but the whole section was definitely too long for a typical city demo article as was the admin section.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: It is of my opinion that it would be a good idea to follow the example of the French version of this article (currently FA) - that would be the easiest way to make this an FA article as well. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  15:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it's quite good and covers more angles on Paris than this does. If you're willing to commit your apparent expertise on this in helping get to FA I'd be happy to assist you. But we have to work together and not against each other, OK? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PPS: Apologies, I stand corrected: the former introduction did indeed have no citations or references. THE PROMENADER  15:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Promenader, As per WP:LEADCITE, a lead does not have to carry citations, as long as the text that it summarises in the article is supported by reliable sources. Perhaps it would be helpful if you could identify those parts of the lead which you feel are not supported elsewhere in the article: these points can then be addressed individually, with citations included in the text, or the lead's text altered appropriately. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is a great pity that we have disputes developing here by a number of editors who have made excellent contributions to the article in the past. I am particularly surprised at the comments concerning the lead. I must say I was one of those who felt the lead we had a month or so ago was less informative than it should have been. It seemed to me that details such as the French name for female inhabitants of the city were rather strange there. Several of us worked in good faith towards developing a better sourced article and one which presented all the essential facts. (In regard to sourcing the lead, if I remember correctly not a single source was given in the earlier versions - which in my mind is the correct approach anyway.) If some editors feel that these objectives have not been reached, then I would suggest constructive editing rather than disputes on the talk page would be more helpful. Those criticizing the GA status of the article might also do well to look at other European capitals with GA status or better, especially in regard to the lead and the general coverage of the articles. I certainly agree that further improvements could be made but let's try to make them in a spirit of cooperation.--Ipigott (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree about the unnecessary linguistic bits regarding the names of the Parisians in the lead, which is why I removed it, but ShroCat reverted my edit and put it back in the lead without even an explanation . Der Statistiker (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead
I had a look at the lead of London. It may not be perfect (especially the absurdly precise population figure and the cherry-picked, poorly sourced claim about tourism), but I like the way it avoids trivia or outdated claims, like this article (no "London is well known for its red buses and black taxis." or "Though it is home to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, it is better known for Queen Victoria, the most powerful woman in the World."). So, I tried, a quick new draft. Not yet very good for sure, but I think its emphasizes the more important points.

"Paris is the capital and most populous city of France. It is situated on the river Seine, in the northern centre of the country, at the heart of the Île-de-France region.

Since the Middle Ages, Paris has been by far the most populous city in France, and one of the most influential in Europe. The city of Paris has an area of about 100 sq km and a population of about 2.3 million. Its much larger urban area is home to about 10 million people, one of the largest in the European Union along with London.

Being the capital of a long centralized country, Paris concentrates a high number of political, cultural and scientifical institutions, and most major French companies are headquartered in Paris or its inner suburbs. The Paris region account for more than 30% of the gross domestic product of France and have one of the largest city GDPs in the world, with €607 billion (US$845 billion) in 2011. Known for its rich architectural and cultural heritage, it is also one of the world's leading tourism destination."


 * I am not sure about "hosting four UNESCO World Heritage Sites" that appears in both versions. Apparently, those four sites, are the Seine enbankments, Versailles, Fontainebleau and Provins. Just one of them is in Paris. Fontainebleau and Provins are not even in Paris "unité urbaine". I am not sure about the "green and highly liveable", as this is based either on personal opinion or on dubious surveys (most non-Parisian French will tell you that Paris is an awful place to live in :). --Superzoulou (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Waaaay too short: covers far too little about the article and does not summarise enough information about Paris. You may as well just ask for the GA status to be removed now, if that's the way you plan to go. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A truly great lead adequately summarizes the content in most of the sections of the article. The lead already does that. It could be trimmed down a bit but given that it is a very big article proportionally the lead looks nearer the length it should be. The lead should be informative, covering all of the article bones. The lead you've suggested is nowhere near cutting the mustard.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how mentioning bal-musette, accordion, and demimondaines in the lead summarizes the article. Are there sections in the article devoted to bal-musette, accordion, and demimondaines? As for the GA status, I'm ok if we ask for it to be removed. The GA status adds nothing to the article, and is counter-productive. It's like those AAA ratings that are meaningless and often misleading. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I suggest you start a community-wide consensus to have the whole GA system overturned then. As they currently represent the community consensus on standards on Wikipedia, I'm somewhat surprised that you want to downgrade an article to be...? What? something closer to how you want it to be? So far I've seen nothing positive from you about the changes and nothing but attempts to force the article back into the shape you want it to be, regardless of the rest of the community. I get the impression that somehow you consider that you have a greater say over the course of the argument than anyone else and that it somehow must adhere to your rule. I suggest you drop the ownership bit and start acting in a collegiate and consensus-led way in order to IMPROVE the article and not revert it back to the previous version. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, your bluster is failing to impress anyone. I suggest (since you suggest a lot) that you drop the patronizing tone with the editors who disagree with you and your protégé Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer. This is not DYK here. As for acting in a collegiate way, Superzoulou proposes a new and more concise lead, which although not perfect looks much better to me than the currently bloated and clichéesque lead, and the first thing you and Dr Blofeld do is to reject it out of hand. Collegiate indeed. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not patronising anyone, and there is no "bluster" here at all: just a straightforward comment that I think your approach and behaviour here have been poor. You have edit warred, been uncivil and abusive and you have said that you would rather revert the article back from a Good Article status to something you would prefer. You are acting in breach of WP:OWN. My judgment of Superzoulou's suggested lead was based on WP:LEAD, rather than on any personal preference. As I said, it "covers far too little about the article and does not summarise enough information about Paris". I stand by that perfectly factual and correct statement. - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Stat, have you read WP:LEAD? The proposed one is far, far too short for such an important and lengthy topic.-- Gilderien Converse&#124;List of good deeds 18:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is just a draft and clearly, it can be expanded. But please understand that most of what was added to the lead is really bad. We are better off we something short than with something irrelevant. Really, what do we learn from the longest version of the lead. That Paris was the focal point of the 1848 revolution ? It it the focal point of so many things in the French history that it seems really out of place. And I doubt that someone with no knowledge of Paris will have any knowledge about the French 1848 Revolution anyway. That it has more Michelin starred restaurants than any other city in the World ? That is wrong. That it has the largest health system in Europe ? That is close to meaningless. That it has four airports, including 2 international ones ? I do not think it is correct. At the very least, it is so vague that is is more misleading than useful. Numerous books, including La Comédie humaine (sic) are set in Paris ? So what, should we state in the lead of London that many books, including Dicken's were set in London ? It has "over 2,000 km (1,243 mi) of highways and motorways" ? According to what definition of Paris ? Certainly not the usual one. --Superzoulou (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And your suggested lead is superior to this?? Your suggestion is really bad. As for "It has "over 2,000 km (1,243 mi) of highways and motorways" ?" if you check the history that was there before I started.. "That it has more Michelin starred restaurants than any other city in the World ? That is wrong." Seems to be Tokyo. That you couldn't edit errors known to you illustrates that you are not here to be constructive. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am certainly suggesting, that the both the ancient version or my proposed version are better than the current one. I have not checked the history. Frankly, I do not care about who wrote what, I am just trying to reduce that amound of approximate, false or trivial information.
 * We need a "proof" to claim that Paris has the city with most Michelin stars, not to remove an unsourced, non-obvious claim, but anyway, it is rather easy to check: Paris: 85, Tokyo: 242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superzoulou (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I think most people would decide the current lead is far better than both of them. Furthermore, that, when pointed out, was correct before you even made the comment here.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Gilderien (in answer to your question several paragraphs back): Superzoulou's proposal for a lead is a bit too short, but far closer to where the lead should be compared to the current bloated (and clichéesque) lead. I would perhaps add 3 or 4 more sentences in Superzoulou's lead, in particular about the international role of Paris, the presence of international organizations (UNESCO, OECD, International Chamber of Commerce, Paris Club) and some very influential NGOs (Médecins Sans Frontières for example). Der Statistiker (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think that adding a couple of sentences to Superzoulou's proposal adequately sums up the article? The current version may be slightly too long, but I'd reduce that by a couple of sentences: at least it makes the effort to adhere to WP:LEAD by summarising the article as a whole, not just touching on a couple of points. - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lead could be condensed a little, but adding a few sentences would not nearly be enough to do justice to the article - per WP:LEADLENGTH this article should have a lead of four paragraphs, one less than the current five.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions  20:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a legal code, and I'm always wary of people who abuse the WP: links to force their point. There are general guidelines, and there is also, thanks God, the editors' common sense. Obviously an article like Paris, covering such a vast subject, cannot sum up all the parts of it in the lead, as that would be both too long and quite tiresome for the readers. When I open the United Kingdom article, I don't find all the sections of that article summed up in the lead. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dr. ☠ Blofeld, I have corrected several factual mistakes in this article, and I was actually the onoe who first corrected this one in the cuisine section. But my point here is not about one particular statement, it is about the general form of the lead. I was trying to give you a feel of what is problematic with it, not to list every single issue.
 * @Gildderien. Yes, it was corrected, thanks for that, but I do not think you fully get the issue. It is not just that it does not look good, it is that it is inaccurate. It would sound marvelous, very appealing to most readers, it would not be the more accurate for that. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So if it were not inaccurate would it be better than it was before? I am checking it now.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @DS. The guidelines are there for a reason and although you may wish to avoid them in order to write something that pleases you and you alone, I am always rather wary of people who wish to force their own pathways for no good reason. A well-written lead can obviously summarise an article: look at some of the longer FAs and you'll see just that. To claim that a full lead is "quite tiresome for the readers" is, I'm afraid, simply laughable and it should carry a tag as being obvious POV nonsense. As to the UK article: we're not talking about that, we're talking about the Paris article, which is a standard or so above the UK one.
 * @SZ. Yes, there may be corrections to make in the main lead - feel free to correct them, as you have been doing already, but your previous version was, I'm afraid, not fit for purpose. The current one can be cleaned up in terms of a couple of facts, and could probably be slimmed down by a sentence or two, but it does cover most of the main points of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Der Statistiker, au contraire. A lead can and should summarise all the main sections of an article - it could be construed as patronising to assume a reader could not manage to read four or five paragraphs on a subject they wish to learn about.-- Gilderien Talk to me&#124;List of good deeds 20:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Superzoulou: I think there are two issues with the current lead: a- it's too long, and b- it's a collection of clichés, anecdotes, tourist tips, or even plain factually wrong information. And I think we both agree on the fact that it's point b that is the most problematic. It's important to turn the focus on that, otherwise we're going to get bogged down in an arcane discussion about lead's length, full of WP: links. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Great job on ignoring people whose opinions you don't want to listen too. Very collegiate, very consensus building! At least Superzoulou is trying to be constructive here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lead by almost 2kb, looks fine now in my opinion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it is much better. There are still some points that I find a bit strange though:


 * "four UNESCO sites." There is only one inside Paris, one in the Paris built-up area, and two thers in the Ile-de-France region, but in more distnant places. I would rather remove it than having to explain it all.
 * "An important settlement for more than two millennia, Paris had become, by the 12th century, one of Europe's foremost centres of learning and the arts and was the largest city in the Western world until the turn of the 18th century. Paris was the focal point for the French Revolution and the 1848 Revolution. Paris is today one of the world's leading business and cultural centres and its influences in politics, education, entertainment, media, science, and the arts"
 * The sentences do not seem very well connected with each other.
 * "The largest city in the Western world until the turn of the 18th century. " would call for a start date (dont know it actually, I think it depends whether you include Islamic Spain)
 * "the focal point for the French Revolution and the 1848 Revolution.". Paris and Versailles were the focal point of all the French political history so it seems like an overkill. It was the starting point of the European 1848 Revolution, but not sure it can be adequately describe as the "focal point".
 * "Paris is a prominent centre in the arts, and has long been a city in which many artists came to learn their craft from the masters and to draw inspiration from its talented pool of artists." That is rather vague (when?) and potentially misleading, but I do not know how to rephrase it. In the 17th and 18th century, French artists went to Rome to learn their art, not the other way around.
 * Cusine. I suppose it is ok. But from a French perspective, it sounds a bit odd. Cuisine is one of the few domains where Paris dominance over the rest of France is not very clear.
 * "In education, Paris contains several of France's most prestigious universities such as the University of Paris (Sorbonne), ". The University of Paris has been abolished more the 40 years ago. I think the most accurate description would be "Many of France most prestigious universities and grandes écoles are located in Paris or its suburbs.
 * "Paris has the largest healthcare system for a city in Europe, overlooked by the Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) which treats some 5.8 million patients annually in 44 hospitals. " So what ? It has trivial administrative reasons.
 * "publications such as Le Monde, Le Figaro, Libération, and Le Parisien are based in the city" that may be misleading, most major newspapers and publishing houses are located in Paris, not just these ones.
 * "Paris is a major rail, highway, and air transport hub, overseen by the Syndicat des transports d'Île-de-France (STIF)", Iwe can remove the part about the STIF, as it is not very useful, and only half correct.
 * " with three orbital freeways: the Périphérique, the A86 motorway in the inner suburbs, and the Francilienne motorway in the outer suburbs." I find it bit strange to include that in the lead. Superzoulou (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, the article introduction should be a 'first impression' suitable for (an imaginary) someone parachuting into the city, a someone who knows nothing about where he's landing. The city's location (where he's parachuting to), the lie of the land, then perhaps a bit about when and how the city became important, then perhaps a bit about what we can find there today. I think the 'biggest', 'richest', and 'most famous' phrases can wait for later in the article - simply mentioning the city's 'specialties' (gastronomy, architecture, etc) will be enough for the intro. A bit of historical context for the above wouldn't hurt to help reader comprehension, either.
 * A few sentences of the intro are factually incorrect, as mentioned earlier, but this is an oversight easily remedied. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  22:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Intro suggestion.

 * Paris is the capital and most populous city of France. It is situated on a bend of the River Seine in the northern centre of the country, at the heart of the Île-de-France region. Oval in shape, it covers an area of about 87 km2: within its administrative limits of 20 arrondissements), Paris itself had a population of 2,234,105 in 2009, but it is the centre of a metropolitan area that, with its 12 million inhabitants, is one of the largest population centres in Europe.


 * An important settlement for more than two millennia, by the late 12th century Paris had become a walled cathedral city that was one of Europe's foremost centres of learning and the arts, and remained the largest city in the Western world until the turn of the 18th century. Paris became the centre of a web of rail transport connecting all regions of France from 1848, a development concretising the city's role as France's cultural centre and its role as national lead player in the industrial revolution. Paris today has become one of the world's major global cities, with one of the largest GDPs in the world, with €607 billion (US$845 billion) as of 2011. Most major French companies have headquarters in Paris or its inner suburbs.


 * Centuries of cultural and political development have brought Paris a great variety of musems, monuments and architectural styles; the most internationally-reknown of these is the Eiffel Tower that often itself serves as a symbol for the city. Because of its long history as an international centre for the arts, works by history's most famous painters can be found in museums such as the Louvre, Musée Picasso, and the Musée d'Orsay. Paris is also known for its culinary diversity and quality with its many famous restaurants, as well as its schools dedicated to the culinary arts. With its ready-to-wear and haute-couture collections, Paris is also a "Capital of Fashion" that draws thousands of the world's leading fashion icons twice-yearly. Paris today is one of the most visited cities in the world.

I think the above qualifies as a "global summary" that flows (not switching back and forth between business/arts) with a bit of added context to boot. It ain't perfect, it's just an example - Cheers. THE PROMENADER  07:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems indeed better structured to me, but Paris is 105 sq km. The Bois de Boulogne and Vincennes are part of Paris. Also, I do not see what the purpose of the "oval in shape". --Superzoulou (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's too vague, you need to mention some of the notable places and institutions. Nonetheless some of your sentences are good and I'll try to merge some of them into the lead.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  08:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, Blofeld, slow down - are you 'in charge' or something? The whole point of my posting this here (and not directly changing the intro myself) is to provoke discussion before we change anything.
 * That aside, yes, a few more institutions perhaps, there has to be a logic why some institutions are chosen over others, and whether they are known enough to be included: I think the reason for citing the Eiffel Tower is obvious. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  09:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, what is going on here? Blofeld, you reverted an earlier contribution, reinstated a minor edit I made this morning (three rings of motorways?), then cut and copied swaths of text from my suggestion into the lead yourself without even discussing it with me or anyone. That is no way to edit an article - there is a serious case of WP:OWN going on here. If this is the case, I'm going to get this article peer reviewed to bring more contributors and to better end what seems to be a silly tit-for-tat war. Cheers.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  09:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion is good but positive action is better. Be bold! No one is in charge here which means anyone can contribute to improving the article. Let's all work together on it.--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was following Superzolou's pointers about not including the roads in the opening section. I agreed with most of his points and made the changes. However, you seem to have again misinterpreted this as a negative thing. If this was a tit for tat war I'd have reverted Super and insisted on keeping the original long lead. I'm doing my best here to not OWN the article but be responsive to your suggestions and come up with a compromise. Please NO more snipes. There is far too much work to be doing elsewhere on the website to fuss over this like this. Constructive comments only please if you want to proceed. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What snipes? I am only reiterating the edits/reverts made to the article since this morning. Reverts with no explanation are not positive contributions. Point.
 * Positive action? Does that mean that any improvement I make to the article won't be reverted? Not by what I've seen here today. Therefore I prefer to discuss changes - the whole point of this thread - ~before~ making any major reverts/changes, so that we can all come up with a version that we all can relate to.
 * I am not aware of who did what in the seemingly long series of changes this article has gone through (over the past month?), I only saw what's there now and (reading above) saw that others also see how improvements can be made. This is the whole point of opening the discussion here, so let's talk about the article content itself - I'm not at all interested in 'who did/'owns' what'; since no-one here 'owns' anything, bickering like that only serves to annoy. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  11:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Who reverted?? I didn't. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see user Superzoulou had replaced "musée Picasso" with "musée de l'Art Moderne", and now it's back the way it was before. Now this is strange: I was persuaded that I had removed the "ring of three highways" phrase from the intro (it is really needless and means little even to the French living here), but there is no record of my having done so (scratching head), but needless to say that phrase is back too. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  14:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@The Promenader: Feel free to ask for a peer review. I'm glad to see that someone else has noticed that Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer behaves like the owner of this article (and several other articles, judging from the bitter conversations between him and other editors on his talk page and other editors' talk pages). Der Statistiker (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

And just as things quieter down, DS plants a size 12 boot right in the middle of the conversation just to mix it all up again. DS, of you can't say anything constructive or useful, then the path of silence is a great one to chose. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@The Promenader: Regarding the lead you've proposed, like the one proposed by Superzoulou, I think it's generally better than the current lead, if only because it's more concise, but I would modify the following points: PS: Despite SchoCat's nasty comment above, I reiterate my support for a peer review. There needs to be way more than just 6 editors commenting in here to reach some sort of common ground and better version of the article, especially considering that SchroCat seems only to be here to defend Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer no matter what (I haven't seen him make any proposal of his own yet). Der Statistiker (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * as Superzoulou already said, the City of Paris covers 105 km², not 87 km². In any case, I don't think the land area of the administrative city should be mentioned in the lead, as it is a bit misleading to people not familiar with the administrative nitty-gritties of Paris (the extent of the urbanized area is of course much larger than either 87 or 105 km²)
 * I would remove "walled Cathedral city". Paris was already walled before the 12th century (Roman Wall from the 4th century on the Cité island, 11st century wall on the Right Bank), and it was already a Cathedral city since the end of the Roman Empire
 * regarding the web of rail transport, I think it started in the 1830s already; if you mention that, you should also mention the web of road transport (the web of national roads centered on Paris was initiated under Louis XV, and made official under Napoleon I, with N1, N2, N3, etc.)
 * rather than "most major French companies", I would simply give the number of Global 500 companies headquartered in Paris (28 as of 2012 if I remember correctly), as this is more tangible and less controversial than "most major" (most French companies are headquartered in the provinces of course, and as for the major companies, the problem is the definition of what's a major company and what isn't). I had in fact added a sentence with the number of Global 500 companies in the lead, with a source, but it was reverted in early July by SchroCat.
 * regarding the last paragraph, I think it has an overly "museum city" feel to it. It can be rewritten bit to better reflect the current artistic trends/artistic scene, and not just the monuments/art of the past.
 * regarding the restaurants, every big metropolis is known for its culinary diversity, be it NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong, or even London now, so I'm not sure this is really specific to Paris or deserving a mention in the lead
 * one last point (and that's also worth for the current lead): I think the economy should be mentioned more in the lead. The current lead and your proposed lead have 5 to 10 time more space devoted to culture/art, especially historical art from past centuries, than to the economy of Paris, which I find unbalanced. It's great to know which museums are in Paris, but it would be also great to know what the city produces in the globalized economy, what are the economic sectors where the city is a world leader, what do investors come to Paris for, etc. Pretty hard to sum up in 2 or 3 brief sentences in the lead, but I think it's important to keep a balance between the Paris of the past (museums, monuments, etc.) and the Paris of today (economy, current cultural trends, current population and immigrants, etc.).Der Statistiker (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * DS, It is not a "nasty" comment. I am sick and tired of your constant ongoing whining, bitching and whinging. Everyone else if at least attempting to be constructive, apart from you (until your last post). You have taken every opportunity to try and run down the efforts of others simply because they don't agree with you. You have shown classic signs of WP:OWN, despite trying to accuse others of it - and accusing Blofeld, who was editing along the lines of people's comments: that's hardly own, it's building towards a consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is true that Paris was walled and "cathedralled" well before the 12th century, and that a wall and a cathedral was the basic feature of any medieval city in Western Europe, was Paris was one of the largest of them. I do not know exactly what should be said. Perhaps simply that Paris has been of the most populated cities in Europe since the 12th century ?
 * About companies: I think economically, France is still as much the capital of France as the major global city. What the Fortune 500 ranking does not tell is how important Paris is for France. I think it can be supplemented or replaced by CAC 40 headquarters (something like 35 out of 40, it seems). One limitation of both criteria is that it only includes listed companies.--Superzoulou (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * About "walled and cathedral'd" - so much to say in so few words; perhaps my version wasn't clear. Paris did have prior walls, but none as important as that begun by Philippe Auguste in 1190, and the construction of Notre-Dame had begun only a few years before that date. Cathedrals were the first sources of education and also a magnet for trade, so a cathedral town would draw many far-travellers whereas a 'normal' town wouldn't.
 * There was Saint Stephen before Notre-Dame. I think Paris was considered Europe's main theological centre in the 12th century, not just a standard cathedral city. I do not have the exact figure, but it seems that Paris demographic rise predates the construction of Notre Dame, p.8. --Superzoulou (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right. One thing that may have increased Paris' population was the early 12th-century filling in of its Rive Droite marshes (making new inhabitable land) and the creation of (well, annex of another market, really) the large Saint-Ladré market there. But I wasn't even going there in my text - worthy of mention? Paris was an island/Rive Gauche town before then. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  19:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1848 was also an important year for Paris' present-day state because of 'l'Étoile' of railway concessions deposed that year: Paris became the centre for everything from then, and the flow of immigration to the capital from that date on (upon the completion of the new railways) was indeed enormous. Paris became a mix of different 'ethnicities' emanating from all of France's regions; in prior years, it would be rare that an Auvergnat ever met a Marseillais. Paris may even owe its gastronomical reputation to its cultural diversity - so many specialties and products from so many regions (a result of centuries of previously distinct tradition) all of a sudden centred in one place. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  18:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Before going further. Moving on.
Okay, there seems to be a fair amount of heat here, and most of you presently reading seem to have a serious case of WP:OWN, perhaps not because of the article itself, but because of the frustration of certain (reverted) editors unable to make their contributions go through. In this sort of situation the quality of the article itself takes second place for, and almost forgotten by, editors seeking to feel that they 'won' something over another editor. In what way is this good for Wikipedia readers?

I don't know where the incivilities began, but I do see that one 'dominant' editor has rewritten the entire article almost entirely by himself. This is not cool at all: the least polite thing anyone could do before (even discussing!) a total rewrite is to contact the article's former contributors whose work, even if 'lacking' in the opinion of the contributor seeking a rewrite, got the article to where it was.

I could have a serious case of WP:OWN here too, because I was one of the major contributors to this article (since more than seven years!), but other editors eventually faded away, and bringing the article up to FA status with my increasingly busy schedule was too much for me alone. I don't mind at all a rewrite at all if the goal is indeed to bring the article up to FA status, or at least improve it - yet I expect my time here to be ~improved~ upon, not diminished. I have no version of "my" prior version on my hard drive (a practice especially despicable to other editors, especially when that text is used to revert to a reverter's "own" version), so I can't even exactly remember the how or who of what was written.

In short, all of the above doesn't matter: only the quality of the article the public sees at any given moment matters - and readers don't give a sh*t about the who or when of what's written, they only care about the quality/veracity of the article itself.

In spite of all the above, the article quality is still lacking in my opinion. The English is wonky in many places, there are factual errors that have even been maintained through all the reverting, the article often returns to a subject mentioned already in a previous paragraph, disrupting the 'flow' of the article (thus its usefulness), normally important topics have been reduced to a bare minimum whereas less important ones have been expanded... and yes, that bloated and out-of-context "attractions by arrondissement" section ~has~ to go. Again, I don't know or care who wrote or fought for what, this is just MHO about the article I see in front of me today.

How to move forward? I suggest taking the article as it is today as a base, and working on it section by section, discussing any desired changes on the talk page ~before~ any edits are made. I see this as the only civil way out of this mess short of a peer review.

Oh, and if I see any more blanket reverting or 'text protectionism', with or without discussion, I ~will~ be going straight to the peer review board. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  18:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "In this sort of situation the quality of the article itself takes second place for, and almost forgotten by, editors seeking to feel that they 'won' something over another editor. In what way is this good for Wikipedia readers?" If you think that anybody has reverted anything simply as a "winning contest" you are utterly clueless about why it was done and understand very little about what constitutes a good article.


 * "This is not cool at all: the least polite thing anyone could do before (even discussing!) a total rewrite is to contact the article's former contributors whose work, even if 'lacking' in the opinion of the contributor seeking a rewrite, got the article to where it was." You've said it yourself, you've just illustrated that you're suffering from a severe case of WP:OWN. The Paris article has had hundreds of edits, are we to contact every one of them and ask permission to edit? NOBODY has to ask "permission" from the "owners" to edit articles. "Please sir, may I say that Paris has 9000 restaurants, you cool with that" and wait a few weeks until you get a reply from at least 5 people "Certainly my young chap". Do you realize how absurd that sounds to experienced editors on here?


 * "Oh, and if I see any more blanket reverting or 'text protectionism', with or without discussion, I ~will~ be going straight to the peer review board." Issuing threats I see, perhaps the peer review with input from decent editors on here would educate you a little in what constitutes a good article as you've shown yourself to be bloody clueless about how English wikipedia and Good articles operate.


 * "The English is wonky". To a Frenchman or somebody with person article issues, yes, I see nothing grossly wrong with it. It isn't perfect and the quality could be improved, but it is by no means the disastrously poor article that you claim.


 * I refuse to discuss this further with individuals who will never cease to feel disgruntled about this article and have a mindset over it which is about as far removed from the spirit of wikipedia editing as you can get.. I've given you multiple chances to just drop it and only focus on the way forward but you continue to bring up your grievances and I really don't think there is any way we can move forward without the monkey on our back. Frankly I really don't care enough about this article to be willing to put up with all of your crap. Life is too short to waste a second more answering to this and spending hours discussing every sentence before feeling I can edit it. I'm taking this page and the article off of my watchlist and I feel I've pretty much done all I can to improve things and have not got anywhere. I'm out, my last post here, there's several million articles needing even the most basic of edits, this isn't worth it, even on an article as important as Paris. ♦  Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm an English-speaking Canadian who has been living in Paris since 1989, and I have written a book and several articles about this city, yet still I take all contributions from all contributors seriously. As should you. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  20:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you obviously care more about Paris and this article than I do so good luck reaching perfection with it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  20:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This is how your article version looked 7 years ago. User:ThePromenader/Paris 2005. I rest my case. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's about how it looked before I started work on it. Is that what you were trying to say? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  20:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is how it looked the day I first edited there - your link was from perhaps a few days after, and it links to a copy on my 'sandbox' page that I wanted to edit as a proposition for other contributors to the article. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  20:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

To respond to several comments posted this evening (I respond to all comments below, even though some comments were in the previous section; it would be best not to open new sections everyday, as this breaks the discussion and makes it hard to respond to people):
 * @ Superzoulou: I think we could just write "An important settlement for more than two millennia, by the late 12th century Paris had become one of Europe's foremost centres of learning and the arts, and remained the largest city in the Western world until the turn of the 18th century." That leaves away the "walled cathedral city", which is only partly correct, and which would take too long to explain fully in the lead (new walls encompassing both banks, new and larger cathedral). Thinking of it, we should also add that Paris was a political center (almost the political capital of Christendom back in the days of St Louis), and not just a center of learning and the arts. So perhaps "one of Europe's foremost political, intellectual, and artistic centers".
 * @ Superzoulou again: about Fortune 500 vs CAC 40. I think most people know that Paris is paramount in France, which is why I think a European or international measure is better than a Franco-French measure. If I open the article Budapest and I'm told "90% of Hungarian listed companies are headquartered in Budapest", that frankly doesn't tell me much. I already knew Budapest was the super-dominant metropolis of Hungary. On the other hand, if I'm told "20% (if that's the number) of Central European listed companies are headquartered in Budapest", that's some pretty interesting information that tells me more about the weight of Budapest in Europe. I guess you see what I mean. Also, note that Fortune 500 does include not only the companies listed on the stock market but also the public ones like La Poste. So it's more encompassing than the CAC 40.
 * @ The Promenader (this is a bit off topic, but it's interesting, so I thought I would discuss it anyway): the reason why Paris started to grow tremendously at the turn of the 13th century (small city before 1200, largest European city by 1300) was essentially because the Kings of France settled there permanently. The event that triggered the establishment of Paris as the permanent residence of the Kings of France and of the royal government is the Battle of Fréteval, which took place in 1194, and which doesn't have an article yet I'm seeing (Dr Blofeld ;)). Before the Battle of Fréteval, the kings of France traveled throughout the royal demesne all year long, and stayed in Paris only a few days per year (or even not at all). They carried with them the royal archives (charters, treaties, etc.). The royal archives were lost in the Battle of Fréteval, because a band of Plantagenet soldiers from Richard the Lionheart surprised King Philip Augustus and his retinue unprepared. After the loss of the royal archives, Philip Augustus decided that he would establish the royal government permanently in Paris, and that the royal archives would be kept permanently in the Palais de la Cité. Of course this in itself wouldn't have been enough to turn Paris into the largest European city. After all, the Holy Roman Emperor also set the imperial government (chancellery) permanently in Nuremberg, yet it didn't turn Nuremberg into the largest European city, because the empire fragmented just at about the same time. The great luck of Paris was that the establishment of the royal government in Paris coincided with the defeat of the major lords of the kingdom by the Capetians (the Plantagenets, the Counts of Flanders, the Counts of Toulouse were all defeated by Philip Augustus and his successors in less than 100 years, establishing Capetian control over most of the kingdom), and it also coincided with the period of greatest economic growth in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire, i.e. the 13th century. The conjunction of these three factors turned Paris into the largest city in Christendom in just 100 years. The University added to the attraction of the city, but it is largely a byproduct of the 3 other factors (the University of Paris would never have acquired its fame if the kings of France had not settled permanently in Paris and established their royal power all over the kingdom within the following decades). Of course it would be way too long to mention all these elements in the lead, or even in the body of the article.
 * Yes, what to say? Many things happened almost in tandem around then, it's no easy task to pickout the most important events from the most important 'transformation periods': I was trying to pinpoint the time and events that made Paris a 'magnet' for immigration, events that directly influenced the creation of the Paris we see today. We can talk about this for hours, for sure, but I'm sure we can come up with something concise - looking forward to editing with you ; ) <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  09:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @ The Promenader: regarding 1848, I wouldn't make it a turning point as much as you do. There was already tremendous immigration to Paris before the advent of the railways. In fact I have a book about Paris in the Middle Ages (Atlas de Paris au Moyen Age) which shows that already in the tax rolls of the year 1313 the origin of the Parisians was from all over the kingdom, and in fact all over Western Europe (with a predominance of Northern Europe and Northern Italy; think Rue des Lombards for example). After the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Paris started to grow beyond its old limits and attract lots of French immigrants even before the railways network was built. Back then (1820s, 1830s), most immigrants simply walked to Paris (the cases of young children from Auvergne walking the 400 km from Auvergne to Paris to find a job in the "big city" is famous). Of course the railways network made it possible to attract even more people than before, but we should not exaggerate its importance (especially considering that even after the railway network was built, many immigrants continued to come to Paris by foot, because until the last decades of the 19th century the train tickets were simply too expensive for most working people to afford).
 * Again, I chose just one point out of many - it's funny how Legrand's 1848 rail plan served the same purpose as Napoleon's "routes Impériales" (concretizing Paris as the centre of France - all main routes/rails led there) - what I was perhaps trying to point out was the 'snowball effect' that occured when a) all routes led to Paris and b) it suddenly became easier for travellers and merchandise alike to arrive there. This was a huge boom for industry (expansion), immigration (more jobs), and Paris' economy as a whole. I also was trying to mention (between the lines) that the rail (and road) network made it more difficult for France's capital to be elsewhere - Versailles was Capital of France for seventy years until a decade before Napoleon's 'roadwork' began. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  09:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @ The Promenader again: "I don't know where the incivilities began, but I do see that one 'dominant' editor has rewritten the entire article almost entirely by himself. This is not cool at all: the least polite thing anyone could do before (even discussing!) a total rewrite is to contact the article's former contributors whose work, even if 'lacking' in the opinion of the contributor seeking a rewrite, got the article to where it was." This is exactly what I've been saying for more than a month! Glad to see I'm not alone. Editors should be bold, and everyone is welcome to edit any article, but when someone suddenly decides to rewrite 80% of a major article like Paris in one month, that person should frankly ask himself/herself some questions. Who in their right mind would suddenly decide to rewrite most of United Kingdom, London, or Barack Obama all by themselves in one month?
 * @ Dr Blofeld: nobody said that you should have contacted all the former editors of this article before editing it, which would be indeed crazy. I think what The Promenader meant is you could have at least opened a discussion on the talk page before making some MAJOR changes in the article, and wait a few days, or even a few weeks, to see if some people had anything to say. The problem with your edits is that they've been MASSIVE, not just changing one or two sentences here and there, or adding some sources and citations. It's common sense to ask the opinion of other editors before making massive changes to a major article. It's not so much a case of respecting former editors, it's simply a case of showing a little humility and not appearing as if you thought you owned the article.
 * I have no idea where the article is gonna go from now, but we certainly need more editors to look at it to break the deadlock, as I'm afraid Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer and his protector SchroCat will revert any edit that do not please them (like removing that list of attractions by arrondissements or adding more content in the demographics and administration sections, which have been trimmed to the bone). Just to let people know how much in a deadlock we are, I mention this for those who do not wish to read all the history of the article, SchroCat reverted in early July an edit of mine in which I had simply updated the 2009 population figures and replaced them with 2010 population figures (with sources). It's the first time I see such a behavior on Wikipedia! I'm still trying to understand how some outdated 2009 figures are better than the new 2010 census figures... Der Statistiker (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FFS - discuss the edits, not the editors. Stop with the pointless name calling and abuse DS, it's tiresome and says more about you this. It does about your intended targets. - SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What would happen if everyone posted to the talk page before making a major change, and what would happen if all blanket knee-jerk reverting stopped? Feelings of animosity and ownership would dissipate. All parties would have to agree to this at the same time, of course, yet it only takes one belligerent editor to get the whole mess started again...
 * I've been reviewing changes to the article over the past hour, and... one editor almost totally rewrites the entire article over a one-month period? It takes b*lls to do that sort of thing, and the end result is ~not~ an improvement. Yes, it fulfills all the 'technical' criteria neccessary for a GA 'stamp of approval', but there were factual errors present in the article when it was being considered - did the judge know anything about Paris at all? Just asking.
 * I don't know what to do here. I suggested earlier moving forward with the article's present state as a base, but I don't know now. What did the article look like before it was erradicated? I do see a lot of work fixing links/language over the years. What to do - consensus on this? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  07:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that it is ok to start with the current version (though I am afraid that the "landmark by district" section has to be either deleted or transformed). It seems to me that what is most urgently in need of rewriting and expansion would revolve around demographics and sociology. Perhaps we should start there ? --Superzoulou (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've got my vote on that. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  08:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @derStatistiker. Yes, I see what you mean, but still I think France major companies are more concentrated in one area than comparable countries (I have not checked, but I even of than the UK I think). An additional problem with Fortune 500 is that is that a large number of Fortune 500 companies is partly due to the structure of the French economy. There may be more Fortune 500 companies in France than in Germany, but this is because the French economy is more focused on large groups, not because it is bigger or more influential. --Superzoulou (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was like this before Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer started to rewrite it:. It wasn't perfect, some errors or outdated bits probably needed to be corrected, some citations added, some paragraphs rewritten, but it didn't require a complete rewrite and massive cuts. I would like especially to draw your attention to the fact that Dr Blofeld/Tibetan Prayer forced a photo montage at the start of the article, and by doing so he completely disregarded the discussion that we had last May and which had concluded that there was no consensus to change the long established picture at the start of the article and replace it with a montage (whose legal status is problematic anyway, due to copyright issues regarding views of individual monuments in France). This is where the discussion took place:. Regarding the landmarks by districts, again I have created an article about it, where all the content added by Dr Blofeld can be found: Landmarks in the City of Paris. Finally regarding Global 500, I don't think the comparison with Germany is too much of a problem, considering that the Paris Region has a larger economy than any German state, let alone any German city. You can find figures on Eurostat's website. Also, note that the super-dominance of Paris in France is not really extraordinary. The same is observed in the UK with London (article in the Financial Times today: UK should accept it is London-centred), in Japan with Tokyo (the concentration of the Japanese economy in Greater Tokyo is even worse than in France), and in all medium-sized countries (Budapest and Hungary, Vienna and Austria, Athens and Greece, Copenhagen and Denmark, etc.). Der Statistiker (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that quite a bit was done during my one(two?)-year absence to add references to the article - and this work continued through the GA review process - but I see little talk-page mention as to the usefulness (aka relevance) of the article content to the topic it is supposed to cover. I also think the added bloat on Paris' more 'touristy' features is cheesy at best.
 * @Statistiker, I do differ with you in representing 'Paris' as Paris and its nearest suburbs: 'Paris area', yes, 'Paris urban area', yes, 'Paris metropolitan area', perhaps (with misgivings due to North American (mis)understanding of the term), but simply 'Paris', no. When you're in Montrueil, you're in Montrueil, you're no longer in Paris, and that's fact anyone living here and for any encyclopaedia. I don't mind at all highlighting the fact that Paris is but the centre of a huge urban agglomeration, but although it's not far in the future, "Grand Paris" is simply not here yet. I know that "Greater London" has been around so long that it has even officially become "London", as the "Five Boroughs" has become "New York" (instead of just Manhattan like former days), but Paris is simply not at that level yet yet. Stating, and even insinuating otherwise is simply not factual. That point aside, I agree with most everything you stated until now. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  20:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did I insinuate that? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the 'Tourist guide' section above: "you seem to forget that "Paris" is not just made up of the 20 arrondissements of the City of Paris (same as "London" is not just made up of the City of London), but it is also made up of more than 400 suburban districts" - quote from your input. Was there a mix-up? Apoligies if I'm wrong. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  06:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. That was a comment destined to his mentioning of the landmarks in the 20th arrondissement of Paris (the world famous landmarks of the 20th arrondissement of Paris!) while at the same time removing a section which mentioned La Défense, the Stade de France and the business district around it, and the Val de Seine Business district which straddles the 15th arrondissement and Issy-les-Moulineaux. His justification for removing those was that they were not sourced, but I thought his point in rewriting the article was precisely to source it, so go figure. Also note that his photo montage contains a picture of Versailles, which is located 20 km from Paris. Rationale? Der Statistiker (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm even considering contacting the reviewer who gave this article GA status - I'm really wondering how this came to be, yet would like to preserve the 'technical' changes that qualified this article as GA. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  07:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you all think about reverting to the 'before rewrite' version and working from there? Concensus? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  06:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm for it. Just, if Blofeld has added new/original content, it should be saved somewhere and not deleted entirely (as I've done with his landmarks edits, that I've saved at Landmarks in the City of Paris). I don't know whether he's added other original content beside the landmarks, as I haven't checked each and every of his edits. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. The sourcing beforehand was appalling and this was a vast improvement. By all means rewrite the material added, but the current version is a much better starting point.-- Gilderien Berate&#124;List of good deeds 14:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with ThePromenader here. The former article was at least solidly organized. Here, the article changed so much that we don't understand its logic anymore. Many contents are repeated several times and there's no clear logic about where to get which information. Getting back to the 'before rewrite' version is probably the better way to start back. Cheers. Metropolitan 12:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was poorly referenced and quite frankly not nearly comprehensive enough in areas. Improvements should start from the current version - to revert two months of work would be a massive step backwards.
 * Der Statistiker, I note your point that the Palace de Versailles is well outside the city limits; what would you suggest that I replace that image with? An accordion? The moulin rouge? Would you rather it be an overview of the city (the view from the Basilique de Sacre-Coer, perhaps, I have quite a few photos I can upload) or something else?-- Gilderien Berate&#124;List of good deeds  14:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You full well know there was a discussion last May, and the consensus was to keep this long-standing image below. Before Dr Blofeld started to hijack this article and disregard the discussions on the talk page. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I know full well that we had a marginal 3-2 consensus in favour of the single image, and I know from the opinions of those here recently that there is now a 4 (me, Dr. B, Tim, and SchroCat) - 2 (you and Metropolitan) for the montage. Consensus can and will change, but I am keen to accomade your concerns in the choice of images. Also when Dr. B re-wrote it there wasn't any discussion on this page, so he hardly disregarded it.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 16:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

One question: did the work to properly source the article start before or after (or during) Blofeld's rewrite?<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  08:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Before and during.-- Gilderien Berate&#124;List of good deeds 09:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and you can throw my vote in for the single image - the montage looks like a tourist postcard. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  08:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

About the "poorly sourced" previous version: there are about sixty more references in the present version. What's with the extensive "Bibliography" section? Who decided what goes there - "The French Connection" as 'useful reading' about Paris? I would think something like Hillairet's "Le dictionnaire Historique des rues de Paris" would be more important.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  09:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We changed the article to shortened footnotes referencing style to make the references easier to handle. The Bibliography section lists the books used to source the information, and the References section lists the pages within the books where the information specific to the sentence cited is found. The Further Reading (below) is where useful reading goes, so if you have found a book useful, be bold and add it, I can't see anyone objecting.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 10:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get the system, thanks - wasn't aware of it because I haven't been editing here since a couple years. Does that mean that whoever rewrote/referenced the article owns all those books, or perhaps worked through a library? Anyhow, I'm impressed. Was the referencing the work of one editor, or many? Hard to follow in the history. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  11:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the current referencing was the work of Dr. B and myself, with a couple of sources from Nvvchar. I own a couple of books, and got some from a library, but I know a lot of them were found on Google Books, which has digitised a lot of out-of-copyright content, really useful when editing an unfamiliar topic.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Old Version or New Version - Or Both?
As for reverting to the previous version: I'm divided. For sure the Demography section has to return and the "Monuments by Districts" has to either go or return to its former state (which will need some improvement, of course). Perhaps the introduction should be reverted as well. For the rest of the article, perhaps it should be restructured using the former version as a model, but using the present content (preserved and improved upon). Is this a satisfactory solution ? <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  10:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think any satisfactory solution will be found. Perhaps we should have a vote. I would add to the sections you highlighted the Administration section, which was also trimmed to the bone. So that would be 1- a revert of a- lead (and infobox picture), b- demography, c- administration, 2- a removal of the landmarks by district (which already have their own article), and 3- a rewriting of the awkward or factually wrong parts elsewhere. Blofeld has also edited the economy section, but I haven't checked whether some useful content has been lost there (there have been too many edits to keep track!). Der Statistiker (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: Needless to say, if we revert the lead and demography sections, we'll have to rewrite/reword them a little bit. For example, the "parisiens, parisiennes" linguistic point in the old lead should go to the Etymology section. It's not needed in the lead. The old Demography section also needs a bit of updating and rewording. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IMNSHO, the new lead and demographics section are both superior to the old in the context of this article. The lead does a superior job of explaining the city, while the trimmed down demographics section serves as a nice intro into the child article.  This is, as one would expect, a huge article.  It does not need to be any bigger.  Child articles should be liberally used. Resolute 20:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm saddened and somewhat sickened by a monumental piece of WP:OWNership going on here. This article is immeasurably better than the previous version. It is better sourced, better organised and better written. It is more balanced than the previous version, where statistics freaks have managed to jar the whole subject over to a morass of unreadable numbers sections. The referencing in the previous version was, I'm afraid, laughable, and sections of it looked as if it had been written as part of a primary school project. No, the current version is no perfect, but it's a damned sight better that this rather turgid nonsense. You really wish to revert back to it? That's about as big a claim of ownership on an article that I have ever had the misfortune of seeing. - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The only "turgid nonsense" I've seen so far is when an editor, namely you, SchroCat, reverts a good faith edit which had consisted in updating the population figures in line with the new 2010 census, and decides that outdated 2009 figures are better. This alone disqualifies you in this discussion. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen nothing remotely close to being in good faith from you. All I've seen is petty whining and bitching about your article. Your attitude is depressing awful. That alone disqualifies you in this discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't know, I think this version, before I started editing it, was rather good. Nearly 50% of our current number of citations, only half of them dead, and barely any tags.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds  20:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're being sarcastic, right? Anyone who believes that the current version of this article isn't way better than the version they want to revert to must be brain dead IMO. Eric   Corbett  21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course every editor will have the knee-jerk reaction that his contribution was 'better' in some way, but what I see here is a lack of consideration for the work of other editors: improvement or not, if you steamroll someone else's (possibly years of) work without at least consulting them about it first, feelings will be hurt. Yeah, call the waaaahmbulance.

I'd be happy with the article as it is if the demographics section was expanded (reinstating at least one visual reference to the actual spread of the Paris agglomoration) and the out-of-context 'monuments by district' rewritten into a more comprehensible and less-touristy 'Paris quarters' - that way the article can describe the quarter 'speciality' (students, artisans, offices, etc) which would give the reader a better 'feel' of the city than a list of 'attractions' would. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  02:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"lack of consideration for the work of other editors: improvement or not". Serious ownership issues. "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." If you don't want your work edited mercilessly don't contribute to wikipedia. That you think I should have asked permission from people who edited this article over 5 years ago is beyond ridiculous. Nobody owns the article or has to ask permission to edit. And the only person whose work is being dissed here is mine. I moved the full work into separate articles on Demographics. Admin and Education to ensure that no work was lost and simply condensed it which if you look around the website the "child article" system is standard practice on here on major topics. I put some organization into the haphazard, unsourced, bulleted list of landmarks and also merged and moved around some of the other short paragraphs into other sections. Without a shadow of a doubt those excessive tables and content for demographics was too much for the main article and it affected readability with data and info which the average reader really does not want to read. Any editor with a half a brain and half a year's editing experience here can see that this article is far superior to the April version. And the lead is certainly much improved. It is impossible to try to reason with you people because you're so tainted with ownership issues and have your heads so far up your own arses to acknowledge that good work done in good faith has been put into this article. The article isn't perfect but given the complexity of Paris I think it's pretty decent considering. I'm not going to feel bad about what I've done to the article and revert my additions, especially after the amount of disrespect you've shown me in your backlash here. You should be utterly ashamed with yourselves as human beings for how you've treated me over this. It wasn't my decision to select Paris and target people's work, it was nominated for GA by somebody else and would have failed and I thought I was doing a good thing in ensuring that an article on such an important city made the grade and that the work I did would be appreciated.

I said from the beginning that I'm open to suggestions and areas for improvement and if some sentences on agglomeration will improve the article and is important I am open to that. I tried to make some progress by trying to incorporate your ideas into the lead but instead of thanking me for trying to respect your views you did the opposite and insulted me for even daring to edit it. Every time I'd hoped we'd get somewhere I got nothing but personal attacks and pure bad faith, by you Der Stat in particular. I strongly disagree that the landmarks section has to be removed, in my opinion it is one of the most important sections and gives a basic look at each district of the city and helps but some of the more notable landmarks in context. It is already condensed a lot with a child article on it. Discussing landmarks will always appear "touristy" anyway, but I think it is certainly one of the sections that most visitors to the article would be thankful of in trying to learn about Paris, and that's all that matters. Above all though you've proved yourselves incapable of constructive discussion because you can't go a day without bringing up your OWN issues and insulting the work I've done on it, you'd rather that we restored a vastly inferior article version just to "respect" your article additions which represents a seriously warped idea of what wikipedia is all about. So I refuse to discuss article development with anybody on this who can't draw a line and drop their personal issues with this and until you just all learn to completely drop it then nothing is going to change with this article because no sane editor here is going to allow you to revert back to a former version.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That means you also have to agree to see your recent edits to this article savagely edited, instead of whining on your friends' talk pages when your work is in turn edited. You don't own this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice to know that we are a small group of disgruntled editors from the wiki Jurassic period. Who do you think you are? Der Statistiker (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There's really nothing wrong with the current article as it is, it is vastly improved since April and Blofeld made the appropriate edits in condensing and revamping the article in good faith rather than with malicious intent, which with the additions he and the others made has resulted in a clearly superior article. To blindly revert to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dr._Blofeld/Paris_April_2013 and undo the amount of time he put into sorting out the sourcing and structure would be insane and I worry greatly that editors on here overlook obvious improvements in quality because of personal grievances at having their own work reedited. It is very disheartening to see how Blofeld has been treated in view of the amount of positive work he's done on the article, especially by Der Statistiker who has yet to offer a single constructive post on this page or show a glimmer of good faith towards others here.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made several proposals on this talk page, so your statement that I am yet to offer a single constructive post is absolutely unfounded. And as for nothing wrong with the current article, that proves you haven't read this talk page, since the problems with Dr Blofeld's article have been listed several times (from clichés, to copyrighted views in the photo montage, to misleading presentation of landmarks by arrondissements, to outright factually wrong information, like the land area of the City of Paris). But anyway, it's nice to see that Blofeld is busy canvassing for support with his old friends at DYK. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Old friends at DYK?? I'm yet to see a regular DYK friend or contributor comment here except Ipigott who has been rather kind towards you considering. Read all of your posts Der Stat, I'm sure Doug and Schrod are not the only ones who can see that you've completely violated WP:AGF with your posts here. Only in the last few days from what I can see have you even shown the smallest of indications that you acknowledge that I've put some good work into the article. The way you have been talking here Der Stat is indeed as if the article is extremely poor, riddled with major problems and an embarrassment to the project. The reality is that it isn't as problematic or as bad as you say it is, the sourcing before I edited was certainly problematic and a joke as Schrod says. The article can be improved further as with most articles and some issues particularly those brought up by Superzolou are positive ones for improvements, but your claims that the article is so bad and that the previous version was somehow great comes across as incredibly childish and petty sniping from a small boy whose mummy and daddy won't buy him an ice cream. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. I would agree that we can start with the current version, or with a merging of both versions. There is however, one thing that seems to be overlooked: good looks is not enough. I have corrected quite a few factual mistakes from the good article version, and I am sorry to say that most of them should have been obvious to anyone familiar with the city. Many parts of the current versions are only partially true or misrepresent things a bit. We need to acknowledge that this article, especially the recently added parts, needs some serious rework, and that requires quite a lot of background knowledge. --Superzoulou (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're certainly exaggerating the extent of the problems with the article and many of the issues you've identified were there long before I edited it, but the article does need improvement even if on the surface it looks rather good. I take accuracy very seriously and if you can spot errors and misrepresentations of the truth this needs to be sorted asap. I suggest you make a copy of the article in User:Superzoulou/Paris and work on a revised version there and revised sections can gradually be replaced. I'm not disputing that you know more about Paris than I do and can see flaws in it which the majority of wikipedia readers can't, but can you at least get cracking on a draft in your userspace instead of continuing to moan here? If you genuinely want to see improvements and aren't relishing digging holes in the work of others then this would definitely be the best thing and you can then mention here what you've changed in particular sections and they can be readded gradually.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  15:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (Redacted) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think that doing my own version of this article would be a good idea. There are tons of legitimate questions about what should and what should not be included in this article, like what should we do with the landmarks, how should we handle the urban area outside the city proper, should we have a sociology section, does it really make sense to have standalone sections about media or healthcare, etc. All that has to be discussed before we can really rewrite the article. I first suggested that we could first try to make a new version of the demography section, but thinking about it, and given how broad the topic is, it may be a better idea to have a fairly detailed list of the things we want to include, so that we can see how to structure things without too much redundancy.--Superzoulou (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points, and there are things to discuss for sure, like the need for a Photography section (and I'm a photographer ; ). Perhaps let's try again in a new section. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  19:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I stumbled across a web portfolio whilst looking at some of your photos. Very impressed ... -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds  20:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It is the only way to ensure that nothing is overlooked given the intense situation that has arisen with editing it. I suggest you pick one section that you deem as the most problematic, like the demographics, write your version of it in your sandbox. I and others can view it and if there are any problems they can be discussed, but you'll find that as long as you try to focus on what is important Superzoulou and don't make drastic reductions in content, then I'll be likely supportive of whatever it is you edit for it. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for ruining another attempt at rational discussion. Was this intentional?
 * @Blofeld, Pertaining to "I am open to suggestions" and "...write your version of it in your sandbox. I and others can view it": um, no. We open a discussion between all contributors and decide a direction to take, and from there we all can collectively begin editing in that direction without providing examples for 'higher approval'. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  18:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Blofeld, PS: Your message on my talk page was probably the nastiest I've read in all my seven years on Wikipedia. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  18:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PPS: My last comment before the above rather unfortunate altercation began: "I'd be happy with the article as it is if..." - please read the entire discussion next time. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  18:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr Blofeld wrote this on Superzoulou's talk page: "Please draft a version of the demographics section in your sandbox and you might be surprised that I might be accepting of it if it isn't too long and doesn't have too many tables." I'm just speechless after reading this. Now who behaves like he owns the article? Der Statistiker (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Speechless? That'll be the day. We have a dispute, I and others strongly object to a reverting of edits here and I and others here are wary of editing which restores the bloated tables and text which is difficult to read to the demographics section. However, as Superzoulou is an expert on Paris and has identified Demographics as the worst section, I'm prepared to see if he can come up with anything superior to the current version; I acknowledge that there may be some important angles missing in the current version. If then we can all agree on the revised changes then we'll progress. That you continue to attack me and my editing illustrates a distinct lack of maturity and I wouldn't be surprised if you were younger than Gilderien Der Stat. If you're not, I'd be very worried if I was you as if you treat people like this in the real world you're going to get your comeuppance at some point..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@Promenader. You've just illustrated that you're a malicious troll intent on causing disruption. You propose to completely obliterate anything I've done on the article and restore to the April version, and then you say "I'm happy with it but". You've just completely contradicted everything you've said to date here about this article being hugely problematic and a downgrade from the former version. It's entirely obvious to most of us commenting on here that you've only said what you've said because you feel personally offended that anybody had the audacity to reedit your work, not that you genuinely believe the article is degraded. As I say, if you seriously think the article is currently worse than in April you'd have to be brain dead as Eric says. I lost all respect for you and any hope that you could ever work with me on this the moment you proposed to nuke everything I've ever done on this out of spite. You should be ashamed of yourself, your approach to editing is about as way off the spirit of editing here as you can get. That you could propose to revert to the April version with its paragraphs of unsourced and dead links and then lecture me here on what constitutes constructive conversation is beyond a joke; your proposal is about as destructive as it gets on this website and anybody decent reading this can see this. I cannot take anybody who would resort to such extreme measures just to retain his own work remotely seriously. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Dr. B, I think this is over a mis-understanding - ThePromenader decided that we should use the current page as the basis for improvement on friday I think, and he has made several constructive suggestions for improvements since then.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ermagerd, yes. I changed my mind, that's what rational people do when hysteria dissipates and they can actually pay attention to the scenery. Blofeld, please keep discussion here, and stop leaving your little 'gems' on my talk page. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  20:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think he made it perfectly clear that he was toying with the idea of a complete revert. Even himself being "divided" about a full revert illustrates that he doesn't have the best interest if the article at heart. Might I add that I approached Promenader as warmly as I approached Superzoulou, but his approach since I've tried to incorporate his ideas into the lead has been nothing but negative and his idea to completely revert to the April version was the moment I lost all respect and hope that he could be constructive with this. And I did give both Promenader and Der Stat a chance to drop the personal attacks and only offer constructive criticism. Even now Der Stat is coming up with childish irrelevant snipes at me. I'm not tolerant of continued ill feeling here, I'm not sure I care enough about Paris itself to spending weeks arguing over content, but I care enough to know that the work I've done is a positive thing and can be further improved with constructive conversation and input in a friendly fashion and that wiping it all out for no reason is ridiculous. So Gilderien you can assume good faith from Promenader, but you'll notice the personal attacks continuing especially from Der Stat long into further discussion here. Is that my fault? I think not. I've been perfectly reasonable with these people.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that you've actually bothered to read the article Promenader after weeks of moaning about how bad it is you realize that it is a lot better than you thought? You've been commenting for ages on how bad I've made it yet you didn't even read it and observe the changes except that you knew I'd expanded the lead and condensed some of your material so automatically it must be bad? Do you realize how that comes across to the observer here? Perhaps finally we can get somewhere, deary me, I can't believe all of this hoohaa and you didn't even read the bloody thing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think 'warmly condescending' would describe it better. By the way, my ~intention~ to revert was in fact a ~question~, and that was to provoke discussion. Please stop. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  20:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: as I mentioned on my talk page, what I didn't see at first was all the referencing work done. I only read the article itself. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it didn't come across as a question, it came across as a serious proposal which looked like a way to further trash my work on it. And surely "warmly condescending" is far better to treat an individual than the hatred Der Stat preaches...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, direct name-calling is easier to dismiss ; ) "What do you all think about reverting to the 'before rewrite' version and working from there? Concensus?" is indeed a question, and a provocative one, yet one absent of statement. Had I written "I vote to revert to the old version", well, that would have been something else. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER   22:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: I've been pretty consistant in all of my other comments, positions and article criticisms through the rest of the talk page - in fact, so much so that I'm getting pretty tired of repeating myself. Cheers and good night. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#ddd7a3;font-size:95%;">THE PROMENADER  22:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)