From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Paris was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Let's create a real encyclopedia article about Paris[edit]

It's been a while I haven't been there (I'm busy and this article becomes less and less how Paris functions and more and more a list of cliché and factual facts. Tourist guide rather than an encyclopedia. Especially in the introduction. Economic facts have been removed, the the fact that Paris being big major transportation hubs has been put completely backwards beyond information about "attractions" and some sport events (It's like the Louvre Museum or Muséee d'Orsay were more important to Paris than its hub position. Close the Louvre and it would make very few difference to the city. Close the subway, railways, the roads... and the city would shut down and die). Now that the Grand Paris Metropolis has been created, there's no reason to hide La Défense anymore in the introduction picture.
Paris is a big working city, not an theme park and the city should be presented as a city, not as a list of attractions to visit.
We need also the review the history section. In exemple the part about 2015 terror attact is well too big, plenty of facts not necessary to the article. Minato ku (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits pending comments by other editors on the topic, even though we've been through this before. You know consensus was attained not to show that image of La Defense (which is outside of Paris in the 92). Thanks for your comprehension. Coldcreation (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, the fact that La Defense is not "inside the city limits" of Paris is not what bother other editor (note that it is a very limited number of people) is that the fact it shows a more modern face of Paris. Something that I don't know why some people want to hid. If instead of skyscrapers in this picture, there were just an old castle, it would not bother them even if this castle was not officially inside the city limits. It's modernity that they don't want to show.
Just like they want to hid the fact that Paris is a big city, just like they want to hid the fact that Paris is comspolitan city, just like they want to hid the fact that Paris is a big economic center. Why putting so much emphasis on monuments and so few emphasis on everyday infastructures and the everyday working city. Just ahead, there is a talk about removing reference of Paris urban and metropolitan area, this just proves my points. Minato ku (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Your strange claims are unjustified. See Talk:Paris/Archive 12, Talk:Paris/Archive 13, Talk:Paris/Archive 15. Coldcreation (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
My "strange claims" are pretty much justified by the evolution of this article. Anyway if the problem was just the picture, why did you revert everything? Not just the picture but everything including the updates, the modification of reference... Everything. Minato ku (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Minato Ku: There's a great deal of information about the Paris economy and modern society in the article; in that sense Paris is just like every other big city. What makes the city appealing to people around the world are the monuments and its history. La Defense is not in this article because it's not in Paris proper; the same reason that Versailles and Fontainebleau are not in the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
That's the difference between an encyclopedia and a tourist book. The tourist book highlights what makes the city appealing to people around the world like the monuments while the encyclopedia should highlights the functioning of the city and its role. The monuments or attractions are secondary facts in an encyclopedia article about a city. Minato ku (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Minato ku, as SiefkinDR rightly points out, the article tends to be balanced, just as other article on large cities. While you may not like one aspect of the city (its tourism industry), it is nonetheless an important feature of Paris, as in the article on the city. Coldcreation (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Many of us, Parisians, feel uneasy with this article because our living city is portrayed like a theme park for tourists. It's not an accurate or balanced view of Paris.
Same for the idea to make a big separation between the city proper and its suburbs and to exclude the suburbs. Do that and you give a very limited and partial view of Paris because it's impossible to describe Paris correctly or to understand how the city works without an inclusion of the suburbs.
Everything is very interconnected. Millions of people cross the Peripherique everyday. Plenty of things are done outside the city limits because of the lack of space inside the city limits. The City of Paris and its suburbs are not two separated and independant entities. In demography, economy, transportation, shopping, healthcare, emergencies services, education, leisure... almost everything that make the daily life, they are part of the same entity. This separation is just arbitrary administrative limits. Minato ku (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I really doubt your claim that many Parisians feel uneasy about this article. Your supposed "theme park" complaint got nowhere fast during past discussions (archives linked above). Consensus in fact disagreed with your conspiracy theory. Only a small group of individuals from that skyscraper website (some canvased, some socks, others not) complained about the tourism aspects of the article, while pushing La Défense into the article as if it were Midtown and Lower Manhattan. As far as other banlieue, you'll notice the New York City article does not dwell on northeastern New Jersey, Hoboken, or Jersey City, even though they are very interconnected, with hundreds of thousands of people crossing over each day. That's because the article is about New York City. Coldcreation (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
To begin, the number of people who come to work in New York City from the suburbs is lower than in the City of Paris, both in total number and in ratio. In exemple, the majority of people who work inside the City of Paris lives in suburbs (you can't pretend that they don't exist). If the City of Paris municipality was covering a much larger territory like in New York City or in London, heavy mentions of the suburbs would be less necessary but because the City of Paris is in the case of a city where the city proper is only the "downtown". If you don't mention the suburbs then you give a very misleading view of Paris (because of lot of major infrastructures are in suburbs), almost misinformation in some ways. Would you say that Paris does not have airport because Paris' big airports are in suburbs?
You said that parisians don't feel uneasy with this article. How come very few (almost none) participate here? The reason is simple, they did participate a lot in the past when the article was much less biased with tourists clichés but they have been kicked off and badly threated by some who want to impose their historic, clichés and restricted view of Paris. Parisians have left the English article because they felt it became an hopeless case. They can't fight against stereotypes from the English speaking media.
There is not conspiracy here but just a view of Paris that is restricted to tourist mind and not representative of the Paris of everyday. The Paris of everyday is not famous museums, sights, French cancant and Edith Piaf. Some have hard times to understand this reality because in their minds, Paris is mostly made of those cliché. Minato ku (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Minato Ku: You can hardly have an article about Paris, especially for an English-speaking audience, without mentioning the history landmarks. What specific information do you think should be in the article that isn't there now? SiefkinDR (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I see that Minato ku's first edits since almost a year were to (again!) try to change the lede image to the three-years-in-a-row-highly-contested 'La Defense' one (because it represents suburban La Defense, not Paris), and to reinstall text written by another contributor years before... sorry, but my 'good-faith-metre' is exhausted as far as this contributor is concerned, and we know what they want: to use Wiki as a platform to shout to the 'ignorant anglophones' of this world that 'Paris' is a skyscraper-filled, everyone-is-super-rich metropolis as big as the Île-de-France and little else; their contribution list is a clear demonstration of this. I'll be around if you need me. THEPROMENADER   19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for this late answer. Nobody is trying to make believe that Paris is full of skyscrapers but it does have high-rises and modern buildings and you can't denie this fact. PS: the picture shows the 7th arrondissement, Ecole Militaire Champs de Mars, Eiffel tower, Trocadero, the 16th arrondissement, Bois de Boulogne and then La Défense, La Défense is just a small part of the picture in the background. I don't understand all the fuss. The problem is not that la Défence is in suburb (0.6 mile outside the city limit), the problem is that it shows a modern aspect of Paris that some refuse..
Paris is a rich and big metropolis. It's not a small rural town whose tourism would be its raison d'etre. It's a large business city. I don't know why you want to refute this fact.
I know that it can be difficult for an English-speaking audience to understand that Paris is much more than clichés but I don't think that the role of an encyclopedia is to enforce stereotypes instead of offering them a much broader (and accurate) view of what is Paris. I'm not against mentioning landmarks but do not give them an exaggerated importance that they don't have.
According to ThePromenader, Coldcreation or SiefkinDR because I live 0.7 mile outside the Périphérique, I don't have any relation with Paris. Even if I take the subway everyday, I work and I do my shopping in Central Paris. To exacerbate things, I work in an office, I never go in café, I mostly eat in asian restaurants and I'm non-white. Those kind of facts that may hurt the sensibility of an English-speaking audience about Paris (so let's pretend that people like me don't exist) Minato ku (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
No need really for the diatribe. We are all French speakers, we all live and work in Paris, or have lived and worked in Paris. The article is written for an English speaking audience (or anyone else) in a neutral way, about a vast and complex set of topics, ranging from history, to politics, education, economy, tourism, culture and so on. That is the role of an encyclopedia. Coldcreation (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
What's more, 'cliché'd' Paris' (that does largely depend on tourism, thus its preservation/promotion of monuments, etc.) pointed separation from its suburbs is a problem that has yet to be resolved, and pretending here that that problem is already 'fixed' (and doesn't exist) is not only misusing Wikipedia to misinform the world, but is contributing to the problem. THEPROMENADER   11:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sexual harassment on Paris public transport[edit]

Hi @Coldcreation: so what do you think about these two sources I used and a third one I found?

AadaamS (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

AadaamS, if any at all, HCEfh, Avis sur le harcèlement sexiste et les violences sexuelles dans les transports en commun, 16 avril 2015 would be the citation of choice, for obvious reasons. However, I doubt this should even be mentioned in the article. There's nothing about sexual harassment (SH) in other articles on big cities, such as Tokyo, and yet this is probably the capital of SH worldwide. But aside from that, the study remarkably excludes 100% of the women that have never been sexually harassed in the public transport. Read 100% des femmes harcelées? Alors je n’existe pas, Draguer n’est pas harceler for example. Problem is, in the HCEfh study, even looking at a woman was considered harassment, or whistling. And oh, it mentions nothing about the 50% of women who actually enjoy it. :-) Coldcreation (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Note too, FRANCE 24 found the figure 100% was presented out of context: Are 100% of women harassed on French public transport?

The group [HCEfh] admitted that it did not hire a research institute, but instead calculated the statistics from a sample of 300 women who had all participated in a public consultation about women’s roles in the public space and… harassment in public transport. This means that all of the women polled were already concerned by the subject in question.
Another weakness is the lack of information about the women polled. While the women were interviewed in Essonne and in Seine-Saint-Denis [two departments in the Île-de-France region where the public consultations were held], they were not asked if they live there. This makes it unclear whether the 100 percent refers to just these two departments or all of France. Once again, the HCEfh did not specify.

Coldcreation (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge[edit]

Still bickering after all this time haha. France badly needs contributors for this, so help fly the flag for France and improve/create articles on France to go towards it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Look at the timeline of this article... almost dead silence, rather. But it's all the bickering that keeps contributors away... ; ) THEPROMENADER   08:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
More seriously, France-knowledgeable English-wikipedia contributors are lacking (a situation that was exploited before), so perhaps it might be a good idea to get some translation from French wikipedia going. I'll see what I can drum up. THEPROMENADER   08:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Louvre = most visited, or second-most visited attraction in the world?[edit]

An anon changed the 'second-most' in the lede phrase to 'the most' without providing a reference, but does this claim have one? THEPROMENADER   12:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Promenader. This is a tricky question. The article List of most visited art museums puts the the Palace Museum in Beijing, which is both an art and history museum, as the most visited art museum in the world, way above the Louvre. But if it's limited to museums that are exclusively art museums, then the Louvre would be ahead. We can leave the Louvre in number one, but note that the Beijng Museum has a higher attendance. What do you think? SiefkinDR (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
No need to mention the Beijng Museum since it is not exclusively an art museum. Not sure I trust their statistics either. Coldcreation (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I would find a few more sources, too... that list is from a single source (which is normally verboten on Wiki)? I'll have a look at what the Paris Tourism board says (but their numbers... whatever), too. THEPROMENADER   14:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Got a few: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]... I would consider a preponderance of several sources (most sources cite the Louvre as...). THEPROMENADER   14:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
PS: Happy New Year, guys, hope you are well ; ) THEPROMENADER   14:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for those sources, and happy new year to you to, from The City of Light... Coldcreation (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Then we'll let the Louvre keep its well-deserved title. Bonne Annee, Paris team!SiefkinDR (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)