Talk:Paris

Cite errors

In the Paris#References Notes section I am getting multiple Cite errors. It appears several refs have different definitions for the same names. I don't want to mess around with the reference tags myself as I am not great at them so I just thought I would point it out. HighInBC 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the Lichfield reference. Someone else will have to fix the Lawrence Gondrand reference. I can't figure those out. Thanks for pointing this out. Coldcreation (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Clear anti-Muslim bias in the article in the history and religion sections

20th-21st under history: There were many problems with that paragraph's narration about Charlie Hebdo attack: the mentioning of "Muslim extremists" is unnecessary and the writer definitely has a sinister motive behind it, do we label other terrorists attacks in Europe carried by non-Muslims like that? Was the picture necessary? what's the point of mentioning that the attackers " were born and raised in Paris"? Why the writer wrote just "Muhammad" and not prophet Muhammad when referring to the cartoons? Who is Muhammad? there are hundreds of millions of Muhammads in the Muslim World!! Prophet Muhammad must have been mentioned to inform readers what the writer is talking about, that practice is used by western media when talking about the cartoons. Religion section: Religions of Paris after Christianity it says " other religions" when Islam is the notable second religion in that city and in France in general! and even in that segment of " other religions" the write talked too much about Jews who are just few hundreds in that city ignoring the clear second religion in Paris, Islam, with it's old history in the city and the region and ignoring the fact that Muslims make up to 15% in metro Paris with a population exceeding 200k! Even when talking about Islam , just small two lines were written mainly talking about the Grande mosque of Paris and not even mentioning Islam or Muslims by name. I request changes to these two sections to protect the neutrality of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alforu88 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but I don't entirely agree with you. I don't know any other way to characterize the attackers at Charlie Hebdo as other than "Muslim extremists", since religion was, according to all the cited sources, the motivation of the attacks. As for using the term Muhammad rather than Prophet Muhammad, this is the standard practice in Wikipedia; see the article on Muhammad.

The section on religion was largely organized by chronology, not number of believers, and the Jewish community has a long and well-documented history in Paris. (It's larger than a few hundred). There's less information about the Muslim community, and no official statistics that I know of. What is the source of the fifteen percent statistic? We can include more statistics if you can provide a good source. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest to call him prophet Muhammad in the article, of course that would be wrong, I meant to suggest adding the word prophet to let readers know what the article is talking about, like cartoons ridiculing prophet of Muslims Muhammad, etc, but that's not the main issue with the article, I think the main issue is the religion of the attackers and their background ( born and raised in France, sounds irrelevant), the word Muslims extremists was unnecessary because many terrorist attacks were carried by right wing Christians in Europe and the religion of the attackers was never mentioned in any of them even though the motive was clearly religious hatred. As for religion, there are hundreds of sources about that even on another Wikipedia articles, websites like pew research center, muslimspopulation.com all put Muslims population around 10% ( 9.6% to be precise) amount to 6 and half millions compared to less than half of million of Jews. As for history it goes back to the battle of tours, the subsequent Muslim expeditions, Ottoman naval bases, etc, etc, rich history and much more historical events than Jews presence in France , it goes back till 7th and 8th century, please read Islam in France.

I didn't want to bring this up earlier, but I'd like to suggest removing the religion section entirely (making it an article of its own), and giving religion a reference in the 'demography' section... and that should clear all this up nicely. Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps making it a subsection in the 'Culture' section, reduced to a paragraph about the city's predominant religions and an indication of some of their major shrines therein. Do let me know what you think. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Very sensible suggestions. I'd suggest that we divide the religion section, leaving the description of major places of worship where they are, and moving the estimates of the size of religious communities to the demographic section, clearly indicating that there are only estimates, no official numbers. Would that work? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes! And what about moving the religion section to the 'culture' section, instead of being one of its own? I think that, with the reduced size, that should happen anyway. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There are two sections on religion

Can somebody merge them into an appropriate place without compensating the information? '''tAD''' (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the two sections you are referring to... are you talking about the religion section (now 'Churches, Mosques and Temples'), plus the mention in the 'demographics' section? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(Slapping forehead) Yes, you are, sorry. We're discussing this at present (right, Siefkin? ; ). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and fix this, then. Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I was going to do this this morning, but I think it better to present a rationale here, first.

Basically I think it best to move the entire religion section to an article of its own (it is already an article as it is, and there is much more information that can be added, as it is a subject all on its own), create a 'religion' sub-section in the 'culture' section, and move the demography info (that has no place there, anyway, as there is no real (let alone official) statistical data on religion (French law forbids it)), and use some of the moved info to concoct a paragraph describing the city's most prominent temples (and the quarter/culture around them). This would simplify the article greatly, as well as remove the 'who's on top' aspect of the present section (that, as we can see above, will always invite objection and 'different points of view'). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Demographics

Dear Statistiker, You have reverted text by other editors in this section twice now, without any explanation. Frankly, I don't think your changes were improvements. Can you please explain why you're making these changes? Thanks- SiefkinDR (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Not improvements? You put some outdated 2011 statistics; I updated with 2012 statistics (latest census released). You confused British/US citizens and immigrants: apparently you looked at a table of immigrants in the French census and yet wrote about British "citizens" and U.S. "citizens", mixing up the notions of immigrant and foreign national, and on top of it you forgot to even give the url of that immigrant table in your edit: [1]. I've given the correct figures (about British and US nationals, since that's what your sentence was about) and provided the url of the correct 2012 table (nationality table, not immigrant table). Der Statistiker (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And the British/U.S. statistics 'correction' wasn't in the proper context for this article (you actually replaced Siefkin's proper context with an IDF one); all I did was correct that by simply changing the order (all the numbers are still there); there was no WP:POINT to revert that at all (which is why it is not mentioned in the above reply). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be gesture of civility if you reverted your revert yourself, Der Statistiker THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A gesture of civility would be not to revert the edit of an editor who hasn't edited this article in almost a year, and who when he comes back after a year is within HOURS assaulted by you and accused of "POV creep" (!), despite the fact that this article is under a strict "comment on content, not contributors" rule. Can you not see how antagonizing and aggressive this attitude is? Der Statistiker (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Accusing me of reverting is disingenuous to the extreme, because my correction was in -no way- a revert. It also demonstrates that the revert to my correction was out of pure spite (and that that is important to the reverter than article content).

My edit comment is both obvious, justified and unimportant to any unconcerned editor; the WP:POINT reverting only demonstrates that a correction to those statistics was expected by whoever replaced the old ones with them, and there is thought and premeditation in replacing "There are X in Paris" (in a Paris article) with "There are X in the IDF (and, by the way, there are X in Paris)"... this is obvious to anyone. This behaviour demonstrates a desire to impose a POV, and to cause trouble if that doesn't succeed.

Which is further demonstrated by the continued refusal to make reparations, and, in addition to all the above disingenuousity as an 'answer' to that, further edits targeting a known past point of contention... that I can't see any problem with at all, by the way, because the context is correct (unlike before).

In all, your negative behaviour by far overshadows any contribution you bring to Paris-topic articles, Der Statistiker. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. I'm surprised he's not topic banned from this. Every time I see him edit there's a problem.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure now we're going to hear about 'who' the 'real' problem is. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Editors above, please change the tone of this discussion, and stop the insults and accusations, which are completely out of place in Wikipedia. Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Demographics II

Perhaps we can start this discussion again in a calmer voice. Der Statistiker, you're correct that I confused the number of U.S. citizens in Paris with the number of those born in the U.S. living in Paris. In the US you're a automatically a citizen if you're born in the US. so I thought they were same, but I see that they're not; there's a difference of about six hundred, who I suppose are naturalized US citizens. Thanks for catching that. I also apologize that the URL was missing the second time from the citation, when I replaced it after you deleted it the first time without any explanation. I believe the numbers we are using are all from the same source, the 2011 census.

On the question of which numbers go first, those from Paris or those from the Ile-de-France (Paris region), you never explained why you changed the order. I put the Paris numbers first when I added this information to the article. In other sections of the article, and in the lead, information about the city is given first, and about the region second. The same is done in other articles on major cities and their regions. I would like to put it back the way it was.

I welcome your comments and suggestions and your contributions, but I hope you won't make any more changes to other editors' texts without discussing them here first. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The numbers we're using now are from the 2012 census (note that there's a census every year in France). No edit should contain figures or references to the outdated 2011 census anymore. Next year we'll be using the 2013 census, and so on.

Regarding citizens vs immigrants, citizenship is not just a question of being born in the US. Children of US citizens born in France are also US citizens and appear as such in French statistics (they wouldn't appear as US immigrants, since they are born in France). So the US citizenship figures include the children born in France. On the other hand, those who acquire French citizenship disappear from the foreign citizenship figures, but they always remain in the immigrant figures, because the immigrant status is based on place of birth and is for life. That's the reason why in this section we're using immigrant figures and not foreign citizenship figures, because in France the French citizenship is quite generously granted to immigrants, so that the foreign citizenship figures are rather meaningless in France (this would be different in Germany of course, where German citizenship is much harder to acquire). In the case of US and British people, there is not much difference between the citizenship and immigrant figures, because these people in general do not intend to remain all their life in France and become French citizens, that's why I left your choice of citizenship figures for this category instead of immigrant figures.

Regarding the Paris Region, in your edit you gave figures only for the City of Paris, so I technically inverted nothing. What I did is I added the Paris Region figures, because the figures for the City of Paris proper are rather misleading: based on these figures, one is led to believe that there are more US citizens than British citizens in Paris. This is of course not true. There are more British citizens than US citizens who live in Greater Paris, but it's just that the US citizens tend to sleep more predominantly in the central territory of 87 km² of the City of Paris. This is a very good example why figures referring only to the City of Paris proper can be misleading. And before some people here start to write reams and reams of messages denouncing the evil intentions supposedly lying in other editors' edits, let me remind you all that the terrorists who attacked us last week paid strictly no attention to the administrative borders of the City of Paris. Paris as a morphological and functional city is far larger than the administrative entity called City of Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful comments, and for clarifying the dates of the census data and the definition of citizenship. As I mentioned above, I will put the figures as they were originally placed, with the figures for the city of Paris (Ville de Paris) first, so it matches the lead of the article, along with the figures for the Paris Region (Ile-de-France), and make it clear which is which. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Too much detail about events

Look at how long is the part about November 2015 terror attacks.

"On 13 November 2015, there were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris and Saint-Denis claimed by the 'Islamic state' organisation ISIL ('Daesh', ISIS). These included shootings at three sidewalk cafes; a suicide-bomb attack outside the Stade de France stadium where a France-Germany football match, attended by French President François Hollande, was taking place; and an attack on the Bataclan theatre/concert-hall, where Kalashnikov-armed terrorists opened fire on rock-concert spectators before triggering their suicide vests. In all, there were 130 people killed and more than 350 injured. Seven of the attackers killed themselves and others by setting off their explosive vests, while at least two others were still being sought by police. On the morning of November 18 three suspected terrorists, including Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the alleged mastermind of the attacks, were killed in a shootout with police in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. President Hollande declared France to be in a three-month state of emergency,"

We don't need to have all these detail on the Wikipedia article about Paris. A relatively short single sentence is enough, we don't need to learn how and where Abdelhamid Abaaoud and some of his accomplice were killed, we don't need to have detail on the guns used by terrorists.
If people want to learn more about these attacks, there is an article about it. November 2015 Paris attacks. Minato ku (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but the consultation of this article has spiked since the events you want to remove because of those events. Yes, of course that part will be reduced eventually. It's a bit odd to be targeting that specifically, now? It's only been two weeks, man! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't target this event specifically, it was just an example of what I find wrong in the history section. I don't think that Paris article has spiked because people want information about these events but because people want information about Paris. Minato ku (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The history section is way too long and disproportionate in this article. This has been said before, but instead of being shortened it seems to have been lengthened in the past year. Go figure. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol. I'm just discovering the article Economy of Paris is now also being turned into an article about the HISTORY of the Paris economy, with a totally disproportionate history section compared to the rest of the article. It seems we have a trend here. Paris as a city of the past, an object of history, not a city of the present day. That's a major bias, to say the least. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what is LOL or 'go figure' about content, and what of accusing people of 'bias', and what does the Economy of Paris article have to do with here? All that demonstrates is a targeting of contributors over content. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The recent spike in activity isn't because of the attacks? Are you serious? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, indeed the recent spike in activity is because of the attacks but it is not because people want information about the attacks. They want information about Paris. Minato ku (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Not only is it not possible to know (let alone declare) that, coming to this article after the attacks for Information about what: Paris' history? Its economy? You can't be serious. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I am very serious. It would wrong to go in Paris article to have information about the attack because you would have more accurate information on new website or on November 2015 Paris attacks article. Yes they want information about Paris, its structure, its economy, its population, its history and etc. I do the same when something big happen in a city, I try to learn more about the city. I went to Charleston article after the Charleston church massacre, it was not to learn about the shooting but to learn about the city. Minato ku (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The traffic is still higher than usual, and, like I said, that description will have less value when traffic becomes normal again. Many visitors visiting a city article just after a shooting there, do so not because they want to learn about the shooting... sorry, that defies reason and reality. By the way, the Charleston article still has an extensive paragraph about the shooting there. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Jmabel has reduced the size of the part about the november 2015 attack, He wrote "reduce near-anecdotal "presentism". Just because it's been in the news lately doesn't make it that major in an article about a city. Possibly could be edited down even further: we have a large, separate article about the attack"
I fully agree with this, it is not because something is a "current" event that more should be said about it and then reduced later when the heat will be down. Wikipedia is not a news site.
Informations about when, how and where Abdelhamid was killed are unecessary, it does not give us more information about the modern history of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem with reducing it; my question was about your claim that the spike in activity wasn't people coming to the article to find out about the events.

I think the going would have been easier had you opined here on the talk page instead of removing the entire paragraph that SiefkinDR had just edited, and I'm sure he would have agreed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Minato ku, this may not be a news site, but seventy thousand people looked at the page on November 13 to see what was happening. The article was updated regularly throughout the day the most current statistics.

The problem I have with your edits is not so much the content, but that you delete other editors work and add your own without discussing it first on the talk page. I wish you wouldn't do that. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You forget something, this is Wikipedia, nobody own this article. Editors don't need the agreement of other editors to make an edit. When I have seen that this change was "problematic", (when SiefkinDR reverted) I did not revert to the version I made (this was just a shortening of the part about the terrors) instead I opened this section in Paris talkpage.

No, SiefkinDR, it is not because the traffic increased that a long section about the terror attack should be write. Wikipedia is not a news site, the length of the different parts of Paris' article should not be dependent of the current events. This is my point and the point of Jmabel. Minato ku (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You should have opened a discussion before you reduced that still-new (and frequently updated) section to two sentences. No, nobody 'owns' anything, but wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so respect (or at least acknowledgement) of other-contributor work is important when one wants to make major changes (like reverting an entire section, or the extreme reduction here), and opening a discussion shows a modicum of this. Not doing this sends a message to other contributors that they, and their contributions, don't matter, or were 'wrong' somehow, and that merits at least an explanation. In a highly-edited article such as this one, the only exception I can think of is if the major change is to a contribution that you know is only your own... but even then, others may like what was there before. Again, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Transportation Section

Why was this reverted to the state it was in... a year ago? On the very day (since almost a year) I made minor modifications to that section (which means my work was reverted as well)? This is odd, to say the least. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after checking, this is a revert of quite a few people's work, indeed a rollback to a year ago (down to the ugly unneeded chart, former titles and wonky image placement)! This is quite the opposite of an improvement. What is the rationale for this? If there is no good one forthcoming, it will go back to its pre-revert state. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The transportation section was full of errors (incorrect and outdated informations) as if people did not care of what was written. (Paris metro with 9 million passengers instead of 5 million, same number of stations as seven years ago, outdated number of tram lines etc...)

The wonky image placement is one thing but the information is a much more important issue. I did take an old version but I updated it and I did not use the same adjectment.

Note that the previous version was also the result of a reversion made more than one year ago that put back this section to a very old version. Almost nothing changed since then, leading to many wrong information.

Feel free to update what you want and change the image placement but do not say that this is the opposite of an improvement. Minato ku (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Minato ku for your help in correcting outdated information (this article unfortunately contains a lot of it). I've started to update some data too, and will update some more if the same admin noticeboard shenanigans and threats as last year do not happen again. I particularly liked this sentence of yours: "The wonky image placement is one thing but the information is a much more important issue." Indeed. This article unfortunately contains lots of factual errors, outdated information, and trivia obscuring important issues, so things like image sizes and placement should be the LAST of our worries. We are an encyclopedia, not a graphic design studio. Let's keep that in mind. Der Statistiker (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit) Apparently only the table source (but not the table data) were updated, and a couple tram lines added, but aside from that, it's a revert. That aside, what's this talk of admin intervention even before outlining what all of the 'factual errors' and 'trivia obscuring (what?) important issues' are, all in a tag-team condescending tone targeted at other contributors? That is a demonstration of the very sort of behaviour and attitude worth complaining about. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't distract from the issue: the section was put back in its exact same state from almost a year ago (a deplorable state that was the origin of an improvement drive involving many contributors, and many contributors since), and I haven't even checked what was updated or not; if there were some updated numbers, that seems purely symbolic in that action. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

(after checking) Confirmed: User:Minato ku simply more or less reverted to User:Der Statistiker's October 2014 version [2], without changing anything at all (down to the references (now showing errors); even though the chart references were updated, the chart numbers themselves are exactly the same as last year's version) [3]. User:Der Statistiker simply updated the in-text citations Minato ku had neglected [4]. Those reverting talk about content, but not much attention being paid to it, and again, what little attention is paid to it seems purely symbolic, here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I choose this version because it give much more accurate detail about Paris' transportation but I did change things and I updated the reference (for not publishing dead links). I did not change the air traffic because I did not know where to find exactly the newer data.

Remember how it was before my edit "In more recent years, Paris and the Paris region are served by four tramway lines...". Four tramway lines ? Let me count T1, T2, T3a, T3b, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, it is more like nine lines isn't it? How such error could have been left unchecked for a such long time? The last time Paris region had four tram line was before december 2012. It is because this text was the result of a revert made on 20 December 2014‎ and almost nothing did change since then. Minato ku (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There are dead links (with error, anyway). If you don't know how to update things (or can't be arsed to), please don't. And why replace a table containing outdated data, yet go to the effort to make it seem as though it's been updated by updating the reference?

Granted that the trams needed updating, but you could have just updated the existing text. The tables, images, everything now is the same as my October 2014 diff. Again, symbolism. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This text came infact for an much older version than October 2014. I had already corrected the Paris metro daily ridership error in March 2014. How an error I corrected in March 2014 could be still be here in a November 2015? March 2014 version. I took this October 2014 version because it has air traffic figures, more pictures of public transportation and more informations. There is no symbolism about it, only the will to have the most comprehensible article as possible.

Dead links? I verified that every links were working. Minato ku (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You obviously did not check those links, as even now they're showing 'ref error' (multiple references) errors. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Then correct those details. There was no call to revert the whole thing to its pre-GA-drive state, you reverted the work of many contributors. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll update the air traffic table soon. Didn't have time yesterday. I have a life besides Wikipedia you know. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
And ThePromenader, can you point out exactly what important and non-outdated information Minato ku removed from the section? If there is any, it should be added back in the article of course. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, don't distract (and can't Minato ku answer for themselves?) : Minato ku reverted to a version from over a year ago without providing any reasonable explanation why. The burden of justification is on the person who did that, and 'outdated numbers' is an explanation for an update, but not a total revert, let alone a revert to that version in particular (and its outdated numbers!). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

My explanation is the more accurate information of this version. Note that no information was lost, on the contrary the transportation section is more complete now.

It does not matter to have two years old air traffic passengers figures, the date is written so people understand that it is the data of 2013 (the most recent figures would be of 2014 anyway). The issue is more about the wrong number of lines, fanciful metro ridership... Minato ku (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That explation is... ambiguity at best. "Just because I want to" isn't a reason to revert other people's work, of course it 'matters' (and especially when the reverted-to version is even worse and has errors). We all know what went on here, I just decided to give you a chance to explain, all the same. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That said, I'll be putting this section back into its pre-revert state later today, of course adding the new tram line information (and any other numbers that have been updated since the revert). From here on, if there is anything more than a few phrases you'd like to change or remove, you talk about it here, first. That, too, I'll be outlining later today. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 04:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I preserved the Minato Ku - Hardouin version text (with my sentence corrections with updated numbers), but put the layout to the pre-reverted version. I hope this is a compromise we can work from. In the future, no more WP:POINT edits/reverts, please. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You have deleted the air traffic table, it was an interesting information to know the major airline destinations from Paris. As Der Statistiker said we should work to correct errors rather than deleting interesting information that balances out history and culture sections which have a disportionate size. In this article there is too little information about Paris the working city. Minato ku (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been removed several times, its information was outdated, and the consensus reason for removing it was 'more noise than value' (and I support this). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If there was a version that stood vertically (not breaking the page flow/sections to bits as it did), and better still, collapsable (the second section?), I might support re-inserting it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

is there a compelling need for an airline destination table? There are no comparable tables in the articles on London, New York and Berlin. Are the destinations from Paris any different from those of any large European city? I would suggest leaving it out.SiefkinDR (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, destinations are different. Paris air traffic is focused more on North Africa, the Caribbean, and the Indian Ocean than any other European city. I've put the table back in the article and updated it with 2014 figures, since that was ThePromenader's main complaint. If this table is deleted once more I will notify User:Future Perfect at Sunrise as this would breach the rule he/she set for this article: be civil and friendly with other editors, and do not delete content added by other editors without discussing it with them before as a civil gesture. Thank you. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That table was removed from the article long ago, with reason, and it is on the person who wants to replace it to open discussion before replacing it. Two people have voiced opposition to that in just the last few comments, yet still you replace it... that is a perfect demonstration of incivility and disregard for other contributors. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: I would invite anyone to this talk page to examine it for a source of incivility and disruption, a quick glance would be enough... the logic behind that threat, is, at best, puzzling. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

PPS: Please don't think that I'm not not removing the table because of your threat, but because, no matter what, we all know it will just be reverted again anyway. Der Statistiker completely ignored SiefkinDR's opposition to the table (before he inserted it all the same), so let's see if SiefkinDR has anything to say about all this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I don't think the table belongs here; it's not about Paris, but about places you can get to from Paris. i don't see any value to that here at all; maybe it can go in the article on CDG airport. I think it should be removed. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This table is not about CDG Airport, so it cannot go into the CDG Airport article. Thanks for not seeing any value to that table here. Personally I see no value to most of the super long culture section which is pretty outdated (ancient culture of Paris, not the contemporary one) and much too detailed for this general article about Paris. Does that mean I can cut that section same as you wish to cut that table? Der Statistiker (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Stastiker: What I'm asking is simply that you not cut or add information to this article without discussion first and without a consensus of other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a battlefield, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A collaborative project means first of all that the rule WP:OWN be respected by everybody. Asking editors to submit any edit beforehand in the talk page to a committee made up essentially of you and ThePromenader looks like a violation of WP:OWN to me: "It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it." Der Statistiker (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That's quite an extraordinary tu quoque accusation/attempt to distract from the obvious above. SiefkinDR has been working on the article regularly, and is one of the most diplomatic and compromising people I know. Myself, I've been mostly gone since around a year, and announced that I would have time to edit around a month ago, and began editing on the 11th of November [5]. The logs also show that, after a total absence of a year (almost to the day), Der Statistiker showed up a week later [6]. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And tu quoque accusations are not an answer for Siefkin and my demands for rationale for inexplicable, undiscussed reverts and removals (and requests that you stop doing this) and a modicum of politesse. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Distraction aside, both SiefkinDR and I have expressed our disapproval over this (many-times-removed-over-the-years-with-consensus-and-rationale) table, yet Der Statistiker totally ignored this to re-insert it.

A resumé of the situation until present:

1) ThePromenader makes a relatively minor edit to a paragraph in the 'Transportation' section [7]

2) the same day, Minato ku[8] reverts the entire section to an over-year-old version by Der Statistiker with a 'reorganisation' summary without rationale or talk-page comment [9]

3) When asked for rationale, Minato ku is unable to provide any coherent one, even after it is noted that the reverted-to version contains outdated numbers (that are made to seem updated by an updated reference) and broken references, and still no indication of what all the 'factual errors' were.

4) Der Statistiker updates some of the numbers Minato ku said were 'corrected' and up-to-date, but not the table[10]

5) ThePromenader announces that he will revert to the reverted-from version (with updated numbers), but instead just reinstates the images and map placement the reverted-from version as a compromise[11]

6) Minato ku protests the table being removed; ThePromenader suggests edits that might make it acceptable

7) SiefkinDR also voices his disapproval of the table

8) Der Statistiker ignores all this to re-insert the table [12], and leaves accusatory and threatening remarks as a 'rationale'

9) ThePromenader and SiefkinDR voice their opposition to this

10) SiefkinDR asks Der Statistiker to refrain from such behaviour and to maintain a minimum of respect for other contributors

11) Der Statistiker responds in accusing ThePromenader and SiefkinDR of WP:OWN

I think this speaks pretty well for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the table with air traffic. So there is no consensus for removing it. And ThePromenader can you bring evidence (diffs) that this table was "many-times-removed-over-the-years-with-consensus-and-rationale"? Thank you. Minato ku (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that I've removed it in the past (no doubt that was reverted), but it's been gone for over a year of without-me editing, so that pretty well speaks for itself. And the burden of evidence and justification is on the person reverting an entire section to a version (specifically) dating from over a year ago; the WP:POINT of it is quite obvious. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Minato ku, if two editors say the table should be removed, and two want to keep it, that isn't consensus, that's a reason for discussion. Why do you think it's important that this table be there? No other large city article has such a table. It doesn't seem important for understanding how Paris works, since it's almost the same as every other large city in Europe. Why not just say in the article that Paris serves major cities, including many cities in North Africa? SiefkinDR (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, SiefkinDR. I think yours is the most sensible suggestion. I watch the Paris article, because I lived in the city 50 years ago and love it very much, but I am too old and weary to get involved in these arguments. Time and time again you bring a breath of fresh air to the discussions. LynwoodF (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

For the 2nd time SiefkinDR, no it's not the same as every other large city in Europe. To pretend so is preposterous. And your insistence on having this table removed is suspect. I see this as a case of WP:OWN. Your interest is mainly in history and antiquated culture of Paris, I think we all understand that, but that's no reason to wish to suppress from this article information that isn't related to your penchants. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Statistiker, I think the table would be great in the article on Airports of Paris, but I don't really see the need for it here. The person who put the table into the article, Minato ku, hasn't spoken up to explain why he thinks its essential to have it in this article. I've suggested a compromise; describe the unique aspect of Paris destinations in a sentence or two, but put the the table elsewhere, such the as the article on airports of Paris, which in fact has very little information. Discussion is how your reach a consensus. "Preposterous"? "Suspect"? "Suppress"? Is that how you talk to other editors? I really wish you would leave out the personal attacks and insults, it's not helpful and not acceptable.SiefkinDR (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Your "compromise" is not really a compromise. It's just a way to evacuate that table from the article, and for what reason? You ask Minato ku to explain why the table should be in this article, but you're not explaining why it shouldn't be there. What's the problem in having other tables in the article but not this one?? At first the excuse for removing the table from the article was that it was "oudated" (one year old figures! when there are other figures in this article that are many years old and way more outdated). Now that I've updated it with the latest figures, you two still insist on removing it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, as the saying goes. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Statistiker: All right, if you reject that idea, how about this? A table that shows the international arrivals in Paris by country of traveler? I think that would be more interesting for an international audience than knowing how many people fly each year from Paris to Toulouse, Bordeaux or to Lyon. What do you think? SiefkinDR (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I... take it that was tongue-in cheek, SiefkinDR. There's already been compromise made here, in leaving the reverted-to text as-is; a revert was uncalled for, because, numbers and added trams aside, I don't see any improvement at all (quite the contrary), and I don't even know how many other-contributor edits were reverted. The WP:POINT here is: there was no WP:POINT in reverting to 'Statistiker's' edit from over a year ago, and until that is explained (which I think I just did), there is nothing to compromise with. And the table, which apparently must at all costs be replaced after a year's absence... this is more WP:POINT and bullying, as far as I'm concerned, just like the repeated WP:OWN accusations that couldn't be directed at a least likely target. And that can't stand.

And I agree with SiefkinDR: the information therein may be useful (as text), just not all of it, just not here. The issue has become, yet once again, Der Statistiker's (and his 'help') bullying behaviour, and that is unacceptable. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, just back since a week after Paris Attack, and i just read your discussion about these table, in my opinion i think they may be better in this article than in Aéroports de Paris's one, as they are just talking about the top 10 destinations.. and thus image on how airports are used. As in ADP's page we may have even more detailed table?Clouchicloucha (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(facepalm) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

SiefkinDR want to know why I am in favor the table for air passengers traffic. It is because a table is much better and clearer than a badly explained text. It is the same about the immigrants population, I understand much better the diversity of the immigrants population by looking the table than with the text. It's all about the clarity of information. Minato ku (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Minato ku, Of course I agree with you that a table is better than statistics in the text. it's the content that concerns me; I think it would be more interesting for English-language Wikipedia readers to have a table showing the number of people arriving at Paris airports from London, New York, Rome, Sydney and other departure points, rather than the number who fly from Paris to Toulouse or Nice. Would you agree to this compromise? SiefkinDR (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Busiest destinations from Paris airports (CDG, ORY, BVA) in 2014
Domestic destinations	Passengers
Toulouse	3,158,331
Nice	2,865,602
Bordeaux	1,539,478
Marseille	1,502,196
Pointe-à-Pitre	1,191,437
Saint-Denis (Réunion)	1,108,964
Fort-de-France	1,055,770
Other domestic destinations Montpellier 807,482 Biarritz 684,578 Lyon 613,395
International destinations	Passengers
Italy	7,881,497
Spain	7,193,481
United States	6,495,677
Germany	4,685,313
United Kingdom	4,177,519
Morocco	3,148,479
Portugal	3,018,446
Algeria	2,351,402
China	2,141,527
Other international destinations Switzerland 1,727,169

SiefkinDR, I've been tinkering with the table to address some of the issues here, and I came up with this (to the right). I think it solves most of the problems perceived by some, as the table is now reduced to a side table not interrupting the text, and is also reduced in width. I've made it collapsible to show only domestic destinations with more than 1 million passengers and international destinations with more than 2 million. That way the specifics of Paris air traffic are visible at a glance (more predominance of Caribbean, Indian Ocean, and Maghreban destinations than in other European cities), and the collapsible nature of the table also allows to add more destinations than the 20 ones that were originally in the table.

For once I would appreciate some, well, appreciative comments for the two hours (two hours!) that I've spent trying to find a way to make this fit, instead of the usual criticism and negative comments from TP. Thanks. And let me know what you think, but I don't think this can possibly be reduced further. Der Statistiker (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If we want a chart like this, I do think you are headed the right way. I'm still not sold on its importance to this article: wouldn't it make more sense in Transport in Paris#National and international air connections? Still, I don't have a big problem with it. Collapsible is definitely good. A few thoughts: uncollapsed could just be top 5 in each group, so as not to give this excessive space. Also: do we have international data by city? If so, I would think that would be of equal interest to the two lists here; possibly lump international & domestic cities in a single list. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely if your reasoning is that the super long history section of the Economy of Paris article should stay there and not be moved to a sub-article on the ground that it would make it "harder to find" ([13]), the same can apply to this table that is way way way smaller than the said history section. ;) Frankly I don't understand the insistence of these two editors to have this table removed from the article, when other things in the article don't seem to trouble them too much (culture section?). It's precisely attitudes like that which don't lead to a good editing ambiance in this article, and has pushed away all the French editors (they can see that an editor who hasn't edited this article in a year is immediately challenged, attacked, asked to be banned for such a trivial matter as this fucking little table in the article, do you think that it makes them wish to come back and edit the article again?).

About your other points: no unfortunately there are no data for foreign cities (Paris-New York, Paris Rome, etc.), otherwise I would of course have replaced the countries with cities. As for listing only the top 5 in each group, indeed I thought about it, but if the goal of the table is to show at a glance the specifics of air traffic in Paris compared to other European cities (i.e. the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Maghreb), especially if an accompanying sentence about those specifics is written in the article next to table, then collapsing after 5 destinations wouldn't do the job (Réunion, Martinique, Morocco, and Algeria wouldn't show if we collapse after 5 destinations). Der Statistiker (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Statistiker, I never objected to the format of the table; I questioned whether it was needed, and also your way of making changes without discussion or compromise, and your attacks on other editors. It looks better, but I agree with Jmabel that it could be shorter. I also agree that it should mention international rankings; SiefkinDR (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

When you decided single-handedly to enlarge the culture section of this article to the point it's now disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article, I don't think you discussed this major change here before or tried to reach a compromise on this issue with other editors when it was pointed out to you. Why should I submit all my edits on the talk page when you guys don't? The demographics section was also severely cut down without ever trying to reach a compromise about that. What I see is editors who favor certain aspects of Paris and push them in the article, while cutting other aspects that they find "uninteresting" (this air traffic table that you two wish to remove is a good example), without caring much for the contributions and efforts of the editors who fleshed out those sections uninteresting to you. As for the rest, I've already answered those points in my response to Jmabel above. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I did suggest the more wiki-friendly vertical/collapsable format, but that wasn't an 'objection' per se; my question, too, was about its value to the article vs. the space it takes. I wish there was some sort of wiki-link that would open a chart/map on hover (like the mini-preview)... is there? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy (expletive), that Transport in Paris article is outdated. It has links to several sub-articles that have been maintained, though, so that should make updating it easier... I'll get to work there, and include the table there already, that way there's no 'all for naught'. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I added the table to the Transport in Paris article, so thanks for all that work. Perhaps it would be easier to manage (and find wider usage) if you transformed it into a template (maybe for other modes of transport, too). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the Lead

I see that an editor has deleted the population of the Paris Region from the lead, without any discussion, and also deleted it from the information box. Since the Region is mentioned frequently in the article, and since many of the statistics given are for the region, I would like to restore that to the lead and the information box. I ask once again that editor who did this discuss first here before they delete important text from the lead. Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the IDF population from the lede, since there is already information about the 'Paris metropolitan area' there, and the entire IDF population is hardly Paris' own. But add it back, if you will. I wasn't aware that it was even present in the infobox. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I added back the lede part, but I have no idea about the inbox. Was IDF data ever there? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquette Minimum

There seem to be a few here unfamiliar with 'Wikiquette'. If you land on a much frequented page that's been heavily edited over time, there's a minimum of politeness that one can afford fellow Wikipedians (there, and anywhere).

a) an edit commentary is enough to explain the rationale for changing or removing a few phrases, or updating existing ones.

b) any proposed modifications beyond that to existing content should be announced on the talk page. For example, if you want to rewrite a section, let others know what you intend to do, and see what others have to say about it.

c) anyone can add content, but if that is contested, again, talk about it on the talk page (and wait for an answer!) before removing or rewriting it. There's no better way to ruffle the feathers of a contributor than to remove or rewrite their just-contributed work.

d) If something of yours has been removed several times over, there's probably already a good reason for it on the talk page; it should be discussed there (if it hasn't already, it should have been) before inserting it again. The same goes for a repeated removal of content. The same goes for reverting to old content.

These demonstrate a modicum of poiteness and constructive editing technique, and they apply to all of Wikipedia, but perhaps a reminder would be useful here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Grand Paris

Dear fellow editors, I have updated the information on Grand Paris, which comes into existence at the end of the month - it will need to be updated again in January to put it into the present tense. Comments and suggestions welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the thoroughgoing translation 'The Metropolis of Greater Paris'. This falls easily on the ear of an Englishman. Here in England we already have top-tier local authorities called 'Greater London' and 'Greater Manchester' and so such expressions are familiar to us. Again, I think Paris is a metropolis (a chief city), rather than a metropole (the parent state of a colony). What do the regulars think about this? LynwoodF (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It certainly sounds nicer, but I think we should check to see how the people who came up with the term (the government!) want it translated (for referencability). BTW, I wasn't aware of that definition of metropole, thanks ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right, LynwoodF, and the Grand Paris article has it that way already.

I'm sure that it will end up being simply 'Greater Paris' for anglophones (lazy familiarity), but that's neither here nor there for now, as the translations are all over the place for the time being. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There are several errors. The population figure is wrong. If you take all the 131 communes which comprise the Metropole du Grand Paris, there were 6,945,306 inhabitants in 2012. The 6.7 million figure can't describe a future. 6.7 million is the population of the City of Paris and the inner ring departements but Metropole du Grand will include several outer ring municipalities.

• City of Paris: 2,240,621
• Hauts de Seine: 1,586,434
• Seine Saint Denis: 1,538,726
• Val de Marne: 1,341,831
• Argenteuil: 104,962
• Athis-Mons: 29,482
• Juvisy-sur-Orge: 15,188
• Morangis: 12,476
• Paray-Vieille-Poste: 7,230
• Savigny-sur-Orge: 37,135
• Viry-Châtillon: 31,221
• Total population in 2012 : 6,945,306

The land size is also wrong, the size of Metropole du Grand Paris will be 814 km², as for the population, the surface you posted (762 km²) only includes the City of Paris and the inner Ring departments.

• City of Paris: 105.40 km²
• Hauts de Seine: 175.61 km²
• Seine Saint Denis: 236.20 km²
• Val de Marne: 245.03 km²
• Argenteuil: 17.22 km²
• Athis-Mons: 8.56 km²
• Juvisy-sur-Orge: 2.24 km²
• Morangis: 4.80 km²
• Paray-Vieille-Poste: 6.14 km²
• Savigny-sur-Orge: 6.97 km²
• Viry-Châtillon: 6.07 km²
• Total: 814.24 km²

Minato ku (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

SiefkinDR can answer for himself, but since I'm here, I can say that we can't just add up numbers ourselves, they have to correspond and link to the same in sources. I'm sure you're right, so find a source corresponding to those numbers and all's good, otherwise we have to make do with those in the sources we have. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors should verify the sources they are using or they will write wrong things at one time or another. Some reflections and researches are needed from the editors, they should not take the first source they found without verifying if this is correct.

The quality should be the priority. Minato ku (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will fix those errors. Please let me know if there are other things that need fixing. SiefkinDR (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

SiefkinDR, you didn't just delete some text from the section. You rewrote it entirely ([14]) despite the fact that I had written and added this section only 3 days ago ([15]) and that it contained accurate information and was sourced. What's more, in rewriting it you introduced lots of errors and factual inaccuracies that I've detailed on the talk page of Future Perfect at Sunrise: Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this.

But ok, let's take you at your words. This is what I propose: if you're sincere and genuine about what you just wrote, can you kindly revert this section to how it was today before your first edit at 15:20 ([16]) and then work from there if things need to be added? A negative response would make your apology and offer of good behavior above look rather hypocritical. I hope you can see it. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, since it was more than making corrections, SiefkinDR should have left a note before editing, especially if it was a recent contribution. If that happened my contribution, my first reaction to that would be "what did I do wrong?", but I don't see you even asking about the reason for the rewrite, only pointing on the fact that it was "your" contribution and that you "want it back". It is that sort of 'contributor, not content' attitude that disrupts the editing atmosphere, and the emotional-blackmail "do my bidding A or you're B" doesn't help much, either.

Why did you rewrite it, SiefkinDR? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

(after reading complaint) By the complaint, one would swear that an entire section and months of work had been effaced, not a few sentences, and many, many contributors to this article have had to endure much worse than that. But, in order: the Grand Paris underway (unfortunately) little resembles Sarkozy's plan, so it was not 'wrong' to remove this; 'MGP' is a French terminology (among many, the majority of politicians and media are using "Grand Paris" (out of what motive is not for us to determine)), Statistiker was of course right about the number of communes and grande couronne participants; no, unsourced wikipedian-calculated numbers are 'wrong' (and WP:OR) as well, and I adressed the numbers issue below, so find a better source matching any calculated numbers to make them 'right'; Statistiker is again (of course, it is sourced) right about the yet-(but soon)-to-be-determined number of territories and council members; the council 'selection' critique could be 'lack of clarity' at best (not wrong); and again, Statistiker is right about housing and economic development; the original text didn't have any info about other MGP authority, either, so I don't see how this can be presented as 'being wrong'; the rest is speculation: although the IDF is the sole comptable for now, there are plans to levy taxes in that way to finance the MGP, but it is far from a fait accompli, so it is not 'wrong', either.

I really don't understand the motive for making a pointed 'how wrong they are' and WP:OWN-accusation complaint against another contributor on a specific admin's page; isn't that a clear demonstration of WP:OWN in itself, and what was the admin in question expected to do 'about' the targeted contributor? This seems a silly waste of time. But I assume that all these errors have been corrected by now. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful comments and corrections, Promenader. I added additional text on the project as it was described in Le Moniteur, the publication of the French construction industry, which I thought was authoritative, but apparently it wasn't the most recent version. Now Der Statistiker accuses me of hypocrisy, being not sincere and not genuine. He continues to abuse and attack me and other editors, just as he did last year. Please, Der Statistiker, once again, no more insults, no more attacks, no more sarcasm. Please try to be civil to other editors. i don't want to open the article each day wondering who you're going to attack next. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. SiefkinDR (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No need to thank me. But please do explain your rationale for rewriting. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I don't see those numbers in any of the references provided, and I just outlined this issue above. Wikipedia is not a source, it is a collection of sourced data, so if there is a number indicated in an article here, the source it links to must have it as well. I'm sure there's a reliable source out there that has 'done the math'... if there isn't, the article will have to make do with the best sources it can find. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked up on those numbers: SiefkinDR or Der Statistiker, please remove them from here (and the Grand Paris article), as they are 'personal work' from someone here, calculated on 2012 population figures. SiefkinDR, I don't know where those journal numbers come from, but they seem to be the best source we have to date... if they're estimated projections, and should be indicated as such. I'm sure 'real' numbers will come out soon, especially when the INSEE gets into swing on this. I'd do it myself, but... hm. But for now, Wikipedia is one out of two places on the web where those numbers can be found, and the other place is not a credible source. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I added text to the section about Grand Paris created by Der Statistiker, because I didn't think it gave enough information; it lacked specifics about the area, population, and competences of the Metropole. His text also attributed the plan entirely to President Sarkozy, though the present plan has little in common with that of Sarkozy, and it didn't give any figures or describe precisely what the Metropole would do. I looked at the source that Der Statistiker used, the legal act, but thought it was too technical and decided to use instead the description of Grand Paris in Le Moniteur, the journal of the construction trades. That article was from July, and since then the territory of the Metrpole has changed slightly, and there are also changes in the means of financing and in the competencies, so what I put up was out of date. I wanted to put up something before the end of the year, when the Metropole comes into effect. Der Statistiker pointed out the differences, and I fixed them. I regret that I didn't announce first that I was going to make the changes, but I put up the best information I could find.SiefkinDR (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

My edit contained the land area and population of the Greater Paris Metropolis: [17]. How can you claim that this section that I created lacked this information when the diffs prove the opposite??? This is getting more and more bizarre... Also, the bit about Sarkozy wasn't written by me but by previous editors (as the diff shows), and I left it in the article because otherwise you would accuse me of deleting things from the article without discussing on the talk page and bla bla bla. It's quite rich to then say that *my* text attributed the plan entirely to president Sarkozy when it's actually something that was already there in the article! Der Statistiker (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal that editors give notice before making major changes

I deleted text from the section on Grand Paris without first saying why and what I was going to do, and I realize now that was a mistake. Given the recent arguments on this page, I would propose that editors who want to make any major change (changing anything over one sentence) should announce it here first, for discussion, before making the change. I think that might calm things here down a bit. Would other editors agree to that? Cordiallly, SiefkinDR (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If it was a major change, yes, you should have left a note about it (well) before you rewrote it, and even if it wasn't, checked if it had just been submitted, as, as I guess it's obvious to you now, editing just-contributed content beyond correcting errors tends to ruffle feathers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course I would agree to that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

(note: this, in response to SiefkinDR, was bizarrely moved away by ThePromenader; I'm putting it back, and still waiting for a response from SiefkinDR demonstrating a genuine desire to stand up to his words)
SiefkinDR, you didn't just delete some text from the section. You rewrote it entirely ([18]) despite the fact that I had written and added this section only 3 days ago ([19]) and that it contained accurate information and was sourced. What's more, in rewriting it you introduced lots of errors and factual inaccuracies that I've detailed on the talk page of Future Perfect at Sunrise: Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this.
But ok, let's take you at your words. This is what I propose: if you're sincere and genuine about what you just wrote, can you kindly revert this section to how it was today before your first edit at 15:20 ([20]) and then work from there if things need to be added? A negative response would make your apology and offer of good behavior above look rather hypocritical. I hope you can see it. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)