Talk:Paris

New section: Security and safety in Paris

I've just added an important new section on Security and safety in Paris. It is placed within the Tourism section, as tourists are most often targeted for robberies and related activity. Coldcreation (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to be a tourist guide? This is getting more and more ridiculous by the day. What's next? A section about the best air fares to Paris? Der Statistiker (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty anti-tourist if anything. Perhaps another name would be better, but 'ridiculous', really? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's beyond ridiculous to add 6 paragraphs to an already very long article that simply copy warnings from the US State Department to tentative tourists to France. This subsection does not discuss crime in Paris (tourist crime is only a very minor aspect of crime in Paris), it gives no context about criminality in Paris (if this is even needed in a general article such as this), it's only some warnings and advice to tentative tourists. You guys are now going to such extremes here that I am in no doubt this will all boomerang back. But then feel free to add more tourism stuff! The more this article becomes extremist in its 'tourist guide' orientation, the more it is bound to eventually attract the attention of other editors concerned with the encyclopedic quality of it. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

'Extremist'? Is it even possible to you to state your views in a talk page without reverting, accusing, insulting, or belittling? When one 'states' points in that way, people tend not to listen. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's why there is no consensus and progressive discussion possible in this talk page, ThePromenader, if you don't even listen to points where you don't agree.

Any section about crime in Paris has no reason to be put in tourism section and this section should not be a copy of tourist advice from the US or it just proves that this article is more and more written with the tourist point of view, it is not giving an overview of the Paris of today and its function but giving something based on stereotypes and what tourist may see. Nothing about the banking and financial industries but a lot about the hotels. Minato ku (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Your problem guys is that beginning the article with History starts the reading of it with a blank and semi-void which remains long the only and dusty path with ancient and faded pictures before starting arriving to the real thing. There seem to miss a direction. The fat rich modern piece of urbanity exposed in the lede arrives only after crossing the desert and that's a bit perplexing. You'd need one flashy and bright spot of paragraph before starting with history. About direction: in Government, we read that the city has a Mayor, starting with Jacques Chirac. There is something unreal in that image (although it's fact). I think it should be shortly reminded that an equivalent function was held by the Provost of Merchants until 1789. --Askedonty (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would actually agree that the history should go further down after we understand what the city's all about... but I'm not the only one here. By the way, what brought you to the article talk-page? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That was, I had an eye on a few of the big cities articles, my watch on evolution, and I'm curious about what will become of the Parisian struggle between glass towers and the Eiffel Tower. There is also the Tour Triangle affair. I noted the struggle seemed to be also in the talk-page, this sometimes can lead to some easy conversation - voilà. --Askedonty (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if the Le Monde article was still bringing attention, or the campaign on French wikipedia inspired by the same article. Okay, cool! I left a longer message below. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@ Askedonty: regarding the last question by ThePromenader, to let you know what sort of charming place you've entered, he's probably implying, as he often does, that I have contacted you off Wikipedia, or canvassed with you, or something like that. That's basically the meaning of what would otherwise be a rather odd question to ask in any other talk page. Various other editors have also been accused by him of being either my meatpuppets, or some people I had "recruited" (sic!) off Wikipedia. That's the sort of constant accusations one is faced with here.
Regarding the history section: yes indeed, there is no rule that says a city article should start with the history section, but as you must have noticed by now, there is a clear push to turn this article into a mostly historical article, as if Paris was a mummified city. The "Culture" section is a very good example of this: it reads mostly as a history of Parisian culture before 1960. Long paragraphs about ancient artists and cultural trends (with a clear preference for the 19th century, don't know why), and almost nothing about today's Parisian culture. Paris must be some sort of Pompeii buried under the ashes of a volcano in 1960.
The other major flaw in this article is its tourist orientation. This has been already criticized on this talk page, but again: 1- the current tourist photomontage in the infobox which was forced in this article without prior consensus in replacement of this more modern picture of Paris, 2- a strong focus on heritage, as if a city was just a collection of heritage sites (several sections are little more than long lists of monuments; and it used to be even worse a few weeks ago before User:Metropolitan removed a very long list of "landmarks" from the article), 3- a new "tourism" section that is less than a week old and already twice longer than the "education" section (complete with travel warnings by the US State Department added today).
My advice: do not let insinuations and daily vitriol destabilize/discourage you. We need new non-involved editors to express themselves here, because the "discussion" between the currently involved editors is frankly leading nowhere, with one camp firmly entrenched in their historical/heritage view of Paris, and another camp trying to defend a more modern and functional view of the city, but with little success so far as you can see from the current state of the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paris article. Coldcreation (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually wondered what brought Askedonty here - this article has seen so few contributors over the years. But the person making all the accusations does indeed canvass and use (at the least) knowingly meat-puppet contributors[1] to impose edits or overturn consensus - that does tend to further (in addition to all the disingenuous accusations) disrupt the editing atmostphere. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And I seem to detect in the 'flaws' (aka: dislike) outlined that the word 'historic' and 'touristic' are seemingly synonymous. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh well - I'm surprised, I'd thought that a subject like Paris would be of course attracting a number of contributors. I do not think I'm interested getting involved into writing for the article, that's not the kind of subject I know myself to be very easy with, I thought however I could give my view if it could help.

Indeed a kind of subject I'm more at ease with being history, I've noted that history can be a difficult merge where ancient classical cities are concerned. Particularly so concerning Paris probably, with all the different periods almost all intermingled in the contemporary exploitation of them, and a prosaic life going on around it. That's where a touristic oriented aesthetics is a temptation because easier. See how the history subjects are often grey and blank, coloured only by action in the narrative, or by the exposure of aristocracies and protocols. In some Italian cities one may emphasize on the gold and the purple. In our Rome article there is the exposure of some very spectacular excavations. The history of Paris is much of action, but this is not the place for spectacular narratives - perhaps the history part could be focusing more on urbanism and geographical deployment. @Der Statistiker: the photomontage seems to be a de facto standard, where big cities articles are concerned, otherwise bright colored panorama like with Hong Kong. I would certainly support a request for a different photomontage, the Eiffel Tower view in the present is was probably intended for a standalone picture. --Askedonty (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Askedonty! Bienvenue! Please stick around. You sound as if you could help détendre l'atmosphère. C'est souvent orageux ici. The problem is that there is not one Paris, but a different Paris for everyone & each one of us sees it with different eyes.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Askedonty: I proposed this photomontage, but it was rejected by the historical/heritage camp here. Too modern, not representative of the city I was told. So it's not a question of single photo vs photomontage, it's really a question of modernity vs fantasy 'Woody Allenesque' Paris. That's where we are. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I just have to add that I'm again dismayed at the level of disingenuousity in the aggressive diatribes against other contributors - most all of us are just trying to improve the article (it just lost its GA status, btw), but there's always been one here doing everything possible to resist it. There wasn't much opposition over the past seven years or so, so the article remained (in its sorry state) relatively unchanged, but Dr. Blofeld's efforts to improve it, plus a battle over the lede image led to a canvassing of a skyscrapercity.com website to garner like-minded meatpuppet votes... and exactly the same thing happened one year later. This time though, I'm glad to say, the involved contributors have been more dedicated, tenacious and numerous, and we're at present working out what the final article should be. Some are history-oriented, some are culture-oriented, Dr. Blofeld is our 'wikiperfection' guide, I'd like to see more urbanism (the city as a city), and the skyscraper-denizens would like a 'huge, rich and skyscraper-filled' with hardly any mention of history or tourism at all. That's about the sum of it. So... welcome? ; ) You're obviously knowledgable (your prévôt des Marchands comment), so if you don't mind the noise, please stick around and pitch in! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Again repeating your false accusations? Let's inform Askedonty that you filed 4 (four!) complaints against me in the Administrators' Noticeboard to get me banned (whereas I never filed any complaint against you), and all of them failed, and in the end an administrator even told you to shut up and "comment on content, not contributors". Perhaps you believe if a falsehood is repeated often enough it will end up being taken for the truth. I am NOT a member of that stupid skyscraper forum, and the fact that your repeating that falsehood over and over again won't change that fact.

Oh, and giving a pat on Dr. Blofeld's back here while at the same time criticizing him on other editors' talk pages is slightly hypocritical. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Where did he criticise me?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Polemics aside, I have to agree that the current "security and safety" seems more suitable to en:wikivoyage:Paris than to encyclopedia article about Paris. A section about crime may be relevant here, perhaps about residential break-ins, drug-trafficking, whatever, but not an how-to guide about tourism safety. --Superzoulou (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No offense but I'm always suspicious of somebody who edits only a couple of times a year and turns up to support something and never place any weight on their opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No offense but I fail to see the point of this vacuous 'ad hominem comment. Besides, it is pretty clear that the issue with this article is that people are too emotional about it, not that they show up too infrequently. --Superzoulou (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Crime could also be mentioned in the near vicinity or even under the header of the Police duties. It's not a traditional trade ( Cour des miracles#Clearance) related with an image of the City of Lights. It could be mentioned again associated with "newspaper and media headlines" under the assumption that pursuits between police and members of the underworld find there one of their spectacular grounds. Interested readers will then all by themselves start looking for the accurate paragraph, "Police". --Askedonty (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You all have brought up some excellent points. Please feel free to improve or move the section of safety and security as best you see fit. I will see what I can do to ameliorate is well. Coldcreation (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The only possible improvement really is to shred it and rewrite it entirely, and place it somewhere else. As Askedonty said, it would make more sense under the "Police" section. In the NYC article, they have a "Police and law enforcement" subsection inside the "Human resources" section, and that's where crime is mentioned. In the SF article, they have a "Crime and public safety" subsection inside the "Law and government" section. This is a very North American thing however. Neither the London nor the Berlin articles have anything about crime in these cities. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Lock the talk page

In all honesty I think it would be better in the long term if central discussion was avoided here. It causes more conflict and trouble than it's worth. I think the best solution would be to lock the talk page and encourage discussion/collaboration between individual contributors, at least until everybody can learn to work together and assume good faith. I'm sick of seeing the ill feeling here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Those who share ill feelings have to work that out between themselves. If they cannot, Wikipedia has ways to 'lock' them out. Besides, if they want to argue, they will do it on any page being worked on. But locking the talk page? I don't think it is a good idea. This would lock out anyone wanting to participate in the discussion & bring valuable new ideas.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Blue Indigo. We need a place to hear all opinions, even it some people are yelling at each other, and some people abuse the space.SiefkinDR (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of locking a talk page before. And if it did happen, guess where all the talk would be: in the Edit summaries. I don't even want to imagine. Coldcreation (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly where it's currently at! When was the last time exactly something constructive was said here with good results? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Lede

"About 2.7 million of this total were born outside Metropolitan France and represent a multitude of different countries and territories from around the world."

• Is this information necessary in the lede? And not only in the lede, but in its very first paragraph? Why as an opener have mention of number of foreigners or French nationals born outside metropolitan France & living now in Paris? Does not that sentence belong in section Demographics/Migration?

"Disneyland Paris, the most visited tourist attraction in France, welcomed 32.3 million visitors."

• This in from lede's 3rd paragraph, which is about Paris Region. That paragraph is stuck between the 2nd paragraph (beginning with Paris in the 3rd century BC) and 4th paragraph (Paris in 2013 with mention of some museums & landmarks).

• Is this article on Paris or on the Paris Region?
• If necessary to mention the Paris Region in article - which is done - why have that mention in lede between two paragraphs on Paris itself? Why not the last paragraph of lede?

It seems to me that in lede, anything that touches Paris itself should have the priority over the Paris Region which is not Paris.

This, for instance, should be before the paragraph on Paris Region & Disneyland:

• "Paris is known for its fashion designers, high-end boutiques, and the twice-yearly Paris Fashion Week. It is world-renowned for its haute cuisine, and celebrated three-star restaurants. Most of France's major universities and Grandes Écoles are in Paris or its suburbs, and most of France's major newspapers, including Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Libération, are based in the city, while Le Parisien in the suburb Saint-Ouen."

Then the paragraph on sport.

Then the Paris Region.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the 2.7 million born outside Metropolitan France, it deserves to be mentioned in the lede in my opinion, since the lede is precisely about summarizing the various sections of the article, and the multiculturalism/ethnic diversity of Paris is a key characteristic of the city.

Regarding Disneyland Paris, I agree that this information is not really needed in the lede. Paris is not Orlando, and Disneyland plays a very minor role for Paris as a whole.

As for trying to make a rank order between the City of Paris and the Paris Region, I think it's a bit futile (and impossible), because the two are inextricably interwoven. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to mention the multiculturalism/ethnic diversity of Paris, then there are many other subjects that should be mentioned in the lede... Then it will not be a lede, but an essay, or a long summary.

My remark on the Paris Region, was not to remove its mention from the lede, but to have it as last paragraph: Paris first, region after.

A casual reader wanting to know about Paris does not want to be faced immediately with the economics, dollars amounts, GDPs usw. Having such detail so early in the lede might in fact turn a few away.

My thoughts - that's all I wanted to express.

And welcome back to those who were absent for a couple of days. Sincerely,

--Blue Indigo (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"many other subjects that should be mentioned in the lede". Such as?

"to have it as last paragraph". Paragraphs have to be arranged thematically, not by administrative units mentioned in the paragraph.

This is an encyclopedia, hence figures, statistics, ainsi de suite. I cannot count the number of city articles that start with data and figures in their ledes. So why should this article be any different? Der Statistiker (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Other subjects mentioned in the lede? Let the conversation go on & everyone will think of one!

Seriously, now RE the paragraph on Paris region, try, please just try taking out that paragraph & put it last. Then read the lede.

To me, read that way, the Paris region paragraph finishes perfectly the lede: everything has been exposed on Paris itself, then you have that end which opens up to the modern future of Paris: past, present, future... It is so logical to me.

OK, I'll even offer another example: put that paragraph one before last & finish with the one on sports.

I have said all I wanted to say on the subject. Fini!

--Blue Indigo (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the number of people born outside Metropolitan France is necessary here:

• this is a statistics about the Paris Region, not Paris;
• multicultural diversity is important, but other facts are just as important: the number of Parisian who were born in other régions, the number of high salaries, the inequalities, all of which are specific characteristics of Paris compared to other French cities. Multicultural diversity is a common feature of most major cities in France (Lyon, Marseilles...).
• you should not, anyway, consider that the number of people born outside Metropolitan France is an adequate measure of multicultural or ethnical diversity. Because many people were born in France and have (or dream about) multiple cultures. And because of a little known fact: 43% of immigrants in France are European or American [2].

Therefore either you create a paragraph about demography and human statistics, or you let them go inside the article. Seudo (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong, many cities indicate that their population is diverse in the lede. I have used a common sentence and the stats from the demographic section. The fact that XX% come from Europe or America does not reduce any diversity. The ratio of western immigrants in France is not higher than in most other western countries, infact it is lower than many other countries.

About the regional figure, many immigrants you see in the street are living in suburbs, a regional data is more representative of Paris diversity. As I notified earlier Paris region is not a region like many others with several completely independent cities. The whole Paris Region (except the small town of Provins) is part of Paris metropolitan area. Metropolitan area which is statistically calculated by INSEE, this is not a guesstimate. Minato ku (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"As for trying to make a rank order between the City of Paris and the Paris Region, I think it's a bit futile (and impossible), because the two are inextricably interwoven."
Few share this opinion, and no reference that I've ever seen, either. And hardly all aspects of the city are intertwined with its surrounding region - and that, only in the IDF's inmost departments - and that disconnect is the very problem they are trying to solve with the Greater Paris Metropole! This article is about Paris, so it is only normal that Paris be mentioned first. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Are we really living in the same urban space? The urban Paris is not limited to the City of Paris and the inner suburban departements. "Ile de France" is not called "Paris Region" or "Region parisienne" in French or "District de Paris" (in the past) for no reason. The whole regional area is linked to Paris. The metropolitan area of Paris (Aire urbaine) is covering almost the whole Ile de France, not just the inner departements but the whole region.

In 2011 only 19,331 people out the 11,852,851 inhabitants of Paris Region lived outside the metropolitan area of Paris. This means that only 0.16% of Paris Region's population were living outside Paris metropolitan area or that 99.8% of Paris Region's population were living inside the metropolitan area of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am kind of simple-minded, but to me Paris is Paris, the department with number 75. Period.

And when we are including everything in a radius of way over 55 km in department 78, for instance, then we are not talking about Paris (75) anymore, but about the Île de France, ot the Paris Region, or the great Metropolis, call it what you want, but we are not talking about Paris (75).

So, I agree, we may not be talking about the same urban space. Your urban space & mine are not covered by the same metro ticket.

Fini! --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the Métro ticket extends way beyond the administrative borders of the City of Paris (see [3]). So it looks like a very bad example for your point of view, Monsieur Blue Indigo. ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Metro tickets are valid for any bus in the Paris Region (except for some express lines) and for the whole metro network. Note that public transportation is controled by the Regional autority STIF. Paris metro, RER, suburban trains, trams and buses are controlled at the regional level, it is hard to argue that the City of Paris and Paris Region are not inextricably interwoven on many issues. Minato ku (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies to Der Statistiker & Minato ku for not being more precise about the urban space covered by 'my' metro ticket: I meant Zone 1, which is Paris intra muros [[4]].

--Blue Indigo (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it's possible to buy a zone1-only ticket... they should really update that antiquated system. But it doesn't really matter, as the argument (for...?) isn't very clear anyway... what of it if a metro extends past city limits? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Le ticket t+ est valable pour un trajet continu, here: http://www.transilien.com/static/tarifs/billet-unite

- en métro

- en RER dans Paris (zone 1)

- en bus (sauf tarification spéciale)

- en tramway

There is actually a metro ticket for only Paris intra muros=Zone 1.

Pas moi qui l'invente! --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mille pardons! I wasn't aware that t+ tickets were only RER-valid within Paris - and they quite clearly make that specification here[5], too. The INSEE, the RATP, the French government... bande d'imbeciles, complètement à côté de la plaque. Of course wikipedia knows better than they, and should educate them! ; )

But seriously, thanks for the heads-up - that is going to be one hell of a tourist trap (they won't discover that they've gone beyond the RER 'validity' until they try to get out of the RER!). And going to La Défense and Château de Vincennes is two different prices depending on mode of transport. Hm. And it p*sses me off to no end that we can't transfer between bus/metro/tramway with the same ticket. There's ma part de la monopole bureaucracy for you. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: Is there anything about all this in the article? It is pertinant information, and would only take a couple lines. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Although it is only metres away and in the New York Metropolitan area, there is but one 'ferries' mention of Hoboken in the New York City article (nor do I see Hoboken towers as the city backdrop ; ), yet this Paris article goes to enormous lengths to mention its entire suburbs and urban tissue. Anything bigger than the very well-defined commune and department (and when you're outside of one, you're in another) has another name - and this is not the Paris Region/Île-de-France (an administrative entity in itself) or Paris metropolitan area article, it's the Paris article, so of course Paris has priority. Please put this to rest. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris is not New York City, the city limits of New York City covers a much larger area. This means the city proper includes most of its main key sectors (i.e airports). Paris (because the city limits have not been extended) has many of its key sectors outside the City limits and a lot of the activities inside the city are dominated by people living outside the City proper (i.e: approx 60% of the people working in the City of Paris live outside the City of Paris). You can't make an encyclopedic article about Paris with adequate informations about the functioning of Paris if you don't take account of the suburbs. Minato ku (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

But the article does take the suburbs into account, and very much so. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Disneyland Paris

Could be time to edit mention of Mickey Mouse in Lede & Economy: [[6]] --Blue Indigo (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Um. Oops... I don't really think it's worthy of mention in the Lede, though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have put :) at end of comment as I cannot see the reason for even mentioning 'Disneyland Paris', aka 'Euro Disney' in the lede, an opinion I had expressed earlier in above section.

We have removed a lot on Paris itself so that the article will not be too touristy, yet we mention in the lede the most touristy place, which is not even in Paris. I see that as a contradiction.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree- I would keep the mention in the tourism section, but drop it from the lead.SiefkinDR (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive discussion page

Hello,

Anyone to archive the current page, only presenting a short synthesis of not yet solved points (Oh.... of course, the definition of the short synthesis should not generate new discussions to be recursively archived... ) v_atekor (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I activated a bot that should archive discussions older than six months automatically... should I step it up to six months? Three? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I set it to archive monthly. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Climate

Hello, I have corrected the weatherbox because the 1971-2000 averages in the climate section of Paris are wrong and mixed with 1981-2010 summer seasons averages. The 1981-2010 averages that I have added are correct, please do not change them because these averages came from meteo france official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:39AF:800:F921:CB83:64B2:AA68 (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)