Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 List of Tallest buildings and structures in Paris

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	ThePromenader
Parties involved	ThePromenader Metropolitan Captain scarlet Hardouin john k
Mediator(s)	GofG
Comment	Page Move conflict evolved to civilty dispute

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris]]

Request Information

Request made by: THEPROMENADER 08:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

A page-move vote (and discussion) in the article List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris

Who's involved?

A few contributors, but the major contributors to discussion are ThePromenader (myself), Metropolitan, Captain scarlet, Hardouin and john k.

What's going on?

ThePromenader has pointed out that the article title is inaccurate and misleading, has already proposed to move the page to a different location. Another contributor had proposed yet another location more binding to Wikipedia naming conventions, in a vote ending in a 'no consensus' result. ThePromenader has recently opened a third page-move vote that, at the outset, was a pre-agreed compromise but has since turned sour. What should be a simple question of factual accuracy has become an overblown stand-off involving accusations of bad faith, accusations of sock-puppetry and other distractions having nothing to do with fact or reference.

What would you like to change about that?

Discussion to return to subjects more in the interest of Wikipedia as a reference than personal concepts and acts. An objective viewpoint of about the accuracy and verifiability of the existing title. Should the need for a move be approved, some advice on how, according to Wiki conventions, the article should best be named.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I would prefer to keep everything above-table, with no IRC or e-mail exchanges at all.

Mediator response

I, gofg, will mediate this case impartially. Will all involved please sign up below?

• User:GofG Mediator
• User:ThePromenader
• User:Captain Scarlet
• User:ALoan
• Bob 00:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NYArtsnWords 22:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No activity. Closing. --Ideogram 09:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

Vote/Comments

• My first vote would be for #3, but add my vote to the count for any of the above save the present title. THEPROMENADER 08:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 or 7 look best to me, as seeming like natural things one might actually say. "The Paris area" sounds awkward, perhaps simply because of the way it sounds. Most of the other titles are awkward. I think "of Paris" is kind of ambiguous and possibly awkward, but I'd prefer it to the current title. john k 14:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 or 4 look best to me. Even after studying Image:Paris uu ua jms.png, I still have a difficult time figuring out the limits to the Paris urban area and metro area, but the expression Ile-de-France or Paris region seems clear and comprehensible by non-experts. NYArtsnWords 22:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 4. Straight to the point, accurate and right. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I still prefer the (unlisted) current name List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. It is the shortest, any doubt is cleared up in the list's lead section, and I don't see that "region" or any of the other qualifiers add anything to that. If necessary, I would live with List of tallest buildings and structures of Paris. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• First choice would be no. 4. per User:Captain scarlet. Second choice would be no. 3 as it is a direct translation of région parisienne. --Bob 16:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

September 14

If someone could sum up what has happened, perhaps multiple people, that'd be great :). GofG _|^|_| Contribs 00:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question contains a list of the tallest buildings and structures in or near the city of Paris in France. For French administrative purposes, "Paris" means the département of the City of Paris, which is a relatively small central part of the larger continuous urban agglomeration (or unité urbaine) that spills out over neighbouring administrative regions, mainly in a few communes of the neighbouring départements. For example, many of the listed buildings are in La Défense, a business district not far outside the centre of the city of Paris, but which itself spills over three communes, none of which is the administratively-defined Paris.

In a way, this is similar to London, where the City of London is the old historical square mile in the centre, but London commonly means the conurbation of Greater London, which spills out for miles over the surrounding area. Note, though, that Greater London has a proper definition, whereas there is no accepted definition of "Greater Paris", at least as far as the French government are concerned.

The next administrative region up from the City of Paris, as defined for administrative purposes, is the région called Île-de-France (historically known as the Région Parisienne). All of the listed buildings are in a small central area of the région, the conurbation of Paris.

Possible names include:

1. List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris
   • This is the current title of the article. It has the advantage of being short, and easy to understand (at least for those who do not care about the administrative niceties), and the technical administrative position is explained in the article lead anyway.
   • Some object to the word "in", on the basis that most of the buildings are not inside the small administratively-defined area of Paris. They are, however, all within the larger conurbation that surrounds it.
2. List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region (or "Paris urban area" or "Paris metropolitan area" or suchlike)
   • Those who object to "in Paris" think that "Paris region" is better, although not strictly technically correct.
   • Others think the term "region" does not help, as "Paris region" has no proper definition, and could spread out beyond the conurbation.
3. List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France
   • Those who object to "in Paris" think this is better, as it is technically correct.
   • Others think that Île-de-France has poor recognition for most English speakers, and the buildings are all within the relatively small urbanised area in the middle of it, known in English as "Paris".
4. List of tallest buildings and structures of Paris
   • Some think that "of" avoids the incorrect assertion that all of the buildings are within the administrative region called Paris, but rather are connected with it rather more loosely. This could be a compromise solution, except that again there is no precise definition of what "of Paris" means.

There are some other "list of" articles relating to Paris, such as List of museums in Paris or List of parks and gardens in Paris. I do not know what approach they are taking.

It has been impossible to find a consensus for a change of name, and there was some move/edit warring, so the page went back to where it started and has stayed there for the time being.

That is my take on the problem. In the interests of full disclosure, my view is that "in Paris" is best, "of Paris" is ok, and the others are not as good. Other editors should feel free to add or correct this summary, particularly if my POV has become too overt :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been impossible to find a consensus for a change of name, but there IS clear consensus for the current title (check the polls). So what's there to mediate? It's mostly one single user here (ThePromenader) obstinately trying to overturn the consensus of a majority of editors who are in favor of the current title ("in Paris") by asking for "mediation". He believes the majority of editors are either ignorant (they don't know that La Défense is not located within the administrative borders of Paris), or that they are manipulative (they know the "truth", but they have a "hidden agenda", the nature of which remains mysterious...). Hardouin 10:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'clear consensus' for the present name at all. The vote was for a move to "Paris area"; it was not a vote for the accuracy of the "in Paris" name. If you do want to look at it from that perspective, 4 votes were against the present name (one vote opposed "Paris area" but was for a page move), 3 were for, three neutral oppose/weak oppose, and three neutral. That's a 'no consensus' if anything. You forget also those who commented on the inaccuracies of the present name but did not vote for the new one. Yet even then, I find it strange to put consensus before fact when fact is so easily verifiable. THEPROMENADER 17:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the concise summary, ALoan. I'd like to clarify one point, that is #2 - "Paris Region" is technically correct, because it is the official translation of Île-de-France [1] [2]. The reason that it was a secondary choice, like the Île-de-France, is that it is an area (officially) much larger than that spoken of in the article. Yet "Paris region" can mean an "in the Paris area" to the layman, which would not be incorrect.

It would be normal that a "List of X in X" article contain, within a proper context, a secondary list of the more notable "X" in regions outside the "in" area - but in this case over 70% of the article is "out of Paris".

Opinions of what "Paris is" can be practically anything depending on level of knowledge and/or personal concepts, so it is only normal that we should fall back to a definition echoed in official use, textbooks and reference. In these, no area outside of the city of Paris is ever called only "Paris" - it takes on a suffix, secondary descriptive or even another name. Even in common usage, "Paris agglomeration" is the most common term used here to describe Paris' unbroken urban tissue, and "Paris region" is a close second, especially when speaking of an area larger.

My standpoint is not over a choice of name, but rather the inaccuracy of the present title. At this point I would support any solution accurately describing the scope of the article - even if it is descriptive and doesn't comply fully with Wiki conventions. THEPROMENADER 11:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ALoan has summed it up correctly. However, the current title IS misleading as almost all the buildings within the article are not in Paris!! This is an important point which User:ThePromenader correctly raised. Many alternatives were proposed, including Île-de-France (the correct alternative if we want to be exact) and Paris region (which is the correct translation of the French phrase Région Parisienne, the alternative phrase used by the French for Île-de-France). I guess mediation has to be brought in due to the bickering between User:ThePromenader and User:Hardouin, including false accusations of vulgarity, and the inability of the users to come to a factually correct agreement. In the event that common sense does not prevail, the article should be stripped of all buildings not within the boundaries of Paris and an alternative article created with the buildings of Île-de-France. Also, as an aside, it must be noted that the French wiki (and we must assume that they know how to correctly title articles) title the corresponding article as fr:Liste des plus hauts bâtiments d'Île-de-France --Bob 18:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you also strip all the buildings from List of Art Deco buildings in Sydney that are not within the city of Sydney? You may also want to remove all people from List of people from Los Angeles who do not live within the borders of the city of Los Angeles. Hardouin 18:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This type of comment does nothing to help the discussion, and is something that User:ThePromenader has to put up with on an almost daily basis. However, to answer the question, Rome wasn't built in a day, maybe the time will come to do that. The issue in question is Paris, not Sydney, New York or other, but Paris. Resolve this first, then move on to other battlegrounds. --Bob 18:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but we can't treat Paris as if it sort of existed in a vacuum. We must have a more general view and look at how other cities in a similar situation (small administrative territory at the center of a much larger urban area) are being treated. Also, I would like to point out that the French Wikipedia is free to use whatever title or categorization they wish to use, but it doesn't mean we have to blindfully follow them. Locals oftentimes use different names and categories than foreigners. For example, on the Thai Wikipedia the province of Bangkok (the administrative unit which encompasses most of the Bangkok metro area) is called "Krung Thep Maha Nakhon". That does not mean a list of skyscrapers in the Bangkok metro area on the English Wikipedia should be called "List of skyscrapers in Krung Thep Maha Nakhon". Hardouin 18:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the logic in the above, and what relation to Paris? Apples do not make oranges, no matter how you paint them. "Paris" is a name used in both English and French, and both uses have the same definition in textbooks and reference. Gdańsk and Danzig have the same borders, as do Paris and Paree : ) THEPROMENADER 20:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both ALoan and Bob for their comments. As Bob so rightly points out the article's name does not correspond to the article's content. Both lists cited by ALoan comprise of elements strictly in Paris. Also région parisienne is the region used for an area larger than the administrative region which holds Paris at its heart. The list of tall buildings as it currently stands has most of its elements cited outside of the area it claims to list. I have already tried to seperate both the buildings in and out of Paris, one for Paris, one of Île-de-France. This meant that both articles were correctly listing buildings, this was undone by Hardouin, as were any changes of names and offers to rename the article to a more appropriate choice. The Wikipedia convention in naming confirms that wherever possible and logical, the next administrative level up should be used. Paris is in nothing else smaller than Île-de-France. I owuld however disagree with the above editors and point out that Paris Region is not the translation of Île-de-France, but the translation of région parisienne, the translation of Île-de-France being Île-de-France.

There a multitude of other names grouping people and areas in and around Paris, all of which are rather arbitrary and individual to whoever cites it. In the event of no concensus, I agree with Bob on his proposed course of action. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS (after edit conflict): The example of Bangkok is different as the name of the region used in the original language is different, the case of Île-de-France is different as it is used both in French and English. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Captain scarlet, but the reason why your attempt to create two articles (one for list of buildings in the city of Paris, one for list of buildings in the Île-de-France region) ended in failure was because a majority of editors opposed it, not because "this was undone by Hardouin" as you wrongly claim. Let me also remind you and other people that you received a 7 days block for trying to impose your two articles despite a majority of editors against it. Log of you blocks can be found here: [3]. And this is the messages from the admin who blocked your account for a week: [4] & [5]. Hardouin 19:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No majority of editors opposed it - it was an admin-aided conclusion to a one-on-one revert war with you. Captain scarlet's block log is nothing compared to yours, but I don't see how putting a contributor's block log on display for all to see - especially in such selectively researched detail - can be an argument for fact. Reference, on the other hand, is very useful. THEPROMENADER 20:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, please sign up. (Going to post a real comment in a minute or two, busy currently.) GofG _|^|_| Contribs 20:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Needless to say, this is why we are in mediation. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but your sighing is becoming contagious - and I think I just rolled my eyes as well. Courage, mon ami - c'est presque fini : ) THEPROMENADER 21:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Oh la la!" make you feel more at home? ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthesis. I wasn't blocked because I made a dermege you opposed, I was blocked because I said the admin you ask for help to was an idiot and his actions were shortsighted, wasn't I? The revert was done by you and you alone, you did not answer any messages to that effect on any of the talk pages and simply reverted. I do not think that commenting on people is appropriate, comment on people's actions. I'll join the roll eye-fest, nothing else to do really... End parenthesis.

-That is why we are in mediation: arbitrary and personal opinions and point of views guiding your edits as opposed to cool partial and reflected rational ones. Myself and a number of editors did agree on the unappropriate naming, and since no one could edit the article without a revert from you, then the articles were demerged so the article names described their content, as suggested above by Bob. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, reviewing the conversation, no one has mentioned accusations of Sockpuppetry. Could someone explain?

Also, would it be fair to say that the real debate is "The current name is good VS The current name is bad?" As mediator it's easier to get started when you clearly identify the problem. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The factual accuracy of the present title would be the best place to start.

As for the sock-puppetry accusation injected directly into the voting process [6][7][8], this was based upon the anon comment just above it. Come to think of it, nothing of that comment has ever entered any of our discussions, as we were all concerned by the accusation following more than anything. THEPROMENADER 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I provided my IP number directly after to clear that up [9]. This is just another example of "personal" disruption to what should be a calm and coherent dialogue. We often have difficulty discussing anything on talk pages because of disruptions of this type, or injections of incoherent comparative theory built upon fact, but itself not fact. Few are willing/able to follow such discussion; it is a source of annoyance to more than a few. THEPROMENADER 22:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it would be at all possible, it would be nice to keep this discussion a constructive one based on fact. The "distractions" may show through in due course, but it would be best to waste as little as possible of everyone's time. This spatting does not concern all, but is no doubt a widespread source of puzzlement. I've had my say for tonight - night. THEPROMENADER 23:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

Okay, thank you for clearing that up then. Sockpuppetry and uncivilty can be delt with later; the argument, as far as I can tell from my overviewing, is:

• ~70% of the buildings on the list are not in Paris. They are, however, in the Paris area. The article name is misleading; it should be changed.
• "Paris" more largely refers to the urban area of Paris, at the center of which the administrative City of Paris occupies only a small area. All buildings are located within the urban area of Paris and as such can be said to be "in Paris". It would be a waste to rename the article as it is not necessary and more wordy.

Am I correct in this? If I am not, please change the arguments rather than telling me to change them. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 00:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardouin's modification to the second argument has transformed it into a frank untruth - I defy him to find one reference that refers to anything in Paris' suburbs as being "in Paris". Not in even common usage does only "Paris" refer to anything outside of Paris itself - common ignorance perhaps. In a conversation in Marseille, one explaining to another having no idea where Courbevoie is may say I live "in Paris", but as mentioned before, this is both lax and abusive. For one actually living in the city, there no call nor excuse for this. Lastly, "administrative City of Paris" would suggest that there is some "other" Paris - there is the City of Paris and that's it. If you want to speak of something larger, you must add an adjective, suffix, or complete other name, just like every reference in existence does. THEPROMENADER 10:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, the people that I know who live in Nanterre, Courbevoie, or Noisy-le-Grand say that they live in those places, not Paris, even though they may come under the auspices of the Paris metropolitan area. Indeed, we never here that Jean-Marie Le Pen lives in Paris, always Saint-Cloud. --Bob 16:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThePromenader conveniently forgot to tell you that he's made several accusations of sock-puppetry, despite any evidence backing his accusations. Here is a list: accusation of sock-puppetry made on July 19 ([10]), accusation of sock-puppetry made on July 20 ([11]), accusation of sock-puppetry made on July 29 ([12]). These, plus several accusations of bad faith and hidden agenda which essentially target User:Metropolitan and I, are largely responsible for the current tension. Personally the attack that I found the most disgraceful was on August 11 when ThePromenader accused Metropolitan and I to be "a couple of suburban kids" ([13]). This shows Promenader's utter disrespect for people who disagree with him. Hardouin 00:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardouin, what is the point of this disruptive finger-pointing? Have you no factual base at all? If you must 'get personal': that is actually one suspicion of sock-puppetry, and the logic of my doubt is clear in your references, and you are the only sock-puppeteer here. Why do you try to make my doubt about one instance seem 'several' cases?

You and Metropolitan are the only defenders of the "in Paris" title who have first-hand knowledge of the fact of what we speak, as you, like I am and Captain scarlet was, are day-to-day witnesses of the real, referenced and common usage of the term "Paris" and what it covers. This is the origin of my suspicions of bad faith. Forcibly imposing a point of view opposing both reality and reference... well, what would you call it? Many are dissatisfied with the Paris administration's backwards and conservative relations with its suburbs - the very reason why Paris' borders are so clearly defined today - but this is no reason to rewrite reality in their stead. THEPROMENADER 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to fact: GofG, you can add "not fact" and "unverifiable" to your your first argument, as none of the 'outside' 70% locales can be found in any reference or annuaire under "Paris". Also, anyone with at least some knowledge (or arriving from reference elsewhere) would not think to look for a suburban tower "in Paris", so I guess you could add "impractical" to the list as well. THEPROMENADER 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GofG, as much as your synthesis might be good, the problem so far has been contributors choosing elusive words that can be interpreted, such as metropolitan area, urban area, or region. These words have no precise definition, which changes to the benefit of the editor who uses it. The problem is an article should not be named using interpretable words. The problem is that the article is unappropriately named and most of the proposistions are just as unprecise as the current name, many of these were made to please contributors unwilling to agree on anything and blocking the debate. The change of name must be radical and bold and be in keeping with naming conventions and most important of all, true. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring all the personal sniping, I think the dispute can be summarised as:

• Should we adopt a precisely-defined term which is used for administravice purposes in France, but which pretty much everyone agrees (even the proponents of this option) makes little sense, as it artificially divides the centre of the Parisian urbanised agglomeration from contiguous urbanised areas.
• Should we follow common sense and call the blob of continuous urbanised development "Paris", even if that contradicts the strict administrative use.

For my money, the second option is not "elusive" simply because there is no French official pronouncement that "Paris" is the whole city, not just the central part. In most cities, the suburbs are considered part of the city anyway - you don't leave the city until you get into the countryside. For an English speaker, "Paris" is not just the "City of Paris", in exactly the same way that "London" is not the "City of London". -- ALoan (Talk) 09:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you, but your second choice is simply too vague for use in what is supposed to be a reference based on reference. No respectable reference does this, nor even do other Wiki articles - ! Again, "London" is an official and textbook definition of Greater London, and textbooks speaking of Sydney speak of an entire region bigger than the city itself, but Paris has no such convention or privilege. Anything outside of a textbook definition is opinion or 'idea', is unreferencable and impossible to locate on a map. If fact, your second choice only makes sense to someone who has no idea of what "Paris" is at all - and I don't think that maintaining that lack of definition is the goal of a publication whose goal is to inform. Lastly, it's the city itself that defines what it is, not we. THEPROMENADER 10:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are being pedantic. If I was visiting La Défense, I most definitely would say that I was visiting Paris. Even our article on La Défense says that "La Défense is one of Paris' major business districts" before going on to clarify that it is "located west of the city proper in the heart of the département of the Hauts-de-Seine". -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point of view, and I would agree that La Défense is "of Paris", but I maintain that it is not "in Paris". Not even the EPAD (a public La Défense organisation) themselves will say that they are located "in Paris" - "a 160 hectare space to the west of the Capital" are they being pedantic? This is a simple question of placing things where they are in both reality and reference, and this is not pedantism. THEPROMENADER 11:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that the administrative city of Paris really isn't all that small. The city of Paris is 86 square kilometers, and is inhabited by more than 2 million people. It also contains nearly all of the places that the average non-Parisian would associate with being "in Paris." That the Paris urban area is considerably larger than the city of Paris is of course true, but is hardly unique. One can look at, for instance New York City. Itself considerably bigger than the city of Paris, but with an evern larger urban area. Would anyone argue that Jersey City, Yonkers, or places in Nassau County should be considered for a list of things "in New York City?" Of course not - note that in New York's case, "the City" is often used even more specifically to refer only to Manhattan. There are certainly contexts when one would say that they were going "to Paris" when they were going, say, to a conference in La Défense, but it seems to me that this is neither here nor there. The fact that people say things in certain contexts that are technically incorrect does not mean that we should follow this usage. Paris means Paris, the city. Versailles is as much a part of the Paris urban area as La Défense is (although it is, of course, further out), and is famously not part of Paris. What is the definition of Paris being used in this article? Is it "places in the Ile de France," "places in Paris and the Petit Couronne," "places accessible by the Paris Metro," "places in some statistically defined, but as yet uncited, Paris urban area or metropolitan area"? john k 11:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

You can't compare NYC with Paris. In NYC most all city equipments are located within the city proper. Simply put, NYC could still work even if the suburbs were destroyed by a nuclear bomb. In Paris, the city proper could not survive without the suburbs. The Paris wholesale food market is located outside of the city proper in Rungis (if the city proper was cut from Rungis, intra-muros Parisians would simply starve to death), all incinerators are located outside of the city proper (meaning that if the city was cut from the suburbs, it would be burried under refuse within weeks), more than 90% of burial capacity is in cemeteries outside of the city proper (meaning that if the city was again cut from the suburbs, corpses would have to be piled God knows where, a problem compounded by mass starvation due to Rungis not feeding the city proper anymore), Paris métro maintenance stations are located outside of the city proper (meaning that without the suburbs, the Paris métro would stop working within a few weeks for lack of maintenance, but then at this stage there would probably be few healthy residents left to take the métro). Less life threatening perhaps, all Paris airports are located outside of the city proper, Paris main soccer/athletics stadium is outside of the city proper, almost half of universities and the majority of grandes écoles are located outside of the city proper, within two years the National Archives of France will relocate to the northern suburbs outside of the city proper, some ministries are already located outside of the city proper (the Ministry of Public Works and Transportation, one of the key French ministries, is actually located in La Défense), and there is one presidential candidate who is currently campaigning to move the presidential palace and prime minister offices to the northeastern suburbs, outside of the city proper. You can't compare this with NYC. Hardouin 00:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but am I hallucinating? "Death and destruction - "in" or "not in" - Paris"? (chuckling at film idea). That nonsense aside, just because certain elements of Paris' function are moving to its suburbs doesn't mean that the city name and city limits are moving with them. Please stop trying to disrupt/fog the debate with such nonsensical theories. THEPROMENADER 08:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may also want to check 1924 Summer Olympics which states that the games were held "in Paris", although actually most of the games took place in Colombes, which is a commune (municipality) near La Défense. Even the poster printed at the time explicitly said "Paris 1924". So much for Promenader's claim that areas outside of the city proper are never ever referred to as "Paris"! And that was 80 years ago, when the Paris suburbs were less developped than today. Hardouin 00:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This use of "Paris" for the Olymics - a city hosting an event - is just another example of context so well explained above by john k - you seem to have totally ignored this. You cannot say today that a tower in Courbevoie is "in Paris" because the 1924 Paris Olympics were held in Colombes - this is utterly ridiculous. Enough cherrypicking: open a texbook or look at a smap and go figure. THEPROMENADER 08:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of words such as "utterly ridiculous" is not really helping to prove your point. They only show your great disrespect for editors who disagree with you, which I have already pointed out. In any case, I think it's quite clear now that no proof, no document will ever make you change your mind. You repeated an umpteen number of times that nobody ever officially refers to the suburbs as "Paris", and when confronted with an official document that proves the contrary, all you have to say is that it is "utterly ridiculous" and out of context. Hardouin 10:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "official document"? Do you really think your single "reference to" will overcome reality, reference, and every common usage in existence? Why do you pretend that you do not know the reality or fact of the matter - or that it doesn't exist? Why are you unable to provide anything from common references available to all of us, and instead resort to scrounging for "examples" supporting your point of view only and tactics such as character assassination and finger-pointing? I only have disrespect for one thing - bad faith, as it makes all editing here seem pointless. You're right though that I should leave other contributors judge your behaviour for themselves. THEPROMENADER 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What official document, no one has in this argument yet supplied a link or included an official image... It's not hard to understand that, unlinke Spain, Denmark or the UK for example, city/town/village limits in France are so well defined. In Denmark, they are (until 2007) sorted in Communes, a groupement of localities under one administrative banner, very much like British boroughs. Say someone lived in the district of Tower Hamlets, that person could very well say they live in London due to the administrative boundaries that exist. Someone that lives in Clichy, cannot and do not say they live in Paris (I could cite you a list as long as my arm of people who I know live in and around Paris but I doubt you'd consider this factual). The Olympics of 1924 were held in and around Paris... Do you honnestly think that one would publish a poster saying Olympics of 1924, Colombes? Stop being so petty! What is in Paris is 100% in Paris and what isn't is 100% outside Paris, there is no contentions thanks to the extremely and overly zealous French bureaucracy which has left us with boudaries so well defined. Wether you agree on the new name or not, the list must change name. It's hard in case of disagreement on wikipedia... The system is made so that things do not change, thanks to the power of revert and blocking votes. That is being uncooperative, which is not what the spirit of Wikipedia is. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so saying that the 1924 Olympic Games were held in Colombes would be petty, but insisting as you do that we say La Défense is in Courbevoie (or Puteaux) is not petty. A strange logic you have... Hardouin 11:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I haven't a clue what your comment even means, or see what it brings to this discussion other than further denigration and disruption. THEPROMENADER 11:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always ever said that La Défense wasn't in Paris but in Puteaux, Courbevoie et al. La Défense is not in Paris, La Défense is not Paris. I'm afraid to insist on your comments being petty and contradictory, you change opinion and testimony according to the circumstances, I have already pointed that out to you in previous debates, I can't even begin to hope that you can work productively if you change opinion like shirts... It's not the sea to drink after all. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, keep cool. Seriously, heated debates are never good. Everyone here wants what is best for the article, we're all working in good faith. Try to keep that in mind.

Now, is there some place where you could look this up? I'm sure if there was you'd have already done it, but I thought I'd mention it either way. Now, from what I can tell you guys are just rehashing with each comment and the conversation is slowely degenerating. It might be good to go back and make sure that the two sides of the debate accurately match what both of you want them to be. If they don't, and you guys cannot agree upon what they should be on this discussion, we still would have made progress and could continue from there. This is a recommendation of course... GofG _|^|_| Contribs 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, cool. A few of us here know exactly what's going on and why, and some of these tensions come from farther away than today and this page. It is also annoying to deny/discount accusations/affirmations that simply aren't true. The repetitive lack of argument is tedious too.

Getting back to fact: Do you mean the two statements representing each side of the argument - refining these? I can do so for the argument indicating title inaccuracy. The argument against has been transformed into a mistruth more than anything, so I won't be touching that. THEPROMENADER 14:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is a "List of X in X", so the title's "in X" should be accurate, but it is not. ~70% of the buildings and locations within are not in Paris, are not listed in any reference as being "in Paris", and one looking for the same and knowing they are in Paris' suburbs would skip this list because its title indicates that it contains only items "in Paris". This title is erroneous, misleading, impractical, and needs to be changed.
  - "Paris area", "Paris region"', "Île-de-France", "of Paris" and "Paris agglomeration" are other possibilities.

Hope that does the trick. THEPROMENADER 14:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what I meant was we should work on defining exactly what our arguments are. For instance, updating with what you said:

• This article is a "List of X in X", so the title's "in X" should be accurate, but it is not. ~70% of the buildings and locations within are not in Paris, are not listed in any reference as being "in Paris", and one looking for the same and knowing they are in Paris' suburbs would skip this list because its title indicates that it contains only items "in Paris". This title is erroneous, misleading, impractical, and needs to be changed.
• "Paris" more largely refers to the urban area of Paris, at the center of which the administrative City of Paris occupies only a small area. All buildings are located within the urban area of Paris and as such can be said to be "in Paris". It would be a waste to rename the article as it is not necessary and more wordy.

Does everyone agree that these are accurate views of the two arguments? It would help to clearly define them, so let's please do so. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 16:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To GofG, a good read for you if you are unaware of the subtleties of French administrative subdivisions is Commune in France, Départements of France and Régions of France. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________

• This list is not based on anything institutionnal, it's based on something territorial which could be the most accurately described as the statistical concept of "Paris urban area". If we consider that any reference in an encyclopedia should be strictly made in regards of official institutions, then it's not the title which should be the problem, but actually the content. Indeed, by this regard, all buildings located outside of the city of Paris, as administratively defined, should be removed. La Défense, as not being in Paris, should be excluded.
• Now, while the content of this article is based on something territorial, the urban area, it doesn't deny anything institutionnal. The introduction specifies clearly where are institutionnaly located the main highrise clusters mentionned ; and inside the list, the municipality of each specific buildings are mentionned.
• This list is meant to be the equivalent of other "tallest buildings in city X" lists which already exists on Wikipedia. The issue with Paris is that its main skyscrapers district has been located by official authorities outside of the city proper, something which is, by my knowledge, unique in the world. This is actually in contradiction with the institutional experience of most people, inside or outside France. As a consequence, the official postal address of the district is in itself in contradiction with official administrative borders as it is "Paris La Défense".
• Now that we are all aware of this, the question is, what to do ? In order to create a "list of tallest buildings" for Paris, should we ignore La Défense in considering that it is not properly located in Paris, or should we include it in enlarging the frame ? My personal opinion is that we should include it since ignoring La Défense would be about ommitting in purpose important informations to the readers.
• Now, how to describe this larger frame ? The proper name for this article should be "List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris urban area". The problem with that title is its length (64 characters in 11 words), and its rather blunt technical aspect. In English, it is a common usage to refer to a city's urban area according to the name of the city in itself. Hence, I consider that a straightforward title "in Paris" has the massive advantage of simplicity as long as it is well-clarified in the content of the article that the "Paris" mentionned in the title refers to the Paris urban area and not to the official administrative "ville de Paris" (city of Paris). In such a way, there's no whatsoever ambiguity remaining in this article which keeps the advantage of being easy to find and not lost in any obscure naming.
• This article, in its content, answers exactly to the questions asked by the reader who would click on the link of its title: "List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris". It specifies directly that it considers Paris in a wider frame and even without reading the introduction you would fastly realize it in the fact that specific municipalities of each mentionned buildings are named in the table in itself. That's the reason why the current title is, in my humble opinion, the best option. Metropolitan 18:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Aside from the fact urban area, metropolitan, or area are elusive terms and subjective anyone's PoV, administrative limits are not, the are fixed and known.

Contradicting one of your points, it is not common in English to call an area around a city the same name as the principal city. Some from Walsall is not a Brummie form Birmingham but an inhabitant of the West Midlands, equaly an inhabitant or a building of Aubagne is not an inhabitant of Marseille. I'm not Parisian, I'm Saint-Germanois.

Again the notion of territory you expose is entirely contestable. The list does not cite buildings in or of the territory of Paris.

No one really wishes to remove data concerning La Défense from the article, but to rename the article so that the name of the article includes it. Area, metropolitan or region are pointless diplomatic inaccuracies. There is no wider frame of Paris, Paris is Paris. I'm sorry, but no! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you're proud to revendicate your Saint-Germain-en-Laye identity and I'm fine with this. After all, that place is great, it even hosts Paris-SG football club. Unfortunately, all those informations have absolutely nothing to do with this topic. It's a matter of personal point of view. I've personally always revendicated myself as a Parisian and that has never removed me any single inch of pride in the fact I live in the fantastic place which is Issy-les-Moulineaux. The fact you revendicate yourself as "Saint-Germanois" or that I revendicate myself as a "Parisian" has absolutely nothing to do with this debate as all this are about subjective points of view. Metropolitan 20:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Now that we are all aware of this, the question is, what to do ?

The answer is very simple, really: Describe the area containing the article content accurately. Perhaps, as a plus, explain the urban tissue issue within. If Paris is not big enough to contain the towers in question, then you will have to find another area/description that is big enough. This is not complicated, and there is no other alternative if you wish to remain in fact. THEPROMENADER 19:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institutionnally speaking, there is no answer to your question. For the simple reason that this list isn't based on any institutionnal perception, but on a purely territorial perception. There's no need for us to repeat ourselves as mere parrots. I think people have already understood that. Metropolitan 20:15, 16 September 2006

I asked no question. We are not here to "perceive" or present our points of view, we are here to relate fact. We must use and speak in the terms everyone else uses to describe the subject of which we speak, or we will render Wikipedia useless as a reference. THEPROMENADER 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read yourself, the question you asked is in italic right above. As for the rest of your comment, it simply doesn't make any rational sense. I say that the Paris urban area isn't an institutionnal concept and that as such you cannot find any institutionnal answer to your question, and you answer me about a silly story about "points of view" ?? The fact that the Paris urban area isn't institutionnal isn't a "point of view", it is a fact. Metropolitan 03:45, 17 September 2006

LOL! That was your question I was quoting! You're the only one going on about "institutional" - I'm on a "factual" angle - this is only your invention. We cannot create our own opinions based on our own conceptions of elements of our own choosing and name them to our own liking - even less hope to publish them here. THEPROMENADER 16:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again an edit conflict! Consider the below my "Je dirai même plus" : ) THEPROMENADER 19:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of reading (added - referring to the references posted by Captain scarlet). What most to retain perhaps is the fact that every commune always shares a border with its neighbour - there is no space between one commune and the next, anywhere in France. Thus when you cross the border from commune X, you are immediately in commune Y. Imagine a sea of interlocking soap-bubbles and you've got it. Paris is a commune, and is ringed with other communes each having their own names, administrations, and often, identities. It is for this that Paris' limits are so well-defined.

In light of the above, the very idea that an area bigger "commune X" can be called "commune X" is ludicrous. Some of France's major agglomerations have organised "inter-commune" associations (such as Lyon or Strasbourg) but even these are not called simply by their central "commune X" name - a "communauté urbaine" suffix is imperatively added to differentiate it from the commune it surrounds. What makes this spat even sillier is that Paris has no inter-commune organisation at all - and even if it had one, like the other examples, it would still not be called only "Paris". Perhaps one day a "Grand Paris" may become like Greater London that today is called even officially London, but this took decades to develop, and Grand Paris doesn't even exist yet.

The "Paris bigger than Paris" being promoted here is nothing but a concept: it exists in no reference, it exists on no map, and is unheard of in common usage. It is a concept based on the idea that an agglomeration should take the name of its urban core - this is an idea quite acceptable, and because of this quite readily accepted by those not knowing anything about French administration/where Paris' borders really are. Unfortunately this concept is neither reality or fact, and is quite useless in terms of reference. THEPROMENADER 19:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a "Paris bigger than Paris" and it's called the Paris urban area. We've already understood that you consider the only relevant perception for Wikipedia is institutionnal and that the Paris urban area is not institutionnal. However, you don't go at the end of your logic since you consider that this list is coherent. On which ground is it ? There's no institution whatsoever linking those municipalities. They are perfectly independent and are even located in several different departements. What actually makes the connection between those cities ? On which ground do you consider this list as more coherent than one which would group structures located in Rouen, Istres and Vincennes ?

The automatic conclusion of a purely institutionnal perception is simply that this list has no sense as it groups municipalities which have nothing in common. As a result, your conclusion should be that any building which is not listed in the city of Paris should be removed from this list, not that the name of the article is wrong. Metropolitan 20:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I really don't see what you're getting at. Where was I trying to categorise anything? This is all about referenced fact - you have to place things where people can find them. If the article lists items outside Paris but in the Paris urban area, you'll have to call it "list of X in the Paris urban area". This is not complicated. THEPROMENADER 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're all in Île-de-France. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Hauts-de-Seine would be in a region A and the city of Paris in a region B, that wouldn't change anything about the coherence of this list. Nothing. Those buildings are located in a rectangle of 100 km², something which represents less than 1% of the 12,000 km² of the Ile-de-France region. Actually, it would even be more straightforward to go directly at next institutional scale: France as a whole, as proposed by someone else. At least it is better known. Metropolitan 21:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

But they are in the same region. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about the list, we're talking about its title. The list has to be findable through its title, and we can't assume that all are ignorant. "Paris area" and "Paris region" are just as recognisable as "Paris" is - with the difference that only two of these are factually accurate as far as our case is concerned. THEPROMENADER 21:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

Now, you finally get a bit more reasonable. And that's how we have written 200 lines simply to go back to what ALoan has described at the very beginning of this page.

How to describe the Paris urban area ? Should we call it "Paris urban area", "Paris region", "Paris area", "Greater Paris" or simply "Paris" ? Knowing that the content is well-clarified at the first line of the article, I consider this debate has a very marginal signification. All those titles are acceptable, and indeed, even the simple expression of Paris can be factually used to describe Paris urban area. At the opposite of what you constantly repeat, there is no "blatant lie", simply a use of the word "Paris" to describe its urban area that you disagree with. Once you'll stop to accuse people and finally accept that this is the core of the debate, we will finally be able to move forward. Metropolitan 03:45, 17 September 2006

Many points of view were outlined at the start of the page, and since then we have managed to reduce them to two arguments. This is progress, and it is not very polite to make it seem that all contributions between there and here were pointless.

"...even the simple expression of Paris can be factually used to describe Paris urban area."

I'm sorry, Metropolitan, but it can't. The very idea is impossible for the physical and widely-referenced realities I quite clearly outlined above.

Again, we are not talking about the "first line", we are talking about the title, and if the title is not correct most won't even see the first line, and even when they do they'll see the title is wrong.

Why is "blatant lie" in quotes, and where did I ever use that term? This is a question of fact before anything - just because a few "agree" to publish something wrong doesn't mean that it's right.

If you would like me to stop "accusing" ("questioning" would be a more polite and accurate term) you then you would show that a majority of references do indeed mean "in the Paris urban area" when they say that something is "in Paris". That done, we can close this debate - a move anyone would call "moving forward" THEPROMENADER 08:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate wil move forward once you've stopped using subjective and inaccurate terms such as area. This is an encyclopedia, not a badly written travelguide, use precise and undisputable terms! These titles might be acceptable on paper, but not in writting. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we are making progress, at least in terms of framing the debate (or rather, since I think my first post above summarises the point reasonably accurately, at least agreeing what the debate is about), if not in resolving it! -- ALoan (Talk) 09:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought. "List of tallest buildings and structures in and around Paris". john k 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(mad applause) One more to add to the list. THEPROMENADER 19:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that the skyscraper business district of Manila, which lies inside the municipality of Makati, not inside the tiny municipality of Manila, is "around Manila"? If not, then why would you do that for Paris? Hardouin 17:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever are you going on about? Are you suggesting that we move Paris to Makati ? : ) THEPROMENADER 19:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris is not a "tiny municipality." Please compare apples to apples. john k 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Paris urban area is about 27 times bigger than the municipality of Paris, it is rather reasonable to consider Paris as tiny. And that's about comparing apples with apples. Like it or not. Metropolitan 18:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

Hardouin, kindly stop removing comments on references from the "comments on references" section, and stop reverting to your removals in the bargain. Yesterday I had removed ALoan's comments from below the references, but this was before there was even a "comments on references" section, so I have since put them back in their proper place - and you are reverting this as well. Your reverting is baseless and disruptive - do not revert again. THEPROMENADER 14:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThePromenader, for the clarity of this debate and the respect of your own position in it, you should be a bit more respectful of others positions. When you post comments on references, the minimum is to accept that those can be answered. If you refuse this and manipulate this page, then you don't serve your own position.

The first time we've met on Wikipedia, you had investigated on myself, trying to find any kind of informations I sent on the internet in the last 5 years. You've read everything you've found, and afterwards, you've even accused me of being someone else. Since then, I've learnt to be very cautious towards your general behaviour as an editor. I don't believe that there's any pride in behaving as a KGB agent, especially when there's nothing to find and that you finally make accusations which turn out as wrong.

Frankly, for the interest of this debate, I would sincerly like it better that each position would be served with a bit more honnesty and respect. I would like it better that everything wouldn't be repeated again and again in the complete ignorance of what is said by people you disagree with, liking better to make them say what they've never said. Metropolitan 14:47, 18 september 2006 (UTC).

What has the above to do with this? User:Hardouin's sockpuppetry let me to believe that you were he - and finding that forum didn't help quell any doubts - but I was wrong, and even apologised for it. Bringing that up here is an attack on character, nothing less. If it is honesty and respect you want, then keep this discussion factual please. THEPROMENADER 13:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is unprecedented. What I am doing is the very antithesis of manipulation - I put comments on references into their proper "comments on references" section, and moved general comments here. Hardouin reverted this three times, and now he has just put his irrelevant comments back into their improper place - without the answer to these. This is what is called being disruptive and manipulative.

You would do better to stop the manipulative language and accusations, and provide the references proving as fact what you say is fact. Only then can you question other people's good faith. THEPROMENADER 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour is utterly disgraceful, both of you. First you present as fact something you both know full well is not true, and when asked to prove that your affirmations are indeed fact, you begin a campaign of "fog and distract" and begin attacking the person asking references of you. Now you're attempting to bury the references section, and all comments therein and thereof, under a sea of irrelevant crud and personal attacks.

If you want to prove yourselves in the right, then provide the reference asked of you. Prove that a majority of references and common usage call the entire "Paris urban area" is indeed called only "Paris", and there can be no argument against it. It's not he asking for fact who's at fault here - it's he who refuses to acknowledge it.

If you refuse to discuss/publish fact, all your juggling, manipulations and frankly provocative behaviour amount to nothing but a disruption and a waste of time to Wiki and other contributors, and show that you take contributors and readers alike for complete idiots. THEPROMENADER 15:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop behaving as such a shameless hypocritical. Who do you believe you are to move my answer to your comment somewhere else than below the said comment ?

You consider my own post as a general comment, I consider it as an answer to your specific comments on references. On which ground your personal opinion on my writings is more important than, mine, as the author of it ? If there is something which is unprecedented, it is your bad faith. I've never seen someone who had the nose on its own mess so undecently considering himself as the victim. Be a bit mature and assume for the sake of the own respect of yourself. Metropolitan 14:47, 18 september 2006 (UTC).

What are you going on about? You comments made nothing but a vague allusion to any references. You would do well to save the personal attacks until you can prove that you have reality and reference on your side - otherwise you're just your making your own case of bad faith against yourself. THEPROMENADER 15:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promenader, if anyone has ulterior motives here, I think it's more you than Metropolitan. You've been spending the last year doing your best to reduce Paris to its small administrative city, as if the whole connurbation did not exist. All your edits at Paris have tended to deny the existence of a metro area, and discuss only the administrative city proper. E.g. you made it prominent that Paris has only 2 million inhabitants, which is actually the population of the adminitrative City of Paris, while at the same time doing your best to hide the fact that there are 11.5 million people in the metro area. At some point you even deleted entirely the metro area figures from the Paris article, and it was Metropolitan and I who had to reason you and explain to you how ludicrous it was to reduce Paris to its 2 million inhabitants tiny administrative city. This now is just a continuation of your former denial of Paris's true extent. You still want to reduce Paris to a small city status by insisting we consider Paris as only the administrative City of Paris.

I don't know what are your motivations for this, neither do I care. All I can say, since you live in Paris (in the city proper according to what you said, which may explain a lot of your behavior and denial) is go and explore the sprawling suburbs. Here is a suggestion for you: on a nice Saturday afternoon, take the Transilien suburb train at Montparnasse station to Versailles Chantiers station, then change there and take another Transilien to La Défense station, then change and take the RER A to Conflans-Fin d'Oise station, then change and take the Transilien to Argenteuil station, then change and take the Transilien to Ermont-Eaubonne station, then change and take the transilien to Saint-Denis station, then change and take the tramway to Noisy-le-Sec station, then change and take the RER E to Val-de-Fontenay station, then change and take the RER A to Gare de Lyon station, then change and take the RER D to Juvisy station, then change and take the RER C to Massy-Palaiseau station, then change and take the RER B back to the City of Paris where you say you're living. This trip should take you the entire afternoon, but perhaps after that you'll realize just how huge the Paris connurbation is, and how absurd it is to reduce Paris to its tiny administrative city. Hardouin 15:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my French - but what utter stupidity: the idea that I would denigrate the very city I live in. Wiki is not interested in your theories about what an entire connurbation should be called - it is interested only in what it IS called. Open a book, look at a map, turn on the television: the entire Paris agglomeration is not called simply "Paris", and every reference, government office, map, official website in existence proves this . Sorry to kick your soap-box from under you, time to wake up to fact. THEPROMENADER 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The administrative city of Paris is not tiny. It has 2 million inhabitants, making it one of the larger municipalities in the world, as well as, on its own, larger than many decent sized conurbations. The municipality of Paris alone is larger than the whole Lyon metropolitan area, which is, iirc, the second largest in France. Every major city has a large surrounding conurbation. These usually aren't treated as equivalent to the city proper, except in extraordinary cases (London before the creation of Greater London, for instance, because the City of London was genuinely tiny). john k 16:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting off-topic but I must correct some details in here. The city of Paris, with an official territory of 105.40 km² (including outlying woods), is certainly not one of the largest in the world. It's not even in the 100 largest communes in France. As for London, the Greater London Authority has replaced the London County Council, which was already operating on a territory of 303 km² then (already thrice larger than the current city of Paris). The former London County is what we commonly call the "Inner London" today, though the use of that expression is widely informal as it doesn't represent anything institutionnaly speaking anymore.

When we refer to the "size" of municipalities, we usually mean population. That is what I meant. Paris is by far the largest commune in France by population (which is the only thing that matters for the size of a commune, by normal people's standards), and is, indeed, one of the largest municipalities, by population, in the world. Clearly this was apparent from my comment, where I stated that Paris was one of the largest municipalities in the world because of its having 2 million inhabitants. As to the County of London, a county is an entity distinctly different from a city. At any rate, prior to 1865 (I believe), there was no central authority for London at all (besides the City of London), and yet "London" certainly encompassed more than the City. This has never clearly been true of Paris, as far as I am aware. john k 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, we're talking about the location of skyscrapers here, so what matters is land area, not population. In terms of land area, the City of Paris is tiny, there's no denying it. As Metropolitan pointed out to you, it's not even in the 100 largest communes of France. On the European stage, the position of the City of Paris is even more comical. It must be ranking as the 1000th-something largest municipality in Europe. It is because the City of Paris is so small that so many skyscrapers are located beyond its administrative borders. Hardouin 11:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardouin, what are you trying to say? Paris has few skyscrapers for two reasons: its 1920's-era near-saturation of Haussmannian constructions, and its post-Haussmann draconian building codes that prohibit most any tall structure within Paris' limits.

Until it annexes its communes limitrophes, the only "Paris" will be the commune and département of Paris. If you want to play in the tall-erection big-city race, you'll have to find a proper name for your race-car. THEPROMENADER 13:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardouin, I generally don't understand your point. What on earth does geographical size have to do with anything? The area of the current commune of Paris is inhabited by 2 million people, making it one of the largest municipalities in Europe in terms of population. Most every major landmark associated with Paris is within the bounds of the city proper. Using the geographical size of a city as though it is important is absurd. Basically, you are acting as though some rural commune in the Midi is genuinely comparable to the largest city in France. The geographical size of a city is almost never of any importance in determining its importance. A municipality that is large geographically is generally so because it includes surrounding rural areas, not because it is particularly important. The city of Paris is not terribly small. Are you really arguing that, say, Frankfurt has lots of skyscrapers within city limits and Paris does not because Frankfurt is geographically larger? Isn't it rather because Frankfurt was destroyed during World War II, allowing construction of skyscrapers within the city. Of course Paris is somewhat geographically smaller than other metropoles of similar importance (Frankfurt, a smaller city, is something like three times as large geographically, as is, apparently, Marseille), and this of course has something to do with why the skyscrapers are mostly outside Paris proper. But I don't see what the point is. Nobody is debating that Paris has a large urban area surrounding the city proper. It's also worth noting that Paris is, so far as I can tell, larger geographically than many other actual large cities in France. It is twice the size of Lyon, for instance. It is also larger than Nice, Lille, and Nantes...the size of Paris is not abnormally small. It's just not particularly big. It's also very densely populated, much more so than the surrounding areas - Paris' population density is about 24,000/km². Compare to 7,000 for Nanterre, close to 8,000 for Saint-Denis, 16,000 for Neuilly, 16,000 for Courbevoie, 17,000 for Boulogne-Billancourt, 12,000 for Aubervilliers, 12,000 for Bagnolet, and so forth. All seem less densely populated by a considerable margin than Paris. john k 13:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recognize it yourself: "Paris is somewhat geographically smaller than other metropoles of similar importance [...] and this of course has something to do with why the skyscrapers are mostly outside Paris proper." That's the whole point. Hardouin 14:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something, not everything. I don't see why these issues need to play out in the article title. I'm perfectly willing to accept that "Paris" is very often used in an imprecise sense which includes surrounding areas. "Paris" is also very often used in a precise sense to refer to the city proper. Places outside the city proper are frequently referred to as "near Paris" rather than "in Paris," for instance. Which meaning is meant has to be inferred from context. Looking at the title alone, it seems to me that the natural meaning of "in Paris" as the title of an encyclopedia article would be to refer to the city proper. Obviously, the fact that this is not what is meant is explained in the article text, and it wouldn't be a total disaster for it to remain where it is now, but it strikes me as less than ideal, given that any number of alternative titles that would not be confusing are possible. Beyond this, I don't see what value any of this argument has. john k 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I don't know if this really matters in this discussion. Paris and London are very different cities in nearly all aspects and starting comparisons between both can't help to solve this mediation.

The problem is rather simple. The accurate title for the article we're talking about should be: "List of Tallest buildings and structures in the Paris urban area". A title which is extremely wordy and which should be simplified as long as this simplification is well-visibally clarified in the content of this article. That clarification in its current shape is apparently agreed by all. As such, no matter the simplified title we come with, there is no problem of content in this article.

The purpose of this page is simply to find out what is the simplification of this title which would suit the best to the content of this article. We know the article deals with the Paris urban area, then should we talk about the tallest buildings and structures in the Paris area, in the Paris region, in the broader Paris, in Paris and vicinity, or more simply in Paris. I haven't of course mentionned all possibilities.

However, the thing people should be well-aware about is that this title is necessarily a simplification, no other title than the one mentionning the Paris urban area can be 100% accurate. Metropolitan 18:33, 18 september 2006.

"The accurate title for the article we're talking about should be: "List of Tallest buildings and structures in the Paris urban area."

Enfin! This statement quite differs from the discours we've seen until now. But you know what? I don't care in the least. As long as we're moving towards fact, you'll only hear applause from this party.

Now we come to the technical difficulties of the title. In a few words: For an encyclopaedia, accuracy matters more than "practicability" ever will. Even cumbersome, it is important that the title indicate exactly what the article under it contains. Imagine a reader asking "But the title indicates that all of these buildings are in Paris, yet according to all the other references I've read and the article itself, most of them are not." - what reflection will this have on the credibility of Wikipedia? What will the same reader think of the other articles on a similar subject? Never mind my hypothesis - put yourself in the reader's place. In short, witnessing such obvious inexactitudes makes contributing to any Wiki article pointless. Add to that the discouragement of hours of could-be contributing time spent bickering over what (to all bickering parties) is obvious fact. There you have my tenacity explained in a nutshell. I don't care how, but let's stick to fact please! Thank you for coming round once again, Metropolitan. THEPROMENADER 21:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThePromenader, you've called for a mediation and you do absolutely nothing to help it. I must confess that I don't understand what could be the reason explaining why you're so passionate about this. The fact that "list of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris urban area" is the only 100% accurate title doesn't mean that this is a good title. It is too wordy and too technical. A title is supposed to be short and as simple as possible. I consider that it is acceptable to use the shorten expression "Paris" to designate the Paris urban area since this use is well-clarified and that no misinterpretation is possible.

The current article, in the way it is, does not spread any misinformation, it cannot be used to back up factually wrong claims. Everything is well-stated, and no buildings which aren't located in the city of Paris could be interpreted as being located there. Now explain me what disturbs you so much. And please, do it calmly. Metropolitan 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"I consider that it is acceptable to use the shorten expression "Paris" to designate the Paris urban area since this use is well-clarified and that no misinterpretation is possible."

This is only your own idea - that counters all reference and usage in existence. How can it not be misinterpreted? THEPROMENADER 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you take for emotion is exasperation - look at it from my angle, from the point of view of one who understands this situation from all angles. You know that through my knowledge and long experience here I could present very clearly the arguments and motivations of all, yet I retain myself to fact. I only ask that you do the same. This is what you could call "helping mediation". THEPROMENADER 22:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from "References Discussion"

ThePromenader again making accusations of bad faith (see [14]). This time it's Metropolitan who is targeted. I also note the sly trick of trying to drive a wedge between his contradictors: Metropolitan's examples were made in bad faith, but ALoan's examples of course were made in good faith. How clever. In short there is the good guy (ALoan), and the bad guys (Metropolitan and Hardouin). Perhaps the mediator should remind ThePromenader to read WP:FAITH. Hardouin 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is to what degree a person's presentation takes into account reality and fact that determines good or bad faith - not the simple accusations of another contributor. So instead of formulating declarative yet baseless accusations based on your own quite biased interpretation/selective presentation of messages scrounged from the talk pages of those you're quite obviously stalking, or making nonsensical hypothetical arguments involving unrelated places, nuclear bombs, dead bodies and starving children, how about providing some references for a change?

As it stands, every day of the fifteen years I have lived here, every encyclopaedia, every newspaper, every newscast, every map I have ever seen proves your "Paris urban area = Paris" theory wrong. Never mind fifteen years - ten minutes in Orly airport is enough to do the same. I can't say that it is easy to watch a couple wikipedians supposedly living in the same area as I since a much longer time pretend that they do not know the factual realities of the situation - how could they not know? If they do, what are they trying to do/prove by blocking its apparition here? Draw your own conclusion. If you really want to prove that my questioning of good faith is unfounded, then prove that a majority of references, French administration, maps, textbooks and common usage refer to the entire Paris agglomeration as simply "Paris".

As for the "sly wedge" theory - save the inventive character assassination trials, and a bit less paranoia please. ALoan has been just as tenacious in his opposition, but at least he questions fact, not contributors. THEPROMENADER 12:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the diff link does not lead to an accusation of bad faith, ThePromenader described the actions of Metropolitan and their quality not judged them. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That list of references once again doesn't bring anything to this debate. The Promenader adds references specifying that La Défense wasn't located in the city of Paris, something that we all agree with from the start and that has ever been denied by no one, neither in this page, nor in the article in itself and its discussion page. Afterwards, The Promenader, I guess in believing that he was a lawyer decided to add a little line saying "references for the opposite case, there's none".

The only thing I've done was to fill it up with references proving that all referenced buildings are in the central core of the Paris urban area, something I guess we also all agree with, and multiple references showing that Paris can be used to describe a larger frame: such as the Extramuros publications, the Paris Expo official website, another Paris La Défense corporate website and finally some examples posted by Hardouin showing that Paris is commonly used in reference to La Défense.

Once again, ThePromenader and Captain Scarlet makes say to others what they don't say. None of myself, Stevage, Hardouin, SB Johnny, JP06035, Andrew Norman, and ALoan have ever considered that La Défense was inside the city of Paris. Continuing to endlessly repeat their accusations towards others don't help this debate at all.

Where this gets even worst is when they accuse myself, directly, to have a secret frustrated agenda "to invent a Paris bigger than it is" or I don't know what kind of excentricity. If that was really the case, would I have added, since the beginning, the proper municipality in which are located all the 100 buildings from the list ? In that list, we can fully be aware that this column says "Paris" for the municipality in which are located structures #1 and #2, and then that it says "Courbevoie" for the structure #3. This column in itself shows clearly that this list makes reference to a broader frame than the city proper of Paris. If I would have wanted to be manipulative, to hide any kind of informations, why would I have put this column ?

Now, ThePromenader and Captain Scarlet will answer to this post in less than 5 minutes in saying that Courbevoie isn't Paris and that this is in contradiction with the title because Paris is only Paris and that I'm an evil manipulative monster which is responsible of all the criticism people makes on Wikipedia. I would simply answer that if all articles in Wikipedia where describing things with the same accuracy as this article, it would be a significant improvement. Metropolitan 13:13, 18 september 2006 (UTC).

Let others decide what relevence references bring. In discounting these you would insinuate that what you have to say is more important - it's not. In Wiki, nothing is more important than fact and reference.

"None of myself, Stevage, Hardouin, SB Johnny, JP06035, Andrew Norman, and ALoan have ever considered that La Défense was inside the city of Paris. "

Then the idea of maintaining the title "List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris" is pretty silly.

Metropolitan, your arguments do not add up, nor can you find any fact to support any of your arguments. In spite of all your linguistic juggling and jargon, your point of view is but a theory shared by no reference. I will not be delving into the motivations behind your stance, but I do know of your dislike for the existing system.

As for once again targeting character: save it. I have never questioned anything other than fact and how it is presented. If you had a case you would have presented it by now without any need for such distracting dialogue regarding anything but fact.

Wikipedia is a reference based on reference, not on ignorance or points of view. If you insist that a majority of references that other people refer to refer to the entire Paris urban area as simply "Paris", then prove it; if you can't, then drop it. I need not repeat myself any longer. THEPROMENADER 13:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but the references provided by User:ThePromenader back up the hypothesis that the page is wrongly named. By stating the title as List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris is misleading as about 70% of the buildings are in other towns. Common usage does dictate the the easiest, most common, factually correct title be used for articles and, quite simply, the current title is bad. Why is there such resistance to correctly naming this article? Is it political? Is it because User:ThePromenader proposed it? The mind wonders, as I was under the impression that one of Wikipedia's missions was to provide the world with factually correct information. Even the French don't say that these buildings are IN Paris!! Paris region maybe, but not Paris! It really is mind boggling why there is such unfounded opposition. --Bob 18:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article could be used to back up any claim that La Défense or any of its buildings are located inside the city of Paris ? The answer is no and you are perfectly aware about it. As such, I don't want to hear anymore claims that this article is based on a lie, or even misleading.

The only thing that ThePromenader and Captain Scalet disagree with is the use of the word "Paris" to talk about the Paris urban area in a context which is well-clarified at the very first line of the article. The reason why they disagree with this use is never mentionned. As they generally answer that "it is a lie", deductions would lead to the idea that they actually refuse the common usage in English which is to mention an urban area by the name of its central municipality.

Actually, what disturbs me the most is that both Captain Scarlett and ThePromenader don't give any argument to their refusal. Generally, they answer to that question with personal attacks. They seem to refuse even the idea that we could refer to the Paris urban area as simply "Paris" in a well-explained context. Actually, I would like to find out why this is so important for them. What motivates them. Metropolitan 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

If a title is not accurate, and article content will not be found. As it stands, the content will only be found by the ignorant, and discredited with the next reference read. Questioning motivations? My mantra is a constant demand for reference - and a question "how can you not already know the fact of the matter?". Exasperation has resulted in different levels of the same. Of course you can't refer to the entire Paris urban area as simply "Paris" - this has been proven and referenced many times. You have yet to provide any reference proving your theory that it is called this at all. The fact that that the entire "agglomération parisienne" cannot and never is called simply "Paris" is fact, proven fact, widely referenced and omnipresent fact, and this is what's important - so turning the question around, why is it important for someone to promote something that isn't fact, something that cannot be proven to be so?

Really, does it matter? The only thing that matters is what we publish - this must be fact - it is only this that can be verified elsewhere. So if what you advance is indeed fact, then you should be able to simply provide references and be done with it. THEPROMENADER 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, lose the attitude. Comments like "Stop behaving as such a shameless hypocritical. Who do you believe you are to move my answer to your comment somewhere else than below the said comment ?", "Sorry to kick your soap-box from under you, time to wake up to fact", "Your behaviour is utterly disgraceful, both of you"... You aren't going to accomplish anything with this sort of discussion. Drop the accusations, uncivilness, and please, just focus on the facts.

If it's true that all the facts have been presented and no one still agrees, then you guys are going to have to compromise.

Bob, please sign up before partaking in the conversation. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 21:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only references provided thus far are those proving that the entire "Paris urban area" (agglomération parisienne) is never called simply "Paris". Every reference in the "accuracy" section proves that the "Paris urban area" is called... the "Paris urban area". THEPROMENADER 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: No comment below the comments immediately following the point-by-point response to the "accuracy" list (after 09:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)) has anything to do with every reference in particular. It would be clarify this discussion much (and make room for later "comments on references") if we move all this up to the "comment" section under today's entries. I have already tried to remedy this and have been reverted four times already today. THEPROMENADER 23:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

Now, ThePromenader and Captain Scarlet will answer to this post in less than 5 minutes in saying that Courbevoie isn't Paris and that this is in contradiction with the title because Paris is only Paris and that I'm an evil manipulative monster which is responsible of all the criticism people makes on Wikipedia. In the own words of Metropolitan, how is trying to predict the evil actions I am bound to execute not an act of bad faith? Am I accused of vandalism, sockpuppetry or lying? Have I been malicious and is there evidence of malice? No because you are assuming I would do it which constitutes bad faith. If ever you are convinced you, Hardouin, ThePromenader, Johnk, Bob, Aloan and I can ever agree with each other, how do you think that presuming my actions will contribute effectively to the 'debate' in hand? Now your behaviour is malicious and slowing the 'debate' as you are not assuming good faith in my or indeed our future actions. you can't accuse me of doing something I haven't yet done! Either you have good evidence, documentation, sources to back your statement or dare I say Point of Vue or don't contribute to the debate, one cannot and should not contribute to Wikipedia as stated in the edit box: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made none of those accusations you mention Captain Scarlet. I don't believe that accusations in general bring anything good for the simple reason that those are based on the attempt of marginalizing a point of view, a strategy which is doomed to fail and I'll explain why.

This is probably my last post on the topic. It has already wasted too much of my time.

This discussion has reached a level of antagonism which will make it even harder to reach a compromise. At the opposite of what many people assume in this thread, there are different ways to read geography, there is not "one truth" and "other lies". As I've already explained, any city has an institutional aspect and a territorial aspect. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to offer an accurate description of both, it is not to assume only one is true and the other is a lie. This is especially true in regards to the French territory knowing that our local institutions have been created at the end of the 18th century and has marginally evolved since then. On the opposite, the territorial aspect of France has fundamentally evolved, getting from a heavily rural country to a heavily urban country. In ignoring the territorial aspect, we ignore that fundamental change in France. In ignoring the institutional aspect, we ignore the legal description of that country. None of both is good for an encyclopedia. Attempting to ignore or even neglect one of both is necessarily biased. It is not less a lie to say that Paris has 2 million inhabitants and ignore its metropolitan area than it is to say that Paris has 11.5 million inhabitants and ignore its institutional dimensions. Both should be said because both are true.

Captain Scarlet and ThePromenader have both spent a considerable energy to priviledge on Wikipedia an institutional description of realities, often in denying the legitimacy of any other aspect. Hardouin, on his own side, has spent an as considerable energy to make as visible as possible the territorial description of realities, sometimes in questionning its legitimacy, but I must admit never in denying it. Both attitudes are as guilty. As such, there is no reason to say that "I am right and the other is wrong" because both sides are at the same time right and wrong. What is right is to bring to Wikipedia the description they priviledge, but what is definitly wrong is to dismiss the other description as wrong, or even worse, as a lie.

I do believe that everyone behaves in good faith. And I still believe this even if some behaviours are borderline such as Captain Scarlet's move to destroy conventions of naming of Paris RER stations in order to replace them with national rails conventions of naming or some of Hardouin's descriptions which often neglect excessively local institutions. I won't put myself aside, I guess my behaviour has probably been also borderline and so did ThePromenader. The point remains that we all behave in good faith. Once and for all it would be a significant improvement if everyone would admit this. So much as it would be a significant improvement if everyone would confess that no aspect of realities should be neglected on wikipedia.

I would also like Captain Scarlet to realize that there's nothing bad in the fact Saint-Germain-en-Laye is today an outward direct extension of Paris like nearly 400 municipalities which are part of the Paris urban area. That doesn't remove anything to that place you obviously like a lot. I know that "banlieue" is generally seen very negatively but a good behaviour in the context of wikipedia shouldn't be to dismiss it but actually to show that it also encompasses good aspects such as those you are obviously attached to.

As for Hardouin, I think we've all understood that a purely legal description of the territory doesn't give an accurate frame of what are realities in the Paris urban area. Having lived all my life in the Hauts-de-Seine, I know that this departement is more urban than most boroughs of the inner London. Greenwich in the Greater London is in various territorial aspects very similar to Saint-Germain-en-Laye. The thing though is that Paris is not organized as London, and there's nothing bad in this. You can perfectly prove that territorially Parisian suburbs are direct extensions of Paris without necessarily questionning the legal organization of the territory. The purpose of Wikipedia is to describe things in all their different aspects and as such your job is useful, as long as you stick in the descriptive aspect rather than the opinion aspect.

ThePromenader, I do believe that you also behave in good faith. You always show yourself as the good guy trying to fight the bad guys corrupting wikipedia and I have no reason to question the fact you genuinely see yourself this way. This being said, your personal experience of Paris is, as anyone else, limited. According to what you told me, you've obviously lived in Chennevières and now you live in Paris and you consider both as very different. I'm glad for you, but this is simply your point of view. Brookville in the Queens or Williamsbridge in the Bronx are both very different from Midtown in Manhattan but that doesn't make them less part of New York City. As such, you have no reason to neglect the territorial description of the Paris area simply because your opinion is that Paris suburbs have nothing in common with Paris. Finally, I wish you would accept that there is no one in here motivated by the naughty opinion which is to picture Paris bigger than it really is. That kind of behaviour makes you as much a vandal as those you believe that are. You may consider that the aire urbaine of Paris is ridiculous, but on which ground do you believe you have the right to hide that information from Wikipedia ? I think it would be good for Wikipedia and for yourself that you finally accept that you are not different than Hardouin, and that simply your experience of the Paris urban area is different from his.

Finally, I cannot finish to make my little comments on everyone involved in this page without of course talking about myself. I joined Wikipedia 10 months ago because I believed I could help to give a more accurate pictures of Paris public transports. There was much to do about it. The description of the RER system was marginal and didn't picture accurately a network generating an annual traffic of 800 million passenger rides, with an average daily frequency of 1 train every 2 minutes and a half for some of its lines. When I've joined Wikipedia, I was far to imagine where I was putting my feet. Few days after I've joined Wikipedia, I was already attacked, taken for someone else, investigated on my internet moves since 5 years and necessarily evil. Some people have accused me of bad faith, and just like Hardouin, I've been accused of wanting to make appear "Paris larger than it really is".

The list about the tallest buildings and structures in Paris is somewhere the outcome of those attacks. I've been accused of lying again and again but those accusations were simply based on a way to picture things which didn't suit the points of view of some editors. I would have been lying if I would have considered that the "in Paris" in the title was meant to say the "city of Paris". I've always told that it was actually meaning the "Paris urban area", something well-clarified in the first line of the article. There is not a side of the truth and an lying side, simply two different descriptions, both true, of the same reality. The only reason why I like the title "in Paris" is because of its simplicity. A simplicity which doesn't distort the truth as everything is well-explained in the content of this article. The final point of all this is that I've wasted already too much time on Wikipedia.

ThePromenader, Captain Scarlet and Hardouin have apparently an energy I don't have. As such, I don't believe I'll continue to edit Wikipedia, or at least I'll only edit minor things. What I believe is that ThePromenader and Hardouin should collaborate instead of behaving as rivals. They should accept that one can bring something the other cannot bring instead of believing they are each in the only legitimate side. I don't know... as they live in the same place I guess the best would be for them to meet in a café and talk about it. That would be the most mature move I guess. The outcome could only be positive. As for myself, I'll now try to take care of things I personally consider as more important to me. Metropolitan 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

In reading all the above, all I can say is that I'll do my best to tread gently.

I have the privilege of having both my present knowledge and the memory of my ignorance when I came here fifteen years ago. This may seem odd, but it is my very ignorance that led me to spend almost two years in Paris' suburbs. This is not at all to the negative, as I am still nostalgic for this period because frankly my house and garden on the river Marne was much more enjoyable than any Paris apartment ever has been.

Yet back to what brought me there: the very "in Paris" theme. In my home city (which is very large indeed today), what we considered to be the suburbs were actually within city limits, and in many North American cities, especially mine, suburban living had a much higher standard than life in the central city. Thus, when I made public my desire to visit France and was later told that a friend of my architecture teacher had a place to offer, I was immediately game. "Where is it?" I asked. "Paris!" was the answer. "In the city centre?" I asked? "Well, not in the centre." With my upbringing (and previous year in New York), I was actually relieved. Yet after a quite naive and incredulant in-flight conversation I will always remember, it took me all of ten minutes in CDG airport to discover that I would not be living "in Paris".

I don't think it necessary to outline every moment I've lived since then. What Paris is, how large it is, and what is referred to when the word "Paris" is spoken is omnipresent and all too clear to all living here. It is because of this - the city defining itself - that you will see this same reality reflected in every reference you open.

English Wikipedia counts on contributors either with knowledge enough to fill its pages and interest enough to look up and copy any reference that is available to them. Sadly, for all things French, Wikipedia is lacking here. Oddly, the 'particular' articles are best - those on French Kings are brilliant - but in my visits dating from around late 2003 or so, I noticed many lacking (rather, exaggerations) in the more 'general' articles, Paris in particular. I had no idea, in my first edits here, that those responsible for such misconceptions were so... few.

Now here's where I must tread delicately in order not to offend, but offend I'm sure I will all the same. What we have here is a push for a "big-city" agenda and a frustration with the present administration's ability to compete, as it is, in this race. This interest has been, until present, much more dominant than any distant interest in "things French" has been. What we're seeing here is the first waves of Wiki's growth, the first corrections by those who do care enough to contest the low status quo dominating what's written here. Unfortunately several other 'social issues' have impeded the road to fact, but in fact it will eventually end.

All I've ever asked is that we pertain to fact, and the only writ I've ever contested is that that doesn't. If I may be so bold, stating what is "in" or "out" of Paris has been one of the most (expletive) obvious of questions I've ever come across here, but never have I seen opposition so simultaneously vehement and baseless. If the arguments the "anti-move" party had to offer were indeed fact, their references would be abundant and any opposing argument would be impossible. Unfortunately the opposite is true, and instead of factual discussion, this talk-page filled with contestations of "concepts", "perceived realities" and "visions" with no factual conclusion.

Our goal here is to spend our time presenting reality - as it is - to others as they will find it elsewhere. Anything outside of this is questionable, and it is only normal that it eventually will be questioned. If you are the publisher of anything questionable, it is certainly not in good faith to use other arguments/tactics outside fact against the questioner, especially when you do this because you have no valid answer to offer to the question asked of you.

Stick to fact, please, and we'll all get along. THEPROMENADER 19:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the use of expressions such as "big city agenda" or "anti-move party" is helping to mend fences. As for your personal experience in the Paris suburbs, it sounds like a particularly bad one, but you shouldn't let past experiences influence your judgement today. Maybe the suburbs are ugly and harsh (that should be nuanced), but they are as much a part of the Paris fabric as the fancy central historical districts where you live now. Hardouin 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've read a word of anything I've written. THEPROMENADER 21:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What it boils down to is a yes or no question: Are 50% or more of these buildings situated in communes which bare the name of Paris? If yes, then leave the article where it is as it accuractely describes the situation, if no, then a different title should be used. --Bob 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

I would like to inform the mediator that User:Grcampbell has been bypassing the mediation going on here by editing the La Défense article as well as 18 La Défense skyscrapers articles (such as Tour Total, Tour Granite, etc.). Among other things, his edits have consisted in changing the wording "La Défense is located west of the city proper" into "La Défense is located west of Paris". By doing so he's basically taking side and considering that the name "Paris" can only be used for the City of Paris and not for the entire urban area/connubartion. I tried to restore the "west of the city proper" phrasing, but was immediately reverted. I have left messages at Talk:Tour AXA, but Grcampbell (aka Bob), argues that it is merely a grammatical point, when it is actually quite obvious that he's trying to bypass this discussion. In several of his reverts he clearly indicated that he was reverting because "it is NOT IN PARIS" ([15]). Isn't that precisely what we're here to decide? whether it's permissible to say that it's in Paris or not? Could the mediator, in the interest of trust in this mediation, remind Grcampbell that we have to wait until the end of mediation and that bypassing mediation is not permited? Thank you. Hardouin 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation?? Is that what is going on here? Blimey, I only hope that we don't try to solve civil unrest in this manner. Whining really is unbecoming. For information, User:Metropolitan agreed with my edits:

Bob, I just wanted to thank you for your effort of clarification you were bringing about the proper locations of the La Défense towers articles. It is indeed better described this way. Metropolitan 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

--Bob 00:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For La Défense. The French wiki article is excellent in its description and entirely accurate.

La Défense est un quartier d'affaires situé dans le département des Hauts-de-Seine (France), à l'ouest de Paris dans le prolongement de l'Axe historique qui commence au Louvre et se poursuit par l'avenue des Champs-Élysées, l'Arc de Triomphe, et au delà jusqu'au pont de Neuilly et la Grande Arche.

Nowhere does it state that it is actually IN Paris (which would be wrong). Now why can't we be like that? --Bob 01:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bypass the mediation. It's alright to edit the article in ways that don't relate to the title namechange, but please don't bypass the mediation. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egads! It's the missing mediator!
GofG, I don't think you read that correctly - User:Hardouin is complaining that editing articles other than List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris is someohow "bypassing mediation" - or in other words, attempting to use this mediation to protect edits on other pages. THEPROMENADER 06:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's edits have nothing to do with the mediation! why can't a badly written article introduction be rewritten? Who would wish to keep La Défense is located west of the city proper when a properly enunciated alternative exists? La Défense is to the West of Paris, there's no argument to be had. Use the French article to rewrite the mistakes and inaccuracies of the English Wikipedia, that is why when a featured article (sure we do'nt have one here) exists on foreign Wikipedae we add a note saying that we can do bettr on the Englih one. Gosh, bickering, bickering, bickering... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I apologize that I'm not speaking as much as you guys, but honestly I'm here to keep things in check and make sure you guys don't... begin clawing at each other. If I were to actually take part in the conversation, I'd have to take a side, which is something I don't do. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 13:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, GofG, it would be kind of you if you would look at this from Wiki's point of view - rather, from the viewpoint of one reading Wiki. It is important that the reader gets what he's expecting, and more importantly, finds what he's looking for. THEPROMENADER 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can put aside this attempt at distraction and return to Bob's (completely ignored) question :

"Are 50% or more of these buildings situated in communes which bear the name of Paris? If yes, then leave the article where it is as it accuractely describes the situation, if no, then a different title should be used."

This sounds like the situation in a nutshell, and I agree. Seventy percent of this article is not in the commune/department of Paris. THEPROMENADER 08:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like the facts at the most basic level. If there's any disagreement at this point, we have to put the facts back and a more basic level until we get to the point where everyone agrees to them. From there we can get something done, but this does sound right. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 13:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick words to say that 55% of buildings mentionned in the list are now located inside the city of Paris. If that's really the key of the problem, then it's solved. Metropolitan 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the new expanded top 100 list maybe (which includes buildings of a pitiful 90m), however, the article also discusses another 20 buildings outwith Paris and two within, leading us to 51% outwith Paris. The top 50 has 64% outwith Paris. What are we going to do now? Make this list about every single building in Île de France? 'tis rather petty... With 50 buildings I would expect at least 25 of them to be within Paris, as the numbers are small, with 100 buildings I would expect over 70 to be in Paris. --Bob 17:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? At least then we could call it List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France with no worries at all about accuracy. THEPROMENADER 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So all of a sudden, 50% isn't enough. Now you want 70%. The simple fact that you both, all of a sudden, change the criteria that you both have agreed the same day prove how hypocritical is your attitude. How could you better prove that you don't care of the criteria you elaborate by yourself ? Metropolitan 21:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It depends on the numbers involved, using fact and references, something which is totally lacking on your behalf in many of the articles you edit. We have to use references, use fact. We are not supposed to invent new names, invent data, bend definitions etc for our own personal point of view. No hypocrisy involved (try looking that word up in a dictionary before you bandy it about). --Bob 22:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that little manipulation at 18:59 today. You guys are hilarious : ) I agreed with reducing it to this simple question of "in or out", not with the percentage as the change in the list would have us believe - even some of a list that says it is where it isn't is erronous and misleading. Also, from what area are you taking your data, and on what criteria? THEPROMENADER 18:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm desesperate by the level of hysteria which have reached this page. You guys should all really calm down. This is not a football game. We are supposed to reach a consensus together. Bob, I don't consider that a 90 meter tall building is "pityful". You told me you were living in Marseille right ? How many buildings are taller than 90 meters in Marseille ? One. It is the Grand Pavois and it is 100 meter tall. The next tallest building in Marseille is an HLM of 56 meters in Saint-Giniez district.

The Promenader and Bob have summarized the question as such, if more than 50% of buildings would be located inside the city of Paris, then they would accept the title. That actually recalled me that half of the list had been hidden. Indeed, the 26 March 2006, JP06035 decided to hide half of the list in order to reduce red links. His reason for this was honnest, he wanted the article to reach the status of featured list. Today, there is no such a problem anymore. On the 104 structures listed, only 9 of them leads to red links. The only thing I've done was to show again the 50 hidden structures. And indeed, the idea was not only that the list would be more complete this way, but also that it would make it reach the criteria making the title acceptable for both Bob and ThePromenader.

As for the criteria and the sources, they are already well-explained in the article. Nothing has changed. The list was thought as a Top 100 from the beginning.

Anyway, the idea was to finally reach a compromise, and ThePromenader answers me that it is a manipulation. Gosh! That will learn me to not respect the silence I've promised on this page 2 days ago.Metropolitan 19:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This morning the mediator makes a 50% suggestion, and, lo and behold, this evening the Paris content of the (main) list jumps to near 50%. And we have yet to hear the answer to the question about how this number came about - the data is the tallest structures from what area? Yet in reality, even the answer to this is moot in regards to our "inaccurate title" situation.

All of this juggling and factless talk-page "reasoning", invisible to the reader, is pointless. Either you:

• 1: Make a list of all towers within the commune and département of Paris and call it List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris or
• 2: Make a list of all towers within the Paris urban area and call it List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris urban area, or
• 3: Make a list of all the tallest towers in the Île-de-France and call it List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France or List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris Region.

Anything outside of this is erroneous, misleading or manipulative in one way or another - no matter how you "explain" it. THEPROMENADER 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the history of the article by yourself ThePromenader. Those towers have always been in the article, from the very first edit. I haven't manipulated the list, they have always been there, they were simply hidden since March. As for the source of this list, it has always been the same: Paris-skyscrapers.com. Those structures are the tallest in the Paris urban area. As for the way they are ranked, this is also told in the article: they are ranked by roof heights.

I don't understand your behaviour ThePromenader. Now that enlarged list matches your criteria agreed with Bob to accept the title. Why all of a sudden you deny what you've said earlier today? We were able to reach here a compromise, why suddenly ruining everything ? Metropolitan 21:25, 20 September 2006

This version, which splits the list as per List of tallest buildings in New York City would get my vote, leaving at the current title and including satellite cities as a seperate list further down. --Bob 22:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! This again [16]. Like a few months before, this has my approval as well, although I think it a shame to split the list - over a name. Really, if an agglomeration is bigger than its city, there's nothing wrong with calling it an agglomeration. Too bad as well for the people who know the towers are in Paris' suburbs and are looking for them there. But if it's the only way to uncontested factual accuracy, so be it. THEPROMENADER 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the - ? After a day of silence the reverter was but two minutes behind Bob. You guys are too fast for me. All these watchers, yet so little factual discussion : P THEPROMENADER 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan, in the interest of Wiki, all you need to do read again through list I posted just above: if sharing fact and verifiable information are indeed your intentions here, you can have no problem with it at all. THEPROMENADER 22:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

From these posts, I understand that both Grcampbell also known as Bob and ThePromenader agree with the title as long as 50% or more of buildings mentionned in the list are located inside the city of Paris.

In enlarging the list from the Top 50 to the Top 100, the proportions of buildings located in the city of Paris becomes of 55%. As such, we reach here a compromise that both ThePromenader and Bob can agree with.

Unfortunately, all of a sudden, ThePromenader and Bob changes their mind. They consider this move as manipulative and they don't consider anymore that this proportion of 50% or more is enough. Bob considers now that it should be 70%, and ThePromenader considers no longer that criteria as significant.

From these facts, we are forced to admit that ThePromenader and Bob both refuse a compromise they have been the first to propose. Now I would like them to explain the reason why they suddenly reject a compromise they have proposed by themselves only few hours ago. What relevance should we give to their arguments in this context ? Metropolitan 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

When the list was at 50, statistically, there are fewer world class skyscrapers within the Paris boundaries so one would expect at least 50%, however, if we are to include a huge list, such as 104, then we need to be more exact and more demanding. This, I described above if you had taken the time to look at it. If you change the goal posts, expect the rules to change. My 50% was talking about a list of 50, not 104. However, if we follow New York's example, I do believe that to be the best compromise. Something I would be willing to discuss. --Bob 00:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Events, Metropolitan, not facts. We're still waiting for fact. What "he does" or "she does" does not make a factual title for a factual list.

This morning's proposal was around a question on the existing list - the "more than half is not 'in Paris'" was an underlining of its ridiculous state - there was no question of modifying it! We all know very well you modified the list because you saw this. I'll save the adjectives.

Again, this will be my mantra for the morrow:

All of this juggling and fact-less talk-page "reasoning", invisible to the reader, is pointless. Either you:

• 1: Make a list of all towers within the commune and département of Paris and call it List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris or
• 2: Make a list of all towers within the Paris urban area and call it List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris urban area, or
• 3: Make a list of all the tallest towers in the Île-de-France and call it List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France or List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris Region.

Anything outside of this is erroneous, misleading or manipulative in one way or another - no matter how you "explain" it. THEPROMENADER 00:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not modified the list. I've simply shown what was hidden. In accusing me to manipulate the datas instead of answering to my simple question, you make your case worse. Indeed, anyone can see that when I've created this list, there was already the same Top 100[17] and that it has never left the content of this page. Now, answer to my question. Why the title was acceptable with more than 50% of mentionned buildings in the city of Paris few hours ago, and why is it not acceptable anymore ? Why do you make absolutely no effort to reach a compromise ? Metropolitan 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you make no effort to read and/or understand simple English? Is it just me or is this mediation process like hitting your head off a brick wall as they simply do not read what is written. the above question has now been answered twice !!!!!!!! --Bob 01:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah - no need to get steamed. Brick walls at least have some substance: I'd say it is more like - thinking you see the wall you are banging your head against, making the motions, but never encountering anything but air. The back does get sore after a while...

All in jest, of course. Goodnight. THEPROMENADER 01:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not modified the list. I've simply shown what was hidden.

Metropolitan, please. Whither the additional data came is of no importance: it was not visible, and none knew it existed - and then it was, and it was you who made it appear.

My case is based on fact, nothing else, and it is outlined quite clearly above. if sharing fact and verifiable information are indeed your intentions here, you can have no problem with this statement at all. All you've done until now is burying it like it doesn't exist. THEPROMENADER 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand well your point, ThePromenader, the argument about the majority of buildings being located in the City of Paris was a valuable argument as long as it suited your final purpose, but now that it doesn't you find it irrelevant. That's at least what I understand from your words:

"This morning's proposal was around a question on the existing list - the "more than half is not 'in Paris'" was an underlining of its ridiculous state - there was no question of modifying it! We all know very well you modified the list because you saw this. I'll save the adjectives."

Of course showing the enlarged list was based on your proposal of compromise ! How is this "bad" or "manipulative" or any adjective you "will save" ? In the frame of this mediation, this can only be considered as positive !

We were able to finally reach a compromise and to solve the issue. Why not taking this opportunity ? Why can't you, for this specific case, put your pride aside and accept a compromise you considered as honnest yesterday at the same hour ? You have everything to win over here. Indeed, in refusing a criteria you would have agreed with for the simple reason that it doesn't serve anymore your final purpose, you would only prove that you give no credit to your own arguments and that you only abuse them for what they can bring to you. You would only prove you claim you believe in arguments that you do not truly practice. You would only prove that those arguments are hypocritical (sorry if this word sounds offensive but according to its definition that's the one which should be used in this context).

Seriously ThePromenader, be reasonable with yourself, think at least about your own reputation on wikipedia. Metropolitan 12:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It is a manipulation as you modify the data that is to be commented on. If the subject changes, the debate must recommence, taking the new elements into account or removing them if they are deemed off topic or subjective changes. It's what is called changer la donne. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, grow up User:Metropolitan. We don't have "reputations" on Wikipedia - we don't exist! Only what we write there counts. It's obvious that you're missing the whole point of this great adventure.

As Bob mentioned earlier, we made a comment on an existing situation, then you moved the goal-posts. If you want a clear-cut case of going back on your word, you quite dramatically announced two days ago that you were leaving - yet is there anyone here holding you to this claim? Not. It is not in Wiki's interest to lose a Wikipedian, and it is Wiki's good - and Wiki's validity - that we must have in mind when editing here.

One who would push an agenda that goes against the reality that surrounds him every day - in addition to opposing every reference in existence - does not have this validity in mind - he has only his own "reputation" and agenda at heart. Wiki is not a soapbox for ignorant listeners to bow to the "higher reality" recounted by those who think themselves "most knowledgable" - it is a place to share fact exactly as it is, thus exactly as it is found in other references. That's it. If the propos one wants to publish cannot be found in any reference, then his place for pushing it is not here.

I will not comment to any length on the argument technique/language used in lieu of fact, but let's just say it is anything but honest. After filling a talk page with juggling language - yet not one valid reference proving that a majority of reference and common use does indeed, as you have so many times stated, call the entire agglomération parisienne simply "Paris" - and not having any factual leg to stand on, to transcend even this level to a name-calling against those whose only question, after providing references themselves, was to ask reference of you... what would you call this sort of behaviour? Good faith? THEPROMENADER 13:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I've joined back this discussion that I, indeed, told I would leave, it's simply because I thought I had the key to reach a compromise. Your behaviour ThePromenader is nowhere near reasonable since then. Metropolitan 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Right. So you move the goal-posts of the game - manipulation no matter how you put it - and complain that the rules are no longer the same. For what must be the hundredth time, again you complain in ignoring every factual argument and factually referenced evidence that's ever been presented to you. Since, for what must be the hundredth time, you move to completely baseless "social" accusations and avoid once again the questions on fact asked of you, I guess we can safely assume that you don't give a fig about fact. It's also quite obvious that the only behaviour "reasonable" to you will an agreement with your very inventive and unverifiable propos. I'm sorry, but this will not stand.

Enough is enough. Prove your good faith in proving that a majority of reference refers to the entire Paris agglomeration as simply "Paris", thus justifying both the tenacity of your position and this article's present title. Anything outside this is just a waste of everyone's time. THEPROMENADER 15:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Let's start the day with a famous quote: "...when you exit a commune, you are no longer in that commune." Fact in a nutshell, verifiable everywhere.

Choices for encyclopaedic content are the following:

• 1: Make a list of all towers within the commune and département of Paris and call it List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris or
• 2: Make a list of all towers within the Paris urban area and call it List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris urban area, or
• 3: Make a list of all the tallest towers in the Île-de-France and call it List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France or List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris Region.
• 4: Leave the article where it is, but give it proper context in splitting it between a main "Paris" table containing only towers within Paris, and a secondary table containing all towers without.

• Comment. Although it has been suggested as a compromise, #4 is in reality is not an optimal choice at all. Firstly, the "secondary" table will be larger and contain the majority of the article's tall structures. Secondly, anyone informed to a level above complete ignorance looking for any of the "secondary structures" in Paris' suburbs, or precisely in Puteaux, Courbevoie or La Défense, will not think to look in Paris - and even if it is found in an in Paris article, it will look odd. This choice is not in the interest of clarity and fact.
  There is no reason not to be precise. THEPROMENADER 09:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetering

I feel that I must warn members currently engulfed in the current debate not to log out to revert pages. It is clear that a contributor part of the debate is using this as a means to imposing their point of vue regardless of fact due to the similar tactics used by logged contirbutors. These edits were processed today on a related article [18]. I obviously cannot identify the user, but it is important to note such participation. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Bob did not log out to change something, and while he did bypass the mediation :( he wasn't sockuppetering by using an IP address. GofG _|^|_| Contribs

But Bob did not bypass mediation on anything at all: the pages in question have nothing at all to do with the tallest structures debate! This is just an inventive ploy by a single wikipedian to overturn a consensus of three - on those pages, not here. Also, it was not Bob who used an anon IP to revert - Bob's edit!!

Please, GofG, if you don't have the time to even look at this, perhaps you should give the case to someone else. THEPROMENADER 07:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

Archive?

I'm considering archiving, 156 KB is quite a number for a mediation. Anyone mind? GofG _|^|_| Contribs 02:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving this ? Sure why not ! The article now refers to the list of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris metropolitan area, and not only that but its content is also divided with one section only for Paris and another for the garbage which represents La Défense. How could this be a better compromise ? Actually, I think we should divide the 2nd table in one for each municipality mentionned. That would be "factually more accurate". And as we stick only to facts, La Défense represents nothing institutionnally and is located on three different municipalities. I think that facts guide us then to erase La Défense article... and any mention of it on Wikipedia. That's what facts are about isn't it ThePromenader ? Metropolitan, 02:50 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Hi, Metropolitan. I saw that too, but the article has since been moved back to its *cough* proper place. I can understand why you're miffed, but hold it with the nonsense. If La Défense is defined in reference, then of course it deserves an article. THEPROMENADER 07:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm frankly glad that I missed the fireworks last night, but I am sorry that a contributor got banned because of it: after seeing this edit and seeing that he was knowledgable, I notified him about this controversy and invited him to add a word about the fact of the matter. I will be sending him an apology after I'm through here.

Yet there are now five wikipedians knowledgable on the subject of Paris who are able to prove factually that this title is wrong. This move is opposed by two wikipedeans - just as well-informed, if not more, about Paris - who are unable to provide anything but theory and not one shred of factual evidence as an opposing argument. How can this situatioin be made more obvious?

Most distracting in all this is those who would oppose any insistence on correction only because of the noise it makes. An error corrected is painless and noiseless and, as far as Wiki is concerned, might as well be the proverbial tree falling in the forest. On the other hand, a correction repeatedly opposed in spite of its justification by all available fact and reference - especially when the opposition, instead of being accompanied by fact of its own, is accompanied by name-calling and baseless complaints on admin pages - tends to bring lumberjacks with chain-saws a-swinging.

It takes resistance to make a fuss. If those resisting have fact on their side, then it is only normal to pooh-pooh those wanting change. If, on the other hand, this is not the case ... perhaps those who would judge on this basis should take a moment to reconsider the situation. THEPROMENADER 08:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A satellite commune is defined by the INSEE as not being physically connected to the urban area it is influenced by. None of the structures mentionned in the list fills this criteria. As such, this has necessarily to be changed. Actually, ThePromenader, the fact that you neglect that kind of detail, you who are in general so rigorous, could be surprizing. Unfortunately, I don't know for which reason, I'm not surprised. After the last events, I don't believe any longer in your good faith. Metropolitan 13:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Again ignoring every word I've written I see. I don't see what anything you say has to do with this mediation or what I said. But while you're there, if you want to fix a detail, fix it, but don't revert a whole series of edits behind the criticism of one detail. This is a very clear - not insinuated - breach of good faith. Believe anything you want to, but I speak from fact here - and have proved it ample times. THEPROMENADER 13:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, again aplogies - I'm in the middle of like five things here and didn't see that the list had not returned to its former state. Still, I don't see why you're addressing me with this satellite detail as I have made no mention of it, and the fact that you accuse me of bad faith on this non-mention is even more puzzling. THEPROMENADER 13:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of this actually going anywhere? As far as I can tell, the two positions basically do not admit to any kind of compromise solution. Those who like the current title seem pretty much unwilling to consider any alternate title as a possibility, and those who do not like the current title obviously won't be happy with any alternate title. How does one get around this? There seems to be no chance for a consensus here. All this page seems to be doing is becoming a place where everybody can insult each other. There's any number of possible alternate names that could be used. I've tried to suggest various different ones largely in order to see if those opposed to a move find any of these names more attractive than any others, but so far as I can tell there is no real willingness to accept any other name. Given this basic situation, I'm not sure what good any of this is accomplishing. If the page is going to stay where it is, a mediation is basically useless. If it's going to move, those who like the current title should try to give some indication of what alternate title would be least bad. my "in and around Paris" suggestion was an attempt to throw a bone - it's a title that does not use an awkward construction like "Paris region" or "Paris urban area," but which clearly indicates that cities outside of Paris proper are being discussed. This was ignored. Obviously, on the other side, a plan which leaves the article where it is would not be a compromise, and I don't think most of us are interested in changing the text of the article to more closely match the content, given the silliness of an article on "skyscrapers in Paris" that doesn't include the place where all the skyscrapers are. So, anyway, what's the point of all this? Is this getting us any closer to a solution? Can we even envision a process that is going to get us closer to a solution? If one side's only goal is a page move, and the other side's principal goal is to prevent a page move, where is the room for a compromise? I must admit I find this whole business entirely hopeless. john k 17:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and those who do not like the current title obviously won't be happy with any alternate title.

john k, I think I made it very clear that I would be happy with any title, even descriptive, that covers the area in question accurately. Although hesitantly so, I am also for splitting the list in two. In fact, I'm for any accurate solution at all.

The only uncompromising opposition here is in those who would not have any other solution. THEPROMENADER 17:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise though for not putting your suggestion in my list. How inconsiderate of me. Shall we make a new one listing all the possibilities? Please do. THEPROMENADER 17:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a misstatement. I meant that those who do like the current title won't be happy with any alternative. Sorry for the confusion. john k 10:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the tone of the debate, I must be crazy to want to add to the discussion, but I'd like to see this come to some sort of compromise soon, so that everyone can get on to editing/translating/writing other French/France-related articles. In reading all the above arguments and statements, I have to agree that the "in Paris" title is misleading and/or inaccurate. Keeping in mind both wikipedia style, the need for encyclopedic accuracy and the question of ease-of-use for non-experts (who, let's face it, are probably not going to know the difference between "Paris", "Paris region" or "Paris urban area"), I personally think that one list with a title such as List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region or (as a second choice) List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France – with redirects from "in Paris" – seems like a fine compromise.

(In my mind, a comparison with Los Angeles would be fitting. Most people are not aware of what areas are or are not part of the city of Los Angeles, yet if I wanted to know about skyscrapers and tall buildings in the Los Angeles area, I would certainly want that list to include continguous areas such as Beverly Hills or West Hollywood, even though they are separate municipalities. It would seem to be a waste of my time to have to compare several separate pages to figure out if a downtown LA building is taller than a building in Beverly Hills or West Hollywood. For this reason, Skyscrapers in Los Angeles is a bit of a disappointment.)

Finally, it seems to me that whatever compromise is finally adopted at the end of this mediation, this compromise should probably extend to related articles (like Economy of Paris), if they include areas outside of the Paris city limits. -- NYArtsnWords 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

To repair the lacking pointed out by john k, there is now a table in the #Compromise_offers listing all the choices thus far for a new article title. Don't hesitate to add a new one if anyone has another suggestion. Since now it is practically unanimous (and is unanimous in those citing fact) that the title of this article is wrong, perhaps it is time to move on to choosing a new one.

I've already listed my preferred choice above, but I will vote for any accurate solution. THEPROMENADER 13:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do all of the "compromise offers" involve a change from the present name? There is still a significant body of opinion that List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris is the best name and entirely adequate to describe the list. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I was taking the term "compromise" quite literally. I will remedy this immediately. THEPROMENADER 11:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it a compromise offer is probably unwise, as there are apparently no possible compromises. ALoan, are you suggesting that it would be a compromise to leave the article where it is? Given that one of the positions is "leave the article where it is," I'd think that any possible compromise would involve moving it to some other title, or else it is not a compromise. If one opposes a compromise, that is, of course, fine. I think the original idea of listing alternate names was to see which of those people who are opposed to a move find least offensive, which, I would imagine, would be something of a compromise. john k 13:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to me, "compromise" rather suggests that both sides show some flexibility to find mutually acceptable (or least-unacceptable) ground, rather than the holders of one opinion getting their way over the objections of others. Most of the suggested "compromises" are nothing of the sort - they have been suggested repeatedly by one side with a distinct lack of support (the idea that List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France is a "compromise" twists the meaning of the word beyond recognition). Perhaps the nearest to a compromise is List of tallest buildings and structures of Paris, which neither side likes very much. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factually, john k is right: there is no compromise possible. The page moves, or it doesn't. We did forget to mention the possibility that the page remain where it is, but split between tow tables - but I think only the most uncompromising would opt for that compromise. THEPROMENADER 17:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

I agree with you that "Ile de France" is a terrible compromise, and I think that the very least we can do for those of you who don't want a move is to accept that "Paris" has to be in the title of the article somewhere. john k 12:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris shouldn't be anywhere in article... If only paris région included Paris in its name you"d be a happy chappy, but it isn't. Don't know wh everyone is fussed about keeping the word Paris, territoriality at its worst, the article is nothing mor ethan a primary school book of tallest buildings anywhere... Just add a few comparative pictures of what building is taller than the other and we're there. Plus it is Île-de-France, not Ile-de-France, the region in which Paris is. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah, Cap'n. For sure this is a "tallest in the biggest"-themed article, but I'm sure many "grownups" are interested too : ) And not everyone has access to accents.

If "Île-de-France" is a die-hard 100%-factual by-the-wiki-way of naming things, then I suppose that you could call "Paris region" a compromise. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica (2006) I have before my eyes uses it to describe the area around Paris - for sure it's hard to say (as they make no added precision) whether they are referring to the generalist "région parisienne" term that existed even before the Île-de-France did, or the more modern use of the the same to speak of the Île-de-France region. Ether way, I would still think "Paris region" to be both a "Paris-name'd" yet verifiable compromise vis-à-vis the "île-de-France" option. THEPROMENADER 17:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Île-de-France is older than both région parsienne and paris region, it is an old province cum région. What existed maybe will have been region of Paris région de Paris, referring to what is in the region of Paris. I don't care what who or whatever says, ignorance is not an issue, the name is there and has been for god knows how long, use it. I'm not going to comprimise because there is someone who has no idea what IdF (abbreviated) is or means. It is an opportunity to even show what the region is, I'm sure more than one of use has learnt a few things no? With the use of ==See also== any mister inculte will know what the god forsaken expression means. This is not a rewrite of Geography, any of you pitiful points of vue have no place in any debate i prefer this this is clearer people understand this better are laughable attempts to lower the standard, nivellement par le bas. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...er, touché. I was referring to the time before the région Île-de-France - not the historical province - existed from '61-'76. You're actually right that this is all pretty obvious and silly - but keep in mind, only to those who know better! Tread softly when giving lessons... THEPROMENADER 21:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This insult to common sence started thirteen days ago. If by now one doesn't understand, then how about rewriting history? I don't think bemused and appalled are an accurate description of how I feel right now... This is nuts, to remain polite. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the abbreviation be ÎdF? ;-) --Bob 17:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to bring pedantism into the equation, ÎdF is an acronym, not an abbreviation. Use of acronym for proper names dictates that the first letter is capitalised only, accents are a tough spot that are divided. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I wonder how that would be pronounced? Here we'd say "Eee day Eff." And when there's an accent, we draw it in the air with our little finger : ) THEPROMENADER 18:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

I certainly hope this is the right place to reply - ;D. Anyway, it looks like some people want to rename the page to List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris Region, and some want it as the list of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France. Well, according to Île-de-France, Paris Region is a common name to represent Île-de-France, so for people who don't know what that means (Like myself :)) perhaps a nice compromise of a compromise might be List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France (Paris Region), unless people agreed to solely the Île-de-France one which I didn't see. Cowman109^Talk 14:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in counting the votes, "Île-de-France" and "Paris Region" are in dead heat with four each, so the above would indeed be a compromise in this situation. Would those for "Île-de-France" be bothered if the article was titled "Paris region", and vice versa? Myself I have no objection either way. THEPROMENADER 14:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of response. I agree with Cowman109's suggestion, as it is both correct and findable by the lesser-informed. THEPROMENADER 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the official title (with or without inclusion of Ile-de-France/Île-de-France or Paris Region, etc.), all difficulties can be removed by doing redirects for all the other possibilities.--NYArtsnWords 17:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course redirects would be created to prevent any confusion. For those that do not know what the Île De France is though, the tiny parenthetical words may be helpful, in my opinion (I had no idea earlier of what it meant, myself ;) ). If there are no objections, I'd gladly change the title and add the redirects and see where things go from there.. Cowman109^Talk 17:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here at all. In fact, thanks. THEPROMENADER 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the page is still officially in mediation, I would not do any changes without an ok from the mediator.--NYArtsnWords 19:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not changing a thing, sir. If I'm not mistaken, Cowman109 is a mediator. How would one conclude mediation? THEPROMENADER 20:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation cabal is a highly informal process, so there isn't really a set way to 'conclude' a case, but I suppose this one would end given there being no opposition after renaming the page to List of tallest buildings and structures in Île De France (Paris Region). I'm still giving this another day or so to make sure people have a chance to respond in case there was something I missed. Cowman109^Talk 22:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For French spelling, let's make that List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France (Paris Region). --NYArtsnWords 23:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh woops, yes. Sorry about that :). Cowman109^Talk 23:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

My congratulations to everyone in the previous couple of sections on agreeing amongst yourselves, but I still don't see much sign of this mediation going on here. In particular, I don't see many (any?) of those who supported the current name at the start of the debate supporting any of these suggestions. As far as I can see, the supporters of the status quo - around half of the people who responded to the repeated polls on a change of name - either did not get involved here in the first place (wisely, perhaps) or have got bored and wandered off. Nor do I see much sign of compromise from those supporting a change of name, who I am sure would be entirely happy with some variant of List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France, being what they have advocated all along.

Speaking frankly, List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France is a ridiculous name. Why not just go the whole hog and call it List of tallest buildings and structures in France? List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France (Paris Region) is worse - is there really any confusion about which Île-de-France we are talking about? The sheep perhaps? List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region would be fine, but there are not notable buildings in the Paris region that are not in Paris!

I still don't see why we should pander to the stupidities of French administrative designations. "Paris" as a city passes the elephant test comfortably - I know a city when I see one, and Paris is a city, however the whole is carved up into little pieces for administrative purposesw (just as much as London is a city, despite containing the City of London and City of Westminster and countless suburbs). -- ALoan (Talk) 00:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, the whole thing does seem to be a mere problem of technicality, but if someone believes that the current title is misleading, then there probably are concerns that need to be addressed. I am quite curious as to why there isn't a list of tallest buildings in France, heh.Cowman109^Talk 00:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little more than "belief" at play here : ) ALoan, I suggest you read the encyclopaedia excerpt below - the in/out situation here very black and white. The two locals opposing the move are not happy with this "starkness", but they haven't a factual leg to stand on for forcing an opinion shared by no reference in existence. They are twice outnumbered by others also knowing the fact of the matter, those interested sharing an accurate and factual view of the situation; a couple of these even find the propos forwarded through the article title to be frankly insulting to everyone's intelligence. Stupid or not, the designations are real, adhered to by all save the most ignorant, and echoed in every reference in existence. Both fact and consensus have prevailed here, and this after a wait for all other "possibilities", so let's not make this a bigger deal than it is. THEPROMENADER 07:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no insult of anyone's intelligence ThePromenader. Would you say that the local newspaper 20 minutes insults its readers intelligence in placing any article about the extramuros in its "Paris" section ? Would you say that the very source of this list, the website Paris-skyscrapers, insults the intelligence of its readers in referencing highrise buildings from the whole urban area ? Would you say the same about Paris Expo, Aéroports de Paris or even Disneyland Paris ? Are they all what you refer to as "the most ignorant" ? Is the company managing the Paris metro, the RATP, ignorant in naming "Paris" a map on which are appearing the locations of all buildings in the list ?

Frankly ThePromenader, I can't help myself laughing when you describe as the "most ignorant" some of the users with the best knowledge of Paris in this mediation cabal, which means myself and Hardouin. Hardouin has written tons and tons of articles about Paris and its suburbs. I've personally written articles for each of Paris metro lines, Paris RER lines and other related articles. I've written most of the content of the Paris metro article. I've also created this article about skyscrapers. I've created or translated most of articles about the buildings which are listed in it, I've also created the articles about the Front de Seine and Italie 13. How ignorant are we if we're able to bring so many informations to Wikipedia ?

The current title of the article which has lead to this mediation cabal is perfectly valid. Trödel as much as ALoan, who have both a large experience on Wikipedia, have both confirmed it. It's been now nearly a month that this mediation has started, and I do respect the considerable energy you've spent in order to enforce your point of view on this, being connected most of the day and night, rallying as many people as possible, no matter where they are coming from, to support your opinion. Even before this mediation, you had already created several votes to change this article name, which have all been opposed by the majority.

Hardouin and myself have both decided to leave this discussion, in considering that it wasn't deserving the considerable amount of time you were ready to sacrfice for it. Even now that all people agreeing with the current title have left the discussion, you can't find any agreement for the name that would replace it. However, I know how tireless you can be for that kind of things, and that if there's only one remaining, it would be yourself. The only thing I'd ask you is simply to respect people who have kindly withdrawn of this discussion in order to let you do anything you want about articles they've created, including deleting them if you want. I'm not saying that any article belongs to me, I simply specify that despite the time I've spent on them, I abandon them to you. The very least would simply be to appreciate this. Metropolitan 14:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Just to clarify. Re: Metropolitan's statement above about Promeneur "rallying as many people as possible, no matter where they are coming from, to support [his] opinion". Although Promeneur did ask me to join the discussion, in no way did he influence the opinions I have expressed here. I see now that I should maybe have just stayed out of this. Usually, I would defer to ALoan, who has been a tireless wikipedian and has contributed countless great articles to the wiki, but I also don't see any problem with the "Paris region" option which is technically more accurate, despite ALoan's elephant test (and, as I imagine has already been said elsewhere on this page, the French wiki article is entitled "Ile-de-France", and one imagines they should know what they are doing). Hopefully, all this won't join "Avengers versus New Avengers" on WP:LAME... I hope people are able to compromise and reach a consensus, but I'll acccept any title as long as there are enough redirects to find it, or provisos in the introduction. But I'm done here... I need to figure out if a translation of fr:La Gazette should be titled "The Gazette" or "La Gazette"... :) --NYArtsnWords 17:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I give up too. Move it to "Paris region" and be done with it. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Metropolitan, you and Hardouin do know best out of all of us the fact of the matter, but are the only two without any factual leg to stand on. Most of this article is not where its title says it is, and cannot be found where this title places it - that's it. There is no "point of view" in pointing out the inaccuracy of "in Paris" - the only opinion here is yours, and every reference in existence proves that opinion is nothing but. Yes it is insulting to people's intelligence to tell them that something that isn't fact is, all in being unable to show at all that a majority of references show that your point of view is fact, and in the bargain, use every technique in the book (save fact) to paint any opposition as being of dubious motivation, misguided and in error. You both don't have a factual leg to stand on, and that's just a good a reason to leave the discussion as any.

You had a chance to have a descriptive title (instead of the strict administrative naming convention that paints an area much bigger), but you chose to go back on this decision and start the whole circus again. Now that even more knowledgable people have been drawn into the fray and the facts (yet again) clearly presented, it looks like even that option is overturned. I can regret your regrets because of this, but you cannot expect me and the others who have taken time to state the facts as they are to accept that they are wrong when they are not. THEPROMENADER 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already moved? Fine then. Thanks, ALoan. Rest assured that the redirects will take care of any "misguided" links and searchers. Thanks to all for your help and participation. THEPROMENADER 17:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November

Does this case require further mediation or can I close it? --Ideogram 09:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. If it needs to be reopened leave a note on my talkpage. --Ideogram 09:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:La-Defense-is-not-part-of-P.jpg
...a picture is worth a thousand words.
THEPROMENADER 20:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

• [19] - a map showing Paris and some of its suburbs. La Défense, across the river to the west of the city, is clearly indicated.
• [20] - an image I made and uploaded over a month ago, showing the area and communes in question.
• [21] - to compare with the former - the majority of the towers in this list are to the west of the city.
• [22] - Mairie de Paris - map showing inter-commune relations around the city. Comprehensive plan showing the name and limits of every commune.
• [23] - Official website of the Mairie de Paris - this map is navigable and searchable - enter "La Défense" or the lieu/address of any of the towers in question: if it is not "in Paris", it won't show up.

Administration/Organisations

• EPAD (Etablissement Publique pour l'amenagement de la Région de La Défense) website - "About us" section: The organisational association of La Défense themselves present La Défense as "a 160 hectare space to the west of the Capital". English version: "on the near edge of Paris" , "straddling the neighbouring municipalities of Courbevoie, Nanterre and Puteaux".
• Mairie de Paris - Official City of Paris website: The section linked here, unfortunately in French, concerns Paris' relations with its suburbs. Nowhere within will you ever find any reference to any of Paris' suburbs as being "Paris" or "in Paris" - terms like "communes limitrophes" (bordering communes) are the norm for these, and agglomération parisienne ("Paris agglomeration") is the norm for Paris with its suburbs; "Paris" alone indicates only the city itself, as seen here and everywhere through the website in both English and French.

Encyclopaedia citation

"A sharp distinction is drawn between city administration and suburban administration. The City of Paris is a single political unit—a commune—governed by an elected mayor and council, like any other French commune down to the smallest village. The suburbs consist of more than 1,200 separate communes, large and small, which together with the City of Paris form the administrative region of Île-de-France. The Île-de-France region, with an area of about 4,640 square miles (12,000 square kilometres), extends far beyond the Paris conurbation. The urban area of Greater Paris therefore is not a political unit, and coordination is frequently poor between Paris and its inner suburbs. Because of the fierce rivalries between left-wing and right-wing communes, it has never been possible to follow the pattern of other major world cities and create a federated urban district."

"Paris." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD - ret. 27 Sept 2006

Maps

• Paris en 3D (Paris in 3D) - A map powered by the pagesjaunes.fr website (French yellow pages) portraying Paris in 3D on a section of the territory which does include the central part of the Paris urban area (in which are located all structures mentionned in the list).
• INSEE - Map of the Paris urban area in 1999 as officially determined by the INSEE, the body issuing official statistics in France. All structures mentionned in the list are indeed located inside that urban area. -- Irrelevent. Reference shows use of the term "Paris urban area", not "Paris"
• [24] - Satellite picture issued by the Géoportail website which shows that all structures mentionned in the list (represented by red circles) are located in the heart of the Paris urban area. Géoportail is powered by the IGN, the body issuing official geographical data in France.

Administration/Organisations

• [25] - Wikipedia article specifying that, according to the INSEE definition, the unité urbaine is the French equivalent to the US "urbanized area" and the UK's or Canada's urban area. -- Irrelevent. Reference shows use of the term "Paris urban area", not "Paris"
• INSEE - Table from the INSEE officially specifying statistical details of the Paris unité urbaine (urban area). -- Irrelevent. Reference shows use of the term "Paris urban area", not "Paris"
• Demographia - An english reference stating perfectly that the 3 departments in which are located structures mentionned in this list (Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis and Paris) are all part of the Paris urban area. -- Irrelevent. Reference shows use of the term "Paris urban area", not "Paris"
• SPLAF - An unofficial website referencing the list of all municipalities located in the Paris urban area as determined by the INSEE. -- Irrelevent. Reference shows use of the term "Paris urban area", not "Paris"

Examples of general usage

• Extramuros - A periodical publication from the Mairie de Paris (Paris city hall) about actions from the city of Paris outside its institutional territory. The name "extramuros" means (outside the walls), as opposed to the French expression Paris Intramuros (Paris inside the walls) generally used to specify we talk about the city proper and not its urban area in general. -- Irrelevent. Reference shows use of the term "Paris extra-muros", not "Paris"
• Paris Expo - Private company using Paris as its name [26]in charge of exhibitions and exhibition halls, conventions and congresses in Paris. Half of its main seats mentionned on the main page are located in La Défense.
• Parisladefense.com - A corporate website on La Défense.
• As an example of general usage, how some hotels, who will be keen to make sure that their customers know where a hotel actually is:
  • this is the Renaissance Paris Hotel La Defense, 60 Jardin de Valmy, Boulevard Circulaire, Sortie 7, Paris La Defense Cedex, 92918 France.
  • and this is the Hilton Paris La Defense, 2 place de la Defense CNIT - BP 210, Paris, France 92053
• Paris Las Vegas, same as above, hotel including the name Paris but on the other side of the globe. -- Misplaced.
• Paris Hotel, 445 Park Ave, New York, NY 10022, United States. Same as above, hotel including the name Paris but on the other side of the globe. -- Misplaced.

Well done. These references confirm that (i) La Défense is officially considered to be outside the City of Paris; but (ii) it is well within the continuous urbanised area of Paris. That is where we started, if I remember correctly. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But the entire "continuous urbanised area of Paris" is not "Paris" and is never indicated as only "Paris" - surtout never as being "in Paris" : this as well is reflected in most all of the references I have provided thus far. If it was common/possible to use "Paris" to indicate Paris' suburbs as well, one would think that an organisation such as the La Défense EPAD would do so - but they do nothing of the kind, neither in English nor in French. THEPROMENADER 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your irony Aloan. I guess it's better to laugh about all this than to get upset about it. I was thinking today there are people who are dying of starvation in Niger at the very same moment that some rich Westerners waste so much time and energy in totally useless controversies like this one. Hardouin 21:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping, pong. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Reading, shaking head, closing then rubbing eyes, blinking, reading again) THEPROMENADER 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One cannot cite private company's names that include Paris as part of their name as it is a commercial decision not an accurate one. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second this, ALoan - again, a question of context. "Paris La Défense": the "Paris" in this is a signal of association or proximity, not literal 'locale'. The same for "Paris Charles de Gaulle" airport and many other services located in Paris' suburbs. THEPROMENADER 09:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, thanks Metropolitan for perhaps intentionally corrupting what should be a straightforward presentation of fact. Providing references to articles speaking explicitly of the "Paris urban area" (none of them using only "Paris" as a title) is completely non sequitur. That the entire Paris agglomeration can be called simply "Paris" is only an opinion, and it is precisely this that counters all reference, publication, administration and common usage in existence. A real reference would be one showing that the entire Paris urban area can and is called simply "Paris", but of course he has presented nothing of the kind.

Maps

1. That a satellite image of Paris shows also some of its suburbs proves what? It actually serves to show that "in Paris" does not cover its suburbs - type in an address and see what it turns up.
2. This is a map of the Paris urban area, not a map of "Paris". This article is not titled "List of tallest buildings ... in the Paris urban area".
3. I used the same map as a reference - to show that a majority of this article is in locales outside Paris, to the west of the city.

Administration/Organisation

1. The Wiki article cited speaks of the Paris urban area, not "Paris". This article is not titled "List of tallest buildings ... in the Paris urban area".
2. The INSEE article cited speaks of the Paris urban area, not "Paris". This article is not titled "List of tallest buildings ... in the Paris urban area".
3. The Demographia article cited speaks of the Paris urban area and "Paris metropolitan area", not "Paris". This article is not titled "List of tallest buildings ... in the Paris urban area", nor "List of tallest buildings ... in the Paris metropolitan area". It is bizarre that you provide this as a reference for your own "Paris=Paris urban area" theory, as "Paris" in the list signifies only the city itself.
4. The "Splaf" list cited lists communes in the Paris urban area, not "Paris". This article is not titled "List of tallest buildings ... in the Paris urban area".

Examples of General Usage

1. The "Extramuros" publication cited speaks of the Paris extramuros, not "Paris". This article is not called "List of tallest buildings ... in Paris extramuros".
2. "Paris expo" - both says and proves nothing. See john k's comments about context if I understand correctly the vague intent here. In looking at the plan for the "La Défense" section, it is even indicated how to get back to Paris.
3. General usage of what? You didn't even try for this one - a reference façade? Up top it is even indicated "hotel references for La Defense and Paris" - if they are one and the same, why differentiate?

The "references" I detailed here are so non sequitur that I suggest that they be removed. Instead please provide references showing that Paris and its suburbs are called simply "Paris" - the whole point of this debate - anything else is pointless and disruptive. THEPROMENADER 09:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: ALoan's examples were made in good faith, I do not suggest we remove those. THEPROMENADER 09:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we look up the two hotels (Renaissance Paris Hôtel la Défense and Hilton Paris La Defense) in the yellow pages we will see that they are both outside of Paris. For an example to see why quoting hotel names is irrelevant, the Stars Hotel Marseille is in La Penne Sur Huveaune and ETAP Hotel Marseille Vitrolles is in Vitrolles. Both have no link whatsoever with Marseille apart from the fact that the hotel want to brand themselves with a major city name for commercial reasons. --Bob 15:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaining that hotels in La Défense are not in (the City of) Paris rather begs the question, doesn't it? Of course they are not in the City of Paris, they are to the west of the "city proper"; but even if we ignore their names (no, I am not saying that hotels in Las Vegas are in Paris too, nor indeed that Paris Hilton must be in Paris simply because of her name), each of these hotels gives an address that includes "Paris". -- ALoan (Talk) 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a cedex address and a BP address, not actual, physical addresses. As another example of how silly using postal box address's (sp?) is, when I worked in Scotland I worked for a company that received payments to the company names at a PO Box in Scotland. It was set up to be directed to NatWest in London.... --Bob 17:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off course the links to random hotels I included are off topic, the group of bulletted links I put them with, edited by Metropolitan were completeley off topic with random organisations with Paris in their names, I therefor included other even more random than the others. Any hotel, taxi company, consultants co... baring the name Paris must be in Paris and must prove that the whole of Île-de-France should be abbreviated to Paris. Not. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Décidement, a double-edit conflict) - I see no complaint in the Bob's comment - rather, only a point: many suburban (or even more distant) hotels include city names in their own to show an association with the place in question - and where tourism and hotels are concerned, often misleadingly so. In all, presenting hotel names as examples of a correct way to place something is rather a stretch of an argument for accuracy when all one has to do is look at a map - like everyone else wanting to know anything on the "where" of a subject will eventually do. THEPROMENADER 17:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Rather than remove the irrelevant "references", I have simply stricken them with an added commentary. Only blatantly non sequitur references are affected. As for the rest, as indicated in the notes below, some of these serve actually to prove the inaccuracy of the use of the term "in Paris" for this article. I'd leave this up to the mediator. I would suggest though that this section be cleaned up, as its present "straw-stuffed" state defeats its purpose - real reference. THEPROMENADER 12:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion?

I come here as it appears GofG is missing - this is quite a confusing case and I'm told that the issue seems to have dried up though there is no conclusion. Has some sort of compromise on the title of the article been accepted? Or is there still an argument over what the page name should be. Cowman109^Talk 19:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is a lot calmer now, and it looks as though it has moved to a choice of name. This can be found both in the "compromises" section and under today's date. THEPROMENADER 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]