Talk:Paris between the Wars (1918–1939)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Encyclopedic?

I just chanced on this page. To me it seems more like someone's thoughts and reflections, not an encyclopedia article. BayShrimp (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I beg your patience; This is just the beginning of the article; it was just started this week.. It will have a full range of sections and text comparable to the other articles on periods of Paris history, such as Paris in the Belle Époque and Paris in the 18th century, in the coming days.SiefkinDR (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. No problem. It actually is a nice article and I enjoyed it. Good luck with it. BayShrimp (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic, or rubbish?

Good catch above, User:BayShrimp. I wonder how much of this article is WP:OR or even just rubbish? Certainly the following, added on 24 Aug 2015 is the latter:

Special gold medals were given to the team of British, Australian and Nepalese climbers who had first reached the summit of Mount Everest two years earlier.

It's embarrassing that such a statement could have survived in the article unchallenged, as long as it has.

For the time being, I've tagged the article for multiple issues, and removed the offending sentence but I can't help wondering if there are more howlers like that one still lying in wait in the article? Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it´s not quite a "howler". The special medals were presented as described at the 1924 games by the Founder of the Olympic Games, The error is that the first expedition did not actually reach the summit, but after a fatal accident near the top they turned back. The more complete story is found in the articles on 1924 Summer Olympics and on First British Mount Everest Expedition. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add the sentence back about the medals, appropriately modified. The howler is that Everest wasn't summited for another 30 years, in the most famous ascent of any mountain ever. Mathglot (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the article do you consider to be "original research? SiefkinDR (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The removed statement, for one. That couldn't have come from a reliable source so it just seems like it must have been an OR assumption. Another: the statement about Paris being the birthplace of Dadaism is suspect. It isn't clear whether the scope of the Combeau ref at the end of that paragraph was meant to include that claim, or not. Naturally, the location of the "birthplace" of Dada is is open to some interpretation, especially depending on what you view as precursors to the movement versus the movement itself; nevertheless, I believe most sources would say it's Zurich. That's my assumption, though, and if I can substantiate it, then I would retag it {{Disputed}} and name the sources. Adding another (or the same) ref specifically for that sentence and with a more restricted page range would help, and maybe a |quote= excerpt from the source would help substantiate a claim that differs from other sources. Mathglot (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I have corrected the text about the origins of Dada. As you correctly state it began in Switzerland because of the War, but Tzara moved to France in 1920, during the period covered by the article, and Paris then became the main center of Dada, activity, though not the birthplace, until it broke up. I changed the text to reflect that.
I respectfully disagree that the article relies on a single source. The reason there are many citations from Fierro is because of his stature as the dean of Paris historians, and conservator of the Historical Library of the City of Paris His "History and Dictionary of Paris" (1996) is by far the most comprehensive and reliable on the subject, 1580 pages long, and is cited extensively by all the other authors of Paris history that I've seen. It also is the best documented book, with a bibliography two hundred pages long. All of the histories of Paris in French use him as a primary source. But in response to your comment I have added a number of additional sources and citations from those sources in the bibliography. I believe all of the books in the bibliography are cited in the text.
I also respectfully question whether this article contains original research. The example you cited has been corrected. The article seems to me very solidly sourced. Are there any other examples that you consider original research that should be corrected? And thank you for your good ideas for the improvement the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits. As to your comments, the banner says that the "article relies largely [not only] upon a single source, and at the time of writing, that was true. The fact that "All of the histories of Paris in French use him as a primary source" tends to underline his reliability as a source, but if all of those other historians use him as a source exclusively then that would be weaken the case, not strengthen it, but I'm sure in modern scholarship that's not a problem. Since then, I see that you have added quite a few references and I think it's fair to say that the OR banner longer applies, so I've removed it. (It would have been okay for you to remove it, as well.)
Regarding "I believe all of the books in the bibliography are cited in the text," there's no requirement for that. In fact, there's no requirement for a bibliography, period, like there is for citing sources. So it's much more important to ensure that every non-obvious statement has a reference, than to worry about whether items listed in the "Bibliography" are mentioned in the text anywhere. And by the way, the use of the term Bibliography for such a section when you do decide to include it is discouraged. If they are included, you can list them under some other term as appropriate as recommended by MOS:FOOTERS (even just under the References section header, before the {{Reflist}}) and if they are not referenced in the article, you can create a new section called Further reading and list them there (see MOS:ORDER for where to place this section).
Regarding WP:OR, this may have been corrected as well, and if you think it's no longer the case (or wasn't ever the case) just remove it from the banners at the top, and be sure to leave an appropriate edit summary. If someone feels strongly differently about it, they can always add it back in. The article is in a lot better shape now, than when you started your recent round of edits, so you're doing great, keep it up! Mathglot (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with article Années folles

It seems to me there should be some exporting of content and reorganization and resummarizing of material in the section §Années folles of this article, which currently has a {{Main}} article link to Années folles (as well it should), which article contains a more detailed look at this period in France.

The Paris between the Wars (1919–1939) article has a section §Années folles with an intro and two subsections, §Music halls and §Movie palaces. These two subsections are good, and represent material that is not present in as much detail at the article Années folles. On the other hand, there's a great deal more to the period Les Années folles than just music halls and movie palaces, as the article Années folles makes clear.

I think what needs to happen, here, is that most of the material in the two subsections here needs to be moved over to article Années folles where it can either be left as is, or expanded even more. Meanwhile, the §Années folles section here can be tightened up: specifically, the two subsection headers can be dropped and their content reduced to a summary sentence or two each, and additional material summarizing the other aspects of Années folles that are not mentioned at all here should be added.

More at Talk:Années folles. Mathglot (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that also and was in fact working on cleanup preparatory to just this. I suggest having this article focus on the economic/demographic/political trends, and Années folles expanding to better and more in-depth discussion of the ferment in the literary, music and theatrical worlds. Elinruby (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Also pinging @SiefkinDR: for his opinion. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with this approach. The Article on Paris between the Wars is part of series of an articles on the history of Paris, which includes politics, economics, sociology and culture. It wouldn't be complete of culture were moved to another article, which is not focused specifically on Paris. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your concerns, @SiefkinDR:, thanks for raising them. So how do you see handling this other than duplicating content, do you have a proposal? I get that you don't want to have nothing about culture here, that wouldn't make sense, admittedly. Here's what I propose: say all you want about Paris in the 30s. For Paris in the 20s, say all you want about non-cultural aspects, but go into somewhat less detail about the cultural aspect only, or about whatever aspects other than cultural that you identify as belonging to les Années folles and keep the {{Main}} template that you have now.
As an example of 1920s non-cultural info: you cover tramways in Paris in the 1920s: say all you want about it, it's not really pertinent to Années folles (unless I'm missing a cultural aspect of tramways). OTOH, you have a whole section about #High Fashion and perfume that is not located in your #Années folles section, but that is nevertheless very pertinent to the cultural aspect of les Années folles, and should definitely be covered at the Années folles article in detail, with perhaps a briefer summary here, either with another {{Main}} template if you keep the two sections separate, or merged into your #Années folles section. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
proposal -Années folles is expanded to cover the literary, theatre, art and music scene in Paris, since it skips over a great deal in single sentences at the moment. This article covers broad trends like the economy and politics and demographics and business. And as much culture as you like, with a link to Années folles, which covers a smaller span of time, and primarily foreigners in Montparnasse. (it is focused on Paris specifically but doesn't deal so much with what it was like to be French in Paris at that time) I would also suggest a timeline for France in the 1920s and France in the 1930s, which is different than both of these articles. LMK Elinruby (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gas mask detail

I was not able to substantiate the statement about the distribution of gas masks I flagged with a [citation needed] and this says something a little different, although not necessarily mutually exclusive. I was not sure whether the ref at the end of the paragraph covers this sentence also and don't have time to look this sec. In any event, I think the fact that there were *not enough* masks is notable when it comes to discussing the flavor of the times. Leaving this as a note to self or anyone else who wants to look into it as I don't have time to nail this down right now. Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Alfred Fierro, in his chronology of Paris history in the Histoire et Dictionaire de Paris" from 1996, has for March 10, 1939: "Distribution of first gas masks to the civil population." For March 19: "Posters put up indicating location of air raid shelters," followed by a sequence of other events, including the first air raid on Paris on June 3, 1940, which caused 254 deaths and 652 persons injured. Fierro is the archivist of the Paris city historical library, and in my experience a very respected and credible source. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not questioning the credentials of the archivist of the historical library. However the University of Exeter is teaching that "Too few gas masks. In February 1939, just 289,000 masks were available for the Paris region as a whole – enough for one-tenth the population of the city of Paris. Fortunately, the ban on the use of gas in combat under the Geneva convention was broadly respected by the belligerents in World War 2." (p5 of link above) As noted, this does not contradict your source, which says "first"gas masks... I am just suggesting that there may be more of a story there. The French, in my experience, are very sensitive on the subject of unpreparedness for WW2, ie the Maginot line. Elinruby (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
something to flesh out this detail: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1935/04/12/page/10/article/paris-cautions-population-to-buy-gas-masks <- earlier time frame Elinruby (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Also https://books.google.com/books?id=vFynAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA251 but more about bomb shelters and https://books.google.com/books?id=i6REAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA459, mention of gas masks in Paris Elinruby (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paris_between_the_Wars_(1918–1939)&oldid=1208532965"