Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:26, 15 November 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. France: Paris Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Paris task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Architecture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Historic sites High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Visual arts: Public art This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts This article is supported by the public art task force.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on January 28, 2005, January 28, 2006, and January 28, 2007.

Miscellaneous comments

How can the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Paris have 'inspired' the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Westminster Abbey? They were both done at the same time. Antsnest (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone can find a citation that Jacqueline Kennedy was inspired by the eternal flame at the arc de triomphe, we should consider this coincidence and it should be removed. This isn't fact, but theory, pretty much urban legend. 74.135.11.200 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it right to say 'the' tomb of the Unknown soldier, shouldn't that be the the French tomb of the Unknown soldier or the tomb of the Unknown soldier in France? -Adrian.

agreed 74.135.11.200 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm severely tempted to say I don't know.

I like the idea of being more specific about which Tomb of the Unknown. I believe in the United States the Tomb is in Arlington National Cemetary, but I don't know if the tomb is of a soldier killed in the first world war, the second, or the civil war, or what. I guess one soldier is enough, its the idea that counts.

Regardless, being specific that it's the French Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, is a good revision, do it.

Since the article is about the Arc de Triomphe, carefully specifying that it's a French unknown soldier is like referring invariably to "Paris France," isn't it? It seems a little parochial. Wetman 17:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attendance at opening

"Upon its completion, the Arc de Triomphe was so far from the center of town almost no one showed up for the opening ceremony. " Since the Champs-Elysées was already lined with grand 18th century private houses, I removed this assertion here. Wetman 01:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The above comment was part of the article - I moved it to the talk page. Rhobite 15:26, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Vestal Virgin date

"...the first eternal flame lit since the Vestal Virgins' fire was extinguished in 492 CE"

...

"Their sacred fire was treated, in Imperial times, as the Emperor's household fire. It burned until AD 391, when the Emperor Theodosius I's decreees forbade public pagan worship, had the fire extinguished, closed the Temple of Vesta and disbanded the Vestal Virgins."

Which is correct? Demiurge 14:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sacred fire of Vesta gives a third date, AD 394!

Demiurge 15:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "Theodosian decrees" are mentioned under Theodosius I. Dates 391 - 394 or so are credible. That 5th century date was a gaffe, or just a tpyo.... --Wetman 16:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

List of Victories

We should add something noting that the list of 'victories' on the AdeT are in some cases clearly wrong and in others certainly questionable. The list reflects political considerations as much as a calm asessment of the military reality. I would give as examples Corunna, Oporto, Toulouse and fuentes d'onoro. Alci12 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A complete list of the victories insctibed on the Arc de Triomphe should be included in a note. The following text was deleted by someone: "The list of victories includes as victories contested battles, such as Corunna, Oporto, Toulouse." --Wetman 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I want to say to you that I was at a lecture when " Arc de Triomphe " was mentioned, but the question is (( What do we call it in english??? )) please send me the answer as soon as possiple. <email removed to prevent spamming>yours . rajo Palestine / Gaza

Well...The literal translation of Arc de Triomphe is simple, Arc of Triumph! Translating it is like translating Le Tour Eiffel; The Eiffel Tower and me of course

Although, no-one actually translates it! The Arc de Triomphe is always called the Arc de Triomphe in English. However, Le Tour Eiffel is always translated... perhaps it's because such arches are uncommon (so the name is left as is) but towers are very common (so we use our usual naming conventions). I realise yours is a literal translation, I think a more effective translation would be simply "Triumphal Arch".

Coordinates

where is it? maybe coordinates? 70.190.180.166 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WWII

Reading the article, it seemed odd to me that there was no mention of the Nazi troops parading through it when they invaded Paris. There were more than a few psychological reasons for this action. Now as I was searching the web for a reliable source about it, nothing turned up. Maybe we'll have to go to the books? Do others think this incident is noteworthy for inclusion?--Rockero 19:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture section

It was deleted? Any reason why? 'Cause it looks like vandalism that was never reverted... RobertM525 08:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Exact dimensions

Seems hard to get exact dimensions that agree with each other; two sources below gives different heights but same depth. So I thought I put the depth in. If anyone know the exact dimension that would be great.

http://www.answers.com/topic/arc-de-triomphe?cat=travel http://www.parisdigest.com/monument/arcdetriomphe.htm

maybe it use to be shorter, then they build upon it? Pseudoanonymous (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wheelchair Access????

Hello,

could somebody please add information about access with a wheelchair? Is it possible, possible with an assistant or not possible?

Cheers, Bunny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.215.16 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiya this is casey from the ps3 network im wondering what is the name fo this ... con... well i so not know can anyone help- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.83.155 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

allo je suis Thom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.168.46 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Arc de Triomphe, a symbol of genocide

Hi SlaveToTheWage. I saw you removed a section from Arc de Triomphe. This section mentions a current legal development at the highest judiciary instance in Spain. It's well documented and relevant to the article. This legal action is supported by descendants of victims of genocide by Napoleonic Troops. Please explain why you removed this information. Thanks (Niaps (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)).

From a desdendant of a victim of Napoleon's Genocides

Please respect the memory of the dead. My ancestor was executed by Michel Ney's 6th Corps on April 20th 1809, in Monforte de Lemos. He had 6 small children, all younger than 10 years old, one to be born less than 3 weeks later. He was assassinated in the most cruel and grotesque manner, in front of his entire family. His wife pleaded he could be administered the Catholic Ritual of extreme unction, but the French prevented it and killed him like an animal. She gave birth prematurely his posthumous son less than 3 weeks later. We know all this because the priest who buried him wrote it down in the book of defuncts of the parish. I have enclosed a transcript here. That very same day, 1,100 innocent civilians of the same village were assassinated in a similar manner. Napoleon murdered millions of innocent civilians all over Europe, and France should be ashamed of this as much as Germany is of the Jewish Holocaust. I do not ask anything from France or the descendants of Napoleon, or those building monuments and celebrating the memory of that genocide. Just respect for the dead and historical truth. (167.206.29.162 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Hello Niaps and SlaveToTheWage. I'm another descendant of a family tortured and killed by the French during their criminal invasion of Spain. I cannot express how painful is for me to read articles that glorify the figure of Napoleon. Please understand 167.206.29.162, the jews have received historical juctice, and in many countries it is illegal to glorify nazism or the evil figure of Adolf Hitler. Why do we have to stand quiet when we read everywhere that Napoleon was second only to God?? (Niaps (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Section posted on multiple talk pages, discussion centralised on Talk:Napoleon I of France. Equendil Talk 03:55, 17 May 2009 eeehhhheehheheehehhehee(UTC)

Hello there, Napoleon was a military genius, a brilliant reformer, a true warrior, a scientist, a mathematician, a slavery abolisher, he had europeans sights,he was an emperor and a self made man in a period of troubles after the most famous revolution in the world. He and his armies committed crimes, but crimes appears in every war, anywhere it happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.200.227 (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Somalian Arch

there is a similar arch in somalia, "victory Arch" http://www.canadianptsd.com/images/Somalia%2093/Beledweyne1.jpg Should there be any mentioin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.30.31 (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

MoS

To avoid future "over-imaging", I'll copy-paste the guidelines from the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style regarding images (MoS:IMAGES)

• Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox.
• Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading)
• Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.
• Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article (see Captions, below).
• See this tutorial for how to group images, and avoid "stack-ups".
• It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. An image should be reversed or substantially altered only if this clearly assists the reader (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail discussed in the text). Any such alteration must be noted in the caption.
• The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed. The default thumbnail width is 220 pixels; users can adjust this in their preferences. An option such as "|300px|" resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. The {{Wide image}} and {{Tall image}} templates display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:
  • Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px" ("upright=1.35").
  • Images in which detail is relatively unimportant (for example, a national flag), and which may need smaller sizes than usual.
  • Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual.
  • Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image.
• Use {{Commons}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible. The use of galleries should be in keeping with Misplaced Pages's image use policy.
• Alt text takes the place of an image for text-only readers, including those using screen readers. Images should have an alt attribute added to the |alt= parameter. See WP:ALT for more information.

Regards, --DIREKTOR 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why replacing all the pictures of the Arc by the one where the nazis are parading ? The picture you're placing all over Misplaced Pages...

Let's put a non-controversial picture on the article, the other pictures (including the one with the nazis) could put in a gallery section or in a Commons gallery.UltimaRatio (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A photograph can hardly be "controversial" - it is what it is (which also goes for the occupation of France). The only question is whether it is 1) significant enought, or 2) relevant for, and related to, the subject matter. Yes on both counts.

This is one of the most famous photographs of the Arc de Triomphe, and it does not depict "Nazis", but ordinary German soldiers. --DIREKTOR 19:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The controversy is to reduce the history of the Arc to this picture, why this picture ? There's a lot of significant and relevant pictures that can fit in this section. Reducing the history of the Arc to this "pretend-not-to-be-nazis" soldiers picture is NPOV. UltimaRatio (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not this picture? It seems to me you're taking this a tad too personally. The reason why I included it is because this is probably one of the most famous photographs of the history of the arch (as much as I imagine you may dispute that). --DIREKTOR 20:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, considering this picture as the most famous photograph of the history of the Arc is a disputable point of view. On top of that, you replaced every pictures of the Arc by the one with the nazis, this is a personnal and non-neutral edit. By the way, an encyclopedia is not a place to put "famous stuff" on it... So, wether this picture is the most famous or not is irrelevant.UltimaRatio (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1) I said one of the most famous photographs, not "the most famous", and that much can hardly be disputed. And yes, famous historical photographs are preferred over those less famous.

2) Please do not turn me into some Nazi-loving fantasy nemesis from your imagination. This is not "personal" for me. It is personal for you (quite obviously) - that's the whole problem here...

3) "You replaced every pictures of the Arc by the one with the nazis." Quite simply: no. I did not. Very few images were actually removed, and those unrelated to the history of the arch were moved lower down. It was not easy to repair the article while trying to preserve all the images, and place them in connection to the context, this is a small article and it was very badly cluttered.

--DIREKTOR 23:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Image perfectly fitting article context repeatedly removed

The image is one of the most famous historic photographs of the Arc de Triomphe, and fits the context perfectly. It is apparently being repeatedly removed because of historic grudges. Consensus should not be determined by patriotic sentiment, or by attempts to glorify one's own history by censoring-out all defeats. In other words, I cant imagine any objective justification for replacing this photograph with yet another generic image of the Arc de Triomphe - in the history section - because some user finds it offensive. --DIREKTOR 19:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it one of the most famous? According to whom? It seems that the only significant relation of the Nazis to the Arc is that they once paraded around it; the article at least makes it clear that the Arc was used as a symbol of the Allied victory, which is arguably more significant. I reverted you as there is so far no consensus for your changes. Nev1 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(Lets not start proclaiming "consensus" here with two people in a discussion.)

@"It seems that the only significant relation of the Nazis to the Arc is that they once paraded around it."

Weasel words + straw man: 1) The image does not depict Nazis in any way. 2) The image is not there because it depicts some sort of relationship between the Nazis and an arc, it is there because it depicts a famous (though depressing) event in its history, and fits the context of the text very well. 3) I don't see what the Allies have to do with this discussion? Are you saying the Allies won WWII? :)

In short, it fits the context very well and should not be removed or replaced due to historical grudges (which is obviously the case here with User:Frania). That is called POV content blanking. --DIREKTOR 19:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If the photo does not significantly inform the reader about the Arc de Triomphe, then it does not belong in the article. This is about a monument, not the Second World War and you don't seem to have argued why the photo is important to understanding the monument, choosing instead to accuse others of bias. Nev1 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Um... I am aware of the role of images in Misplaced Pages articles. The image depicts a very infamous event in the history of the Arc. So yes, it definitely helps the reader understand the "History" section. (This much goes without saying when someone points out the image fits the text.)

I am accusing others of bias on a very good basis, i.e. the unexplained deletion of indisputably relevant info - from several Misplaced Pages articles. The user unbelievably also deleted the photo from the Battle of France article. --DIREKTOR 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, it probably was an important event but that wasn't explained. The caption for the image said "German soldiers on parade marching past the Arc de Triomphe after the surrender of Paris, 14 June 1940"; so what, they probably marched through a lot of Paris. Was this the only effect of the War? I would guess that the Arc was used by the Germans in propaganda to celebrate their victory as it was and is a very famous monument, however this isn't explained either in the caption or the main body of the article (and would of course need to be sourced). My point about the Allies is that the article at least explains why the marches and the Arc were significant, so why not include an image from that? Nev1 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The high-point and central event of the German parade of 1940 was the passage past the Arc (as it was in 1871). In general, the arc was the centerpiece for almost every army marching through the city. The photo (and the reel) was used heavily in both Axis and Allied propaganda, making it quite infamous and representative of the disastrous events of 1940.

I don't follow, though. Are we really contesting the relevance of this photo? --DIREKTOR 20:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes because no source or context was given. Some thought also has to be given to the issue of balance: as you say the Arc may have been the high point of the Germans' march, but the same could be said for the marches in 1944 and 1945. Why include a picture of the Germans as opposed to the French? If the two cannot both be included for balance (and I really don't think there's space in the article at the moment given its size and the usefulness of the other images) then why choose as leaving them both out is also arguably neutral. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, see how you like this version. As for space, the Arc was after all built with military parades in mind, so photographs of military parades though the Arc should be well represented as depictions of the monument's primary function, esp. if they are historically significant and in-line with the narrative. --DIREKTOR 20:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, that should satisfy anyone whose quibble concerns "balance". We all agree that the images are vivid examples of the Arc de Triomphe as an icon. Nev1 should be reminded that Misplaced Pages is not censored. Please, everyone, move on and find something useful to do at Misplaced Pages.--Wetman (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better than just having the one image as it provides balance. And thanks for the reminder Wetman and your not in the least bit condescending tone. Odd though, I don't remember mentioning censorship; could you point me in the direction of where I suggested that? Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who mentioned censorship, since that image was being completely removed by Frania on a number of articles. --DIREKTOR 20:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think I had, yet Wetman implies I was advocating censorship. Perhaps he should stop talking out of his arse. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is WP:NPA. Seriously, man, calm down? --DIREKTOR 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If I hurt Wetman's feelings by asking him not to be a prat he's been around long enough to know where the drama boards are. Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously missing some background here :) --DIREKTOR 22:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Over-imaging

Oh for the love of... Frania, we all know the Allies won WWII, there is no need to further demolish this article's layout by cramming too many images of Allied soldiers. Read MoS:IMAGES on too many images in an article. --DIREKTOR 15:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR,

1. Your reverting twice within a few hours my addition of photo of American troops by the Arc de Triomphe at the time of the Liberation of Paris, giving for a reason:

• first time: Rm, arch barely visible
• second time: Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other. Its already too many images, this is FAR too many. And no, we should not be removing the German pic...)

can be looked upon as:

• for one: anti-American POV,
• an obvious campaign of demolishing my contributions to Misplaced Pages whenever I work on an article on France.

2. As for your remark on not removing the naz pic, please also note that I did not remove it, I simply added the Yanks marching in August 1944.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is already an image of the Allied liberation of Paris, adding another pic just so they can "outnumber" the German one is nationalist POV (feel free to quote me on that).
• Even if we disregard the above, the article is already swamped with images (read WP:MoS). When I added the first Allied pic I was forced to sandwich part of the text for the sake of balance, your adding a second picture of the same thing ruins the layout of two whole sections.

In a sentence: do not swamp the article with images of the liberation of Paris just so they can outnumber the German file. I spent half an hour re-arranging the images according to WP:MoS, and I won't hide the fact that I'm annoyed when guidelines/policy are ignored for POV reasons. --DIREKTOR 09:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Frania Wisniewska, I would be much indebted to you if you would finally begin to understand the concept of IMAGE LAYOUT. Replace the lead nighttime image with the daylight one if you want, but please do not push TWO lead images and ruin the entire image layout of this encyclopedia article because you've still to come to terms with the fact that France was ocupied in 1941... --DIREKTOR 09:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures for the history section.

Hi,

here are the facts : The history of the Arc de Triomphe starts in 1806. We have 3 pictures for this section, all in the 20th century. For the sake of page setting, this section should have only 2 pictures, otherwise text sandwiching will occur.

Therefore to I replaced the 3 images by 2 images, one showing the initial project of the Arc. This seems to me way more valuable for this article than pictures from the battle of France, the Liberation of Paris or the exploit of Godefroy. The second is the return of the remains of Napoleon, instigator of the project. Again, this is more valuable than any of the pictures previously found in this section.

Feel free to modify the images by others that you consider carrying more history. See Commons:Category:Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile by decade.

Badzil (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with the changes in images - and reasons thereof - done by Badzil. It makes sense.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering your posts and statements on User talk:Frania Wisniewska there can be little doubt that your goal here with these edits is not article improvement but the removal of the picture of the German parade. If one thinks hard enough one can find a sensible-sounding justification for almost any edit. People are not stupid, User:Badzil, your justification is quite obviously an excuse created to single-out and remove one image.

The previous consensus was to keep the image in question, and an extra image was demanded and added for balance. If you claim there's an "image too many", we shall then remove the last one added, certainly not the one you and your buddies personally dislike so fiercely. And I remind you that but for my edits this article would be still be swamped with a horde of over-large images.

Once again, the previous consensus on this talkpage (see above) was to keep the image in question. Your edits are also in very obvious contradiction with WP:NPOV. They will be reverted. Should an edit war occur once more, as with Battle of France I will take these repeated attempts at image censorship to WP:AN/I. --DIREKTOR 10:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class France articles
• Top-importance France articles
• Paris task force articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• B-Class Architecture articles
• High-importance Architecture articles
• B-Class Historic sites articles
• High-importance Historic sites articles
• WikiProject Historic sites articles
• Unassessed visual arts articles
• Unassessed public art articles
• Public art articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles
• Selected anniversaries (January 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2007)