User talk:J~enwiki/Archives/2009/June
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Pyrotec in topic Montreal as second largest French Speaking City
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Montreal as second largest French Speaking City
You reverted to false information. Montreal has a smaller population than Abidjan and Lyon, making it at least the fourth-largest (i.e. most populous) Francophone city in the world. Rerutled (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not too bothered whether the article claims "second" or "third" city by some criteria provided that it is properly citated, but you appear to have a preference for "second" and using Prospects for Democratizing Democracy. In that case can I suggest that you at least propery cite it. Based on what is shown in Amazon.com, the book appears to be: Roussopoulos, Dimitrios and Benello, C. George (Edrs.) (2003). Prospects for Democratizing Democracy. (Revised edition) Black Rose Books ISSB 1-55164225-5. However Amazon.ca shows a newer paperback edition. Amazon.com lists another 12 contributing authors and talks about 20 papers, so the page that is being cited may not have been written by Roussopoulos and Benello. I don't have access to the book, but if its that important to you, then you aught to properly cite it. As a made up example, it could be: Perry, Stewart (2003) "Montreal the city". Chapter 19 in: Roussopoulos, Dimitrios and Benello, C. George (Edrs.) (2003). Prospects for Democratizing Democracy. (Revised edition) Black Rose Books ISSB 1-55164225-5, page 396. At present you are trying to define an improperly cited reference which other editors suggest is at least six years old. At least with a date you could say something along the lines of: "In 2003 Montreal was the second ...city..(Ref 11)" which is much easier to defend.Pyrotec (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- My preference is that the article reflect, as precisely as possible, as accurately as possible, whatever the facts are; my preference for "second" is based solely on the fact that the only reliable source we have says it was second. I think that's a pretty reasonable preference. You also wrote: "In that case can I suggest you at least properly cite it." I didn't source this article, and I only found out on Saturday that someone had a problem with the citation. It's Monday. So I appreciate your suggestion, but I do not own the book and I'm not home until Wednesday. I do intend to try to request a copy from the library or through an interlibrary loan at that point, and I will indeed try to clarify the citation. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- You have made two accusations of "lack of good faith" on my talkpage. The reference that was given in Montreal was " Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos, C. George Benello, p.292." This is hardly verifiable. User:Rerutled has kindly changed this unverifiable reference to one that is far more verifiable, i.e. " Participatory Democracy: Prospects for Democratizing Democracy. Montreal; New York: Black Rose Books. p. 292. ISBN 1551642247,1551642255 (paperback)." However, there remains a question mark as to whether the information in that particular chapter dates from the 1970s or the early 2000s.Pyrotec (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)