Talk:Paris/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Updated Île-de-France plan

Updated plan according to previous wishes. I trust that if there's a problem with this one you all will let me know before going to any more trouble. ThePromenader 07:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes there are several problems:

• In the legend, région and département should not be capitalized

No problem. ThePromenader 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• In the title, it should be "Île-de-France Région" (English grammar) and not "Région Île-de-France" (French grammar)

Well. This is arguable, but okay. ThePromenader 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this logic used a few times on various French pages, but generally I prefer "X of Y" rather than "Y X". As in, "the départment of Paris" rather than "Paris département", "the région of Rhône-Alpes" rather than "Rhône-Alpes région". Note that this occurs naturally in English: City of Melbourne, Shire of Ferntree Gully, State of Victoria. The other form seems to be more informal: The Barossa Valley wine-growing region, the French capital...Stevage 22:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What is different in this case is that "Région" is not just a general area but an official administrative limit. Région île-de-France does sound nicer though.. ThePromenader 17:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• There should be no purple color for the city of Paris proper, as it gives the wrong impression that somehow the city of Paris is not part of the unité urbaine. The color for the unité urbaine should be consistently the same, including for the city proper.

I disagree. It is the capital thus should be distinguished from the rest, as is a capital on any other map. I can make the colour difference less violent if you like. ThePromenader 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO the reason is simpler: It should be distinguished because the article is about Paris. It's not "special" in its own right, it's simply the subject of this particular article, and deserves to be highlighted for that reason. Stevage 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• In my opinion, limits of communes should not be indicated, as they make the map look ugly at 250px resolution, they are not really needed, and they are not even explained in the legend

This is fine as well. Done. ThePromenader 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• The legend of the départements names is ovelaping the map, it's hard to read them. I think it is better to write the names of départements 77, 78, 91, and 95 directly on the map, and to leave only départements 75, 92, 93, and 94 in the legend, but not overlaping the map.

I'll see what I can do to fix that but I fount that "half on, half off" looks ugly too. ThePromenader 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Personally, but then it's personal, I think " Paris' " looks ugly, and it would be better to write "of Paris", or simply "Paris" without apostrophe, which is what most people do. Hardouin 11:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Paris'" is the correct usage but yes we can make exceptions for maps. No problem to most all of the above. ThePromenader 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. There are a coulple things I'd like to touch up but, in addition to that if there's anything else, I'll take care of it when I return. ThePromenader 14:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't people normally say " Paris's " for the possessive? See, for example, Place des Vosges or [Guardian newspaper style], [New York Times] or [The Economist] Adrian Robson 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the BBC write "Paris", without apostrophe: [1]. Anyway, that's just detail. Hardouin 12:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they do, but the BBC example shows an adjectival use, not possessive. This particular construction is a standard journalistic convention which is not used so widely outside the media. I don't suppose there would be any particular objection to using this construction in a Wikipedia article, even though it sounds like journalese. But saying "Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe" is not the same grammatical construction as "Paris's Mayor, Bertrand Delanoe". When someone uses an apostrophe it gives the sense that the possessive is intended. This is why I suggested that the way to write the possessive is to put "Paris's". (Even the BBC does this when it's possessive [see this example].If you want to use the adjectival construction, that is fine, too. But I think we're agreed that Paris' with a trailing apostrophe doesn't look quite right, as it appears to be neither one thing nor the other. Adrian Robson 13:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are couple more things to change in the map:

• the airports should not have a different color. Orly and the part of Roissy that are inside the unité urbaine should have the same color as the rest of the unité urbaine, whereas the part of Roissy that is not inside the unité urbaine should appear with the color for areas outside of the unité urbaine

Whoo. Okay, but let's hope people looking at the map will know what a unité urbaine is. ThePromenader 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I still think that the city of Paris should have the same color as the rest of the unité urbaine. To give it a different color seems to indicate that somehow département 75 is different from the other départements of Île-de-France, whereas in fact there are no administrative differences between the départements

Tried this, but no. In addition to its looking bland, there's the argument that Paris is different from the others - it's the capital of the île-de-France region and capital tout court. I'll remove the thick border but the colour must stay. Please be happy with this as it is. ThePromenader 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• there should be a dash between Val and d'Oise

Whoops. ThePromenader 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• in the legend, 75 should read as "City of Paris"

I thought we were showing Paris as a département. As it is this is clear.ThePromenader 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, there are two many meanings to the word Paris, it is better to write "City of Paris" to leave people in no doubt that this is the city proper. Hardouin 20:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Essonne is written with TWO "n"

Whoops bis. Thanks for catching the typos. ThePromenader 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• probably the best is to remove the unités urbaines that lie beyond the limits of the aire urbaine, and rephrase the legend from "Unité Urbaine (urban area) communes" to "unité urbaine (urban area) of Paris". Unité urbaine is not capitalized by the way.

Okay. ThePromenader 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• why do some départements have thicker boundaries than others? the boundaries should have the same thickness (except perhaps for the région boundaries), otherwise people may be puzzled as to what it means exactly. Also, the boundaries of the départements outside of Île-de-France should be black, instead of brownish, which is confusing.

Petite couronne and grande couronne. Gone now. Instead I'll the external bits lighter, black would be even more confusing. This is rather trifling though. ThePromenader 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I got rid of the external bits altogether. ThePromenader 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I kind of liked the thicker borders between the petite couronne and the grande couronne. Fwiw. ~

• I think "Paris's statistical aire urbaine (metropolitan area)" should be rephrased "Limits of the aire urbaine (metropolitan area) of Paris" Hardouin 15:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This was unfortunately no can-do, the phrase was far too long. "Statistical" should stay, we wouldn't want to mislead the uninformed. ThePromenader 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this would take care of that nasty "Paris's". ThePromenader 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

For the typos of course okay, for the boundries, okay, but the rest is really a question of taste. I may follow your orders depending on how it looks. This plan is now really something different than it was originally intended for - let me remind you that I do not agree with your presenting purely statistical data as a concrete and widely-used reference when we both know that this is not the case. Yet here I am making a plan supporting your point of view. You are aware that the aire urbaine will change yet again when the 2004 INSEE statistics are finalised? Yet for now I will comply. How about you make an effort too? ThePromenader 18:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a question of "complying", or "making an effort" for me, it is just a matter of informing the public as best as we can. As for the aire urbaine, of course the limits will change again in the future, as might administrative limits change too, and we will reflect those changes whenever they happen. Hardouin 20:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, for what it's worth, "statistical aire urbaine" strikes me as an excessively precise, rather ugly turn of phrase. Somewhat like the closed-caption vs subtitle argument, I'm not sure that you two aren't arguing interminably over something of little importance. The edges of the "metropolitan area" only seem to matter for the sake of performing comparisons with other cities. I have never given two seconds thought to the equivalent in Melbourne or any other city. I'm not even sure this article would be "incomplete" with no reference to this statistical area anyway. Whereas there's still no information on newspapers, education etc etc. :) Stevage 20:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The last sentence is the first thought that entered my head when I first saw this page. Cheers. ThePromenader 10:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was ThePromenader in the first place that wanted a map showing the relationship between Île-de-France région and Paris aire urbaine, and for once I second him. Precision is never a bad thing. True the vast majority of people coming to this article won't care where the exact limit is, but for the few people interested, or in need of this information, the map will be invaluable. BTW, I would love to see a map showing the extent of the Melbourne metropolitan area at the Melbourne article. I often find Wikipedia lacking in terms of maps. Hardouin 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not at all true Hardouin, we both know that if I had my way there would be very little mention of aire urbaine here at all as few understand it. I added the dotted aire urbaine line to the Île-de-France map just to tempt you into focusing on Paris' administrative regions, in placing the "reach of influence" statistical info into the second-stage context where it should be. Stevage, today it is difficult to compare one "metropolitan area" with another with better than vague results because few countries use the same criteria for compiling the info they place under that title. Standards have been made, but not all follow them. Night guys. ThePromenader 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is lacking in most images - particularly people. I think precision can be a bad thing when it obscures the point you're trying to make. I won't make up a example...I'm sure you know what I mean, when all you can see in a sentence is references, census dates, numbers with 5 significant figures, etc. Probably appropriate for a PhD, but here we should focus on getting pertinent information to the user and relegating non-essential stuff like that to footnotes. Stevage 22:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The map looks much better now, but I still see the following points that could be improved:

My typos aside, this is really turning in "custom maps R-us" - what is this to be used for? It will be one of few maps in existence on the web showing the info it does to any precision. If it is used outside of this page you must read its "commons" info. Here we go then...

• all the unités urbaines have been removed except Provins, Monteraux-Fault-Yonne, and Nemours. These three little unités urbaines should be removed too, for the sake of consistency.

Those ones too? Fine. ThePromenader 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• consequently, in the legend, "unité urbaine (urban area) communes" should be renamed "statistical unité urbaine (urban area) of Paris"

Okay too. ThePromenader 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• personally, I think we should write English names first, followed by French names in parenthesis, since the map is destined to an English-speaking audience, so we should have "urban area (unité urbaine)" and "metropolitan area (aire urbaine)"

Oooooo. I'm leery of this one because it would mean dropping the "statistical" and this is important for understanding's sake. Those not in the know will think the city actually extends to that limit. Remember that very few will even know what the statistic is even if it is noted - and I notice that Stevage has also (in addition to myself) has questioned the need of including this statistical data. I would like both of your thoughts on this. ThePromenader 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say we should drop the word "statistical", of course the word should remain. I was thinking "statistical metropolitan area (aire urbaine)". Hardouin 13:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay then. Done. ThePromenader 17:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• in the title of the map, we should add another line below "and the Paris metropolitain area" (by the way, spelling error here, it's METROPOLITAN, no extra "i"), extra line that would read something like "(as of 1999 French census)" to make it clear that the statistical unité urbaine and aire urbaine are as of 1999 census

Another typo? Oh, dear me. This of course will be fixed. No I will not be adding another line under the title just for the statistical data for lord's sake. This is a departemental map, remember? At most I would put "1999" in brackets after the legend explanation.ThePromenader 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The administrative boundaries are also as of 1999. Administrative boundaries change over time. Hardouin 13:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think administrative boundries will change every five years? ThePromenader 17:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• about département 75, again there is nothing that justifies a separate color. I have a long experience with maps, and when I see the Île-de-France Région map, I immediately notice there is one département with a different color, so my first reaction is to think that this département must somehow be a special case, so I go to the legend, but there I find no explanation for this special color, so it is very puzzling. Please have a look again at the maps that I posted above. They do not give a special color to the city of Paris proper, the whole unité urbaine has the same color. Also check the map of the Chicago metropolitan area, you'll see that the City of Chicago does not have a different color from the rest of the metropolitan area.

You're leaving one less-than-minor detail out of your resoning. This is a departemental map, not an aire urbaine map. Also this is an article on Paris so should remain the centre of it, and this is instantly understandable to most all. The aire urbaine data is just "a plus to please" and anyhow won't be considered by most anyway. I will think about this all the same. ThePromenader 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

All colors need to be explained in the legend, and this color is not explained. Hardouin 13:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is just a question of taste. This part is perfect as it is unless you have some other use in mind for this map - but this is a Paris article. Note also that "Paris-75" is in bold in the legend. ThePromenader 17:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• in the legend, for the dotted green line, we should add "limits of the". If the line is not long enough to write everything, then break it over two lines

Will try to do so in accounting for the "ugly factor". With "statistical" in there this is going to be long.ThePromenader 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• in the legend, I think it is better to write the départements in logical numerical order (75, 77, 78, 91, etc.) instead of the apparently haphazard order they are in. I know you tried petite courrone first, grande couronne second, but someone wishing to find the name of a particular département will find it much more quickly if it is in numerical order. Hardouin 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think this map is going to be used this "intensively" - by people looking for the île-de-France's departements? Wouldn't these people be looking at the île-de-France page? Not a huge issue but this does bring to mind the tone of other sections of this article. We'll see, but if it ugly-fies, I won't be able to.ThePromenader 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A final note - I just did a search on "aire urbaine paris" (without quotes) on google to look for another map and I came across this little tidbit (fourth in the SERPS) that sums things up pretty nicely. On one hand you can discuss things in terms people are familiar with, which most articles do (especially here), or on the other you can use more "specialised" data comprehensible to only a select group. This article tries to do both, and I think that is one of its major failings. Most people won't stray from an article just to research terms they do not understand (although I agree that they should), and nine times out of ten, unless absolutely everything is explained about every "uncommon" term used, a reader will just assume that its meaning is what it "sounds like" - and in this case the assumption would be wrong. Do you get the picture? This is what I mean by putting things "in context" - if you use it, you must explain. If you don't explain yet use this info to explain or as a comparison to other data, the mess just gets deeper and the data may look biased or even worse purposely misleading. Instead of just criticising perhaps I should rather think of an altrenate solution... I'll post if I come up with anything but I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter. A reader's comprehension is something that we should definitely take into account here. ThePromenader 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like "specialized" data and "specialized" terms, you can write in the Simple English Wikipedia instead of writing here. That's what it's made for. Hardouin 13:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite true. WP should generally use terms that anyone can understand, regardless of their field of specialisation. If you use a more technical term, then it should be linked to some sort of definition. At the least, put a URL link in to some site which explains what "aire urbaine" means. simple.wiki.x.io is for people who barely speak English at all - and there's almost no content there anyway. Stevage 14:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Eponym

In the second paragraph, I'm not sure that this is the normal usage for the word "eponym". "City of Lights" is more a "sobriquet" for Paris, isn't it? Though it wouldn't read well if this word was used instead. In any case, I'd suggest sticking to simple words to keep it accessible to the widest possible audience. Adrian Robson 21:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote that in a word-trimming rampage. For what it's worth, you have my blessing to rewrite that paragraph however you like, including moving the relevant bits to other paragraphs. Somehow I think we should capture the idea that Paris has a romantic association, but I just don't know how to do that in a NPOV way. It is undeniable that, particularly in the US, Paris conjures up images of romantic boat trips down the Seine and marriage proposals at the top of the Eiffel tower. Personally I don't share these delusions, but they're very common. (On a tangent, Venice is totally unromantic too. Go to Annecy or anywhere in the Alps instead :)) Stevage 22:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Just give me a sunset on the Californian coast, I know nothing more romantic than that. But anyway, we're getting off topic now. Lol. Hardouin 17:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed it for "nickname". Feel free to change to something else if you know a better word. Thbz 12:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Model for comparisons

I just came across this nice phrase at Frankfurt: "Depending whether total passengers or flights are used to measure, it ranks as the second or third busiest in Europe alongside London Heathrow Airport and Paris' Charles de Gaulle". In other words: "We don't necessarily define a single best ranking mechanism, but it's in the top two or three". There may be places here where that would be appropriate. Incidentally, what the hell is the story with the two anons who keep alternating back and forth between Paris being the 6th biggest GDP or being "on par with London". It's just...weird. Stevage 19:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I like your model very much, but I find that comparisons themselves are unneeded when they don't make a picture any clearer.

(Grin) As for the "anon" reverts, what you're seeing is a result of one vague statistic being compared with another - if the two parties are intent on being "first" then the other's will "wrong" and "second". This is odd because before it was a one-on-one battle between Hardouin and a fixed IP, now it's between that same IP and another anon, yet that other is making the same reverts Hardouin always does. I wish both of them would cite their sources so we could be done with it. Yet I know for a fact there are no official statistics for "Paris'" gdp, only the île-de-France's. All the same (waving hand) if one of you is reading this, please comment and let's clear this up. ThePromenader 10:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The matter is already clearly explained in the talk page at the Economy of Paris article. The anonymous user you are refering to has a long history of reverts and vandalisms with never an explanation. In particular, check the edits of this user in the London article history. He/she's always editing the article to write "London is the best this" "the best that", "the largest this" , "the number one that". This user seems really obsessed, and now not content with London, he/she has started to vandalise the Paris article too. The talk page at the Economy of Paris article was never answered by him/her. In any case I have heard that in the near future anonymous users won't be allowed to edit Wikipedia anymore, so that should solve the problem. Hardouin 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's incorrect, there are absolutely no plans to stop anonymous users editing WP - the founder and spiritual leader Jimbo Wales has come out and said that he strongly believes in it. There are some plans to reduce the impact of anonymous vandals, but in cases like these, the admins will say "only one vandalism a day? count yourself lucky!" So I don't know of anything on the horizon that will help curb trolls like this besides IP blocking. Stevage 13:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I read it in the Financial Times. Hardouin 13:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You may have read that anonymous editors are now blocked from creating new articles. Let's not argue over this. Stevage 14:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin, the reasons you cite in the Economy of Paris Talk page do not include the glaring facts that :

1. The United Kingdom does not calculate its "metropolitan area" in the same way France does (the UK's is much more compact) and
2. There exist no official statistics, only estimations, of Paris "metropolitan area" GDP.

These inconsistencies make any comparison difficult and, frankly, not very worthy of an article meant to contain only concrete NPOV info. ThePromenader 17:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

CORRECTION Actually I must correct myself in the "more compact" point above: the UK's 1991 census used 50m to measure its "urban areas", and its 2001 census used 200m... yet their definition of the term still does not include a density factor, which means their results are still incomparable with any precision with France's. Even this point is moot as far as this article is concerned for reasons I will describe later when my research on the subject is more complete. ThePromenader 15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ThePromenader, you are confusing everything again. We are not talking of urban areas here, we are talking of metropolitan areas. The UK statistics office do not define metropolitan areas, therefore it is not possible to provide a figure for the metropolitan area of London. That's exactly what the Economy of Paris article says. But figures available for the administrative units of Greater London and the counties beyond suggest that the total GDP of these is roughtly the same as the GDP of Ile-de-France. I specifically wrote "is on par" so as not to introduce a ranking, since there are no definite numbers for London. Hardouin 17:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Metropolitan areas are calculated from urban areas, so if the urban area calculation differs from one country to another so will the metropolitan area, no matter how the latter is calculated. In all it comes down to comparing ambiguities. "Suggest", "no definite numbers", "on par" (which is a ranking), these descriptions describe this comparison subject quite accurately. Go figure. ThePromenader 19:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest some wording like "Paris's estimated GDP would rank it roughly fifth in Europe"? Stevage 21:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fifth in the world you mean. Hardouin 17:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

History Repatch

There's not really much to say but I made an edit so I'll note here what I've done. I took some time and a good step back from what was written/reverted over the past weeks to spend a couple days patching the article together in the interest of article itself. The key developments are there (without the walls now) as are the main monuments and "common knowledge" periods as well. It's a brief an outline as 2000 years of history can be so if it works as it is, here's hoping it won't blow back up again. Cheers. ThePromenader 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

At a first glance, looking at the size and style, it looks great. I can't vouch for the technical details, but I think the size is really about right for this article. So if anyone wants to add something to it, they should take something else out (preferably unimportant words) :) Well done. Stevage 21:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you sir. À votre plaisir : ) ThePromenader 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Since we have to explain everything now, here are a few errors I corrected in ThePromenader recent edits:

"Have to" what ? How convenient. Errors? We'll see. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• the Parisii did not inhabit the whole Parisian basin, they lived only in the Paris area. The rest of the Parisian basin was inhabited by many other Gallic tribes. And by the way, the Celts were not the first inhabitants of France, there were other people living in the Paris area before the Celts.

Not an error - a question of "how much are we going to say". I'm sure they had very well defined borders that they dare not tiptoe over in their hunts for fear of... er, being accused by an armchair historian of settling another region. The Senon mother tribe was quite a way downriver. Your change is trifling and the result is ugly.ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• the Roman did not "chase" the Celtic armies. They conquered the Parisii, period, but the descendants of the Parisii remained in the area.

The Parisii did a "scorched earth" and fled as far as England - traces of them have been found there. ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Philip Augustus did not "create" the University of Paris. He only gave it its charter, that's very diferent. The University of Paris already existed before Philip Augustus.

In no way an error. He granted teachers and students the right to govern themselves independently in a new "Universitas" guild with rights equal to the many of the other trade guilds then. If that's not creating something, I don't know what is. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Philip Augustus did not create the University of Paris, period. Don't try to rewrite history now. What Philip Augustus did was to give the University its legal foundation, but the University already existed before. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It existed unofficially - once chartered they could govern themselves as an official.... now we're just splitting hairs.ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know what is meant by "liberal teachings". The teachings of the University of Paris were certainly not "liberal" in the American sense of the word. The University of Paris was a stronghold of theology and religion. During the religious wars the University of Paris remained fervently Catholic and approved the massacre of Protestants.

Arguments vague then irrelevant. The Paris University was popular because contrevertial - it was the first to teach things forbidden by Catholic dogma such as Medecine and philosophy. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The University of Paris was most famous for the teaching of theology, which was deemed very important in the Middle Ages, and theology is the reason why so many students came to Paris from all across Europe. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Theology too but this is again "all that wasn't said that we can say"... ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Much of the fame Paris enjoys today has its origins in its late 19th-century Expositions Universelles ". This is a total exageration. Paris was already very famous and reputed in the world before the World's Fairs. The World's Fairs only contributed further to the already established fame of Paris. I am rewording.

How silly. Paris is famed today for its Paris University, its Renaissance philosophy and Gobleins tapestries? Give me a break. The first thing anyone thinks about today when they hear "Paris" is the Eiffel Tower and the Belle Epoque kitsch best portrayed by the 1900 Expo pavillions and architecture. Not to mention the tourist attractions (Moulin Rouge) that began with the Expo visitors in mind. I suspect the rather obvious nuance of that phrase was beyond you. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Paris didn't have to wait for the World's Fairs to become world famous, it was already extremely famous before. Just read the correspondence of Franklin or Jefferson when they reisded in Paris, or have a look at what Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire and Spain already said in the 16th century ("Paris is not a city, it is the World"). And I don't even mention the Paris fashion which was admired and copied all throughout the western world long before the World's Fairs happened. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

But I never said that Paris wasn't famous before. Paris' fame Today originates in... didn't I just explain that? Read again.ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• And by the way, I notice that there is not a single line about the Siege of Paris of 1870 and the Commune of 1871. How can there be a brief history of Paris without mentioning these crucial events?? I am adding a line about it now.

Again this is "how much are we going to say". Prussians are obviously very important for you, but others to who the Fronde or 1814-15 wars are important could also make the same "omission" claims. None of these changed the face of Paris to any degree. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• "The general bohemian spirit reigning in the city ". This is again a total exageration. Perhaps you watched too much of Moulin Rouge.

This one's just cheap. So why did these artists choose Paris over any other city? What was the spirit then? Do you really know what bohemian means? ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Artists came to Paris because there were already many artits there, because the city was rich and the bourgeoisie was a prime market to sell their art work, because the Louvre was (and still is) the largest museum in the world to draw inspiration from, and because the buzz and livelihood of the second largest city in the world back then simply attracted people. This does not mean however that the bohemian spirit was reigning in the city, despite what some movies would have us believe. What was reigning in the city for the working classes, by far the largest group in Paris back then, was hard work and the constant struggle for survival. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The "many artists already there" was this "bohemian atmosphere" - even the rich wanted into it ! To say I reference hollywood again is... (cough) Anyhow, again it's about "how much we will say" ... Okay, Paris was a dry, bland list of facts. ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Paris already empty of "half of its inhabitants" in June 1940? That seems a lot to me. Where are the references? For now I am rewording into a more vague statement.

Actually that was your statement ported to the new edit. I was surprised at this as well. Bravo, you have finally corrected your own work! Wait a second, you're asking me for references? LOL! ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. I never wrote that Paris was emptied of half of its inhabitants. I wonder how you can invent all these things. If you care to check the history of the article, I wrote that Paris was emptied of a part of its inhabitants, I never specified how many. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That's odd, I had omitted my (rather heated) statement above in admitting my error and now it's back again. I don't think it's a good idea to copy the whole contents of this text box to a separate page then paste it back again when you are done - others might have made edits since. ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• There's a great misunderstanding about the cités. These suburban cités were not built to house the immigrants coming to work in France. They were first and primarily built to solve the housing problem that existed in Paris since the 1920s, when all new constructions had been halted after the start of WW1, which resulted in the appearance of illegal slums in the suburbs of Paris, slums inhabited by French (white) people. The slums were destroyed in the 1950s and 1960s, while the people were relocated in the cités. It is only later in the 1970s and 1980s that immigrants moved to the cités, while their original white inhabitants left for middle class suburbs with pavilion houses. So I am rephrasing the whole paragraph.

You're skipping the period of the HBM's built from the destruction of the "Fortifs" - These were built for the "white trash" from the period of which you speak. The Cités were built for the workers of "new France" and presented as a sort of worker utopia. Odd period. I have had no misunderstanding and your reverts unfounded. Besides, we already said the Belle Epoque ended with WW I further up yet you insist on re-inserting your repetition here once again. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all it's HLM, not HBM. The Cités were built for French people primarily, not for immigrants. Just check any history book. And check the history of some slums like the slum of Nanterre, which still existed in the 1950s whent the Cités were built. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand. HBM's came well before HLM's. I am aware of all you say, but now this is correcting corrections in a talk page.ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• other than that I also trimmed parts here and there, and tried to improve the style of several sentences

Why would you think you know "better enough" to do that? The result is very sloppy if I may say. Our wordsmith hadn't a word to say on the matter thank you very much.ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin 16:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I also note that there is no mention of the religious wars and the massacre of the St Bartholomew, as well as the insurrection of Paris during the Fronde, which are two important episodes in the history of Paris. Hardouin 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, I missed this chestnut further up. Well, we'll have to write reams then, won't we? ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it strange Hardouin, that while you sit on an article graced with a broken star, lack of sources and bypassed by the Finnish Paris page, you have made no improvements to your own work. You seem to be interested only in finding "error" in other people's contributions - and this, IMHO, as a justification to reappropriate "your" article. If this isn't a clear case of article appropriation, I don't know what is. I will consider the quality of your reverts (as that's what they really are) and if I can't see them as an improvement they will go. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I've been researching ("spying") this whole question of "aire urbaine" and such, and have seen quite a bit else of what you've done. I can't say I'm pleased at what I saw. More on that later under another heading; it's time to clean things up. Draw some defiinite borders, rather. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

(After reading) In all, your changes are basically reverts. You have added to parts that were concise without bringing any added clarification to the flow of the article; you have just stuck things (back) in there according to your "better opinion" without a care for how it reads. "Weilding more power" instead of "rose to grasp more power" - why this change? Weilding from where ? Twice you have reverted "recovered from the Prussian war to open the Expo" - this is nonsensical! They did not hold the expo to spite the Priussians. LOL. ThePromenader 19:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And you even moved the photo... to where you had it before! This is not leaving a footprint; this is sticking your finger in a cake. ThePromenader 19:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ThePromenader, the problem with you is that you simply can't accept the fact that people edit your edits. Stop your always renewed personal attacks ("armchair historian", and so on). And stop being paranoid please. I did not revert your edits as you always complain. I merely tried to improve the style and flow, and correct some obvious errors. Read above for my answers to your comments. As for recovering from the Franco-Prussian war enough to stage the 1889 World's Fair, you seem to totally ignore that the very purpose of this World's Fair was to show the world that France and Paris had recovered from the war. The purporse of commemorating the centenial of the French Revolution was only secondary. The two main purposes were to show the world that France had recovered, and that the young Third Republic was now firmly established on its feet. And trust me it certainly annoyed the Prussian, who did not participate in this World's Fair, if I remember correctly. Check your history books. When I was in London I found this very good English book that talked about Paris during the 1870s and 1880s: the Siege of Paris, Paris Commune, and World's Fair 1889 were very clearly explained in great details. The book showed how Thiers made it a priority to pay the war indemnity to the Prussians ahead of schedule just to show them that France was still rich and strong, how the first French ambassador to Berlin after 1871 behaved in Berlin with pomp and grandeur, invinting all foreign delegations of Berlin to lavish balls, acting as if he was the ambassador of a victorious country, just to annoy the Prussians. You really underestimate the strength of French pride and nationalism back then if you think that the World's Fair of 1889 wasn't a show of strength addressed to Prussia. Too bad I don't remember the title of the book now. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I can accept that people correct my edits, but not that they revert it to what it was before without even a thought at the intent of the changes made. I have never refused to admit any error, and have always included your corrections in my edits. I do not need an English history book thank you very much (!). I know all of the events you indicate (and how I hate to say "I know") and there is truth in all you say, but the problem is we can't say it all and what we do say we must say clearly. Fix anything you like but don't revert to the version that was being corrected in the first place. This is your principal fault and this is the only thing that makes me paranoid.

While you're at it, why don't you get around to cleaning up and rearranging your own work instead of chasing me around? ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You see this last sentence you wrote? That fits exactly the definition of paranoia. LOL. Hardouin 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, I just visited the Petite_ceinture page this morning and noticed that you had moved it. How did you know that I had even started it? Some would call this harrassment. Yet the changes you made were indeed improvements. I'm really curious all the same. ThePromenader 12:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your own work needs improvement, so why not tend to that instead of pestering others who try to? This is what I meant and mean. Please be honest and don't be base. ThePromenader 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit Recap

In correcting the "corrections" I can't help but think that many of the revert/edits were made out of pure spite. We do not introduce controversy to disclaim the writing of another, nor do we replace that other person's writing with something expressing an opposing POV - when the first person's writing wasn't even POV in the first place. I notice an insistance on using "World's Fair" in the 1900's period when even the link and the title of the page it is linked to is "Exposition Universelle". This smacks of someone insisting the stupidity of "those English speakers" (yet this souci is expressed nowhere else in this page). The imposed Bolchevic-fleeing pianist sounds rather non-sequitur in the same phrase as his Spanish painter and American writer friends, and the 1870's Prussian war and 1871 Commune, having almost no effect on the city's own development, drops like a lead mallet into the flow of what's written around it - it could be included but not in the very awkward way it was. We do not impose twice in a row "the flooding of the Seine" where it is needless detail, nor do we remove "marketplace" description from the "Les Halles", as without it the uninitiated will not know what it is. In short, the changes, as much of this page, is written without a thought outside the authour's own knowldedge, opinion, and understanding.

I took a few days to take a step back and really look at what needed to be done and do it, and here I see all that lambasted with hastily-pasted writ from the "authour's" own precedent version. I could care less if any changes made are improvements, but in most cases, and especially in this one, they are not. I can swallow such uncivil behavior in occasions such as my earlier Economy writ (for it was off the mark), but in subjects such as this it cannot stand. From where come these airs of superiority? If indeed they do originate from a being superior, why is his work not the same? ThePromenader 21:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit Edit Recap

The last total revert aside, what bugged me most about yesterday's "corrections" is that they were made "against" the edits they replaced - this is the worst possible attitude for a Wikipedian to have. What's more, hardly any effort was taken in a) readablility and b) comprehensibility - many transformations made phrases difficult to understand for those not already well-read in French history or even culture. I'm not supposed to criticize "style" but when my "bad" style is replaced with phrases choppy, repetititve and difficult to read we cannot call this an "improvement". It took a while to lose (again) all the riffraff feelings to really read the entry like one doing so for the first time. I left in a lot of Hardouin's "corrections" but in all, after all, after corrctions, the reading and the meaning between his and my version is almost nil and could have been done by changing a word or two. In short, once again, splitting hairs and much ado about nothing. Again I have severe doubts about the pretext of such actions but let's save that for another day. ThePromenader 11:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Kremlin-Bicetre

To whoever posted the Kremlin-Bicêtre info to the "Districts" section: It was kind of you to contribute but unfortunately the city of Kremlin-Bicêtre is not a district of Paris. There was however enough information in the contribution to begin a stub, so I started a page (with link added in an "external links" section) that you can find here. Thanks. ThePromenader 10:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the text:

• "Kremlin-Bicêtre" [2]- The name is owed to the Bicêtre having acted as a major reception point, in 1813, for evacuated casualties of the Grand Armée from the Napoleon's Invasion of Russia. The Bicêtre is most famous as the Asylum de Bicêtre where Superintendent Philippe Pinel is credited as being the first to introduce humane methods into the treatment of the mentally ill, in 1793. Its most notorious guest was the Marquis de Sade.

What's your objection TP? I'm intrigued because this is perhaps the only "district" that I know at all - I stayed there for 4 days. In any case, we have a major problem with our "districts" in this article - there are only a couple of brief lines under 'districts' then again under 'historical areas'. These should really be unified somehow, perhaps similar to London. I'm sort of shocked that the latin quarter doesn't get more of a mention.

PS I know that technically KB is just outside of "Paris" - but it's walkable (from memory) :) Stevage 13:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Took me a second to figure out who "TP" was : ) My favourite "parts of Paris" are walkable too (19th-century industrial abandon) but they won't be found in any Paris map.... I think it's best that we keep the lines nice and sharp here if you don't have any objection. ThePromenader 14:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ThePromenader's obssession with limiting Paris strictly (sorry "sharply") to its administrative city... Stevage, just imagine what it would be to limit Melbourne strictly to its administrative City of Melbourne... Hardouin 16:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So the Kremlin-Bicêtre is a district of the city of Paris, and should be titled as such? ThePromenader 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I really have to agree with Hardouin on this one. If we're talking about vague, poorly-defined areas like "districts", it doesn't make much sense to delineate them in or out on the basis of harsh administrative boundaries like the arrondissements. I believe your Paris districts article even makes that point :) I'm not sure I would want to see a district in Clichy-sous-Bois included here in the districts, but anything that touches central Paris, or is walkable (for example), should probably be here. Simply put: La Défense belongs in "districts". Stevage 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ach, point taken. But I am a great fan of KISS ! ThePromenader 15:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to agree - but that wouldn't be fair, as La Defense is part of Paris : ) ThePromenader 23:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, La Défense is not inside the City of Paris proper, La Défense is located in the Hauts-de-Seine département (92). Hardouin 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My map shows La Defense as being administered by Paris. Am I wrong? Okay fine. ThePromenader 23:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

La Défense belongs to Puteaux, Courbevoie and (I believe) Nanterre, which are cities in Hauts-de-Seine. It doesn't even touch Paris (Neuilly-sur-Seine stands between Paris and La Défense). Note that the building rules in La Défense are determined by the State (i.e the Government), not the cities. So La Défense is a district of Paris if you define Paris as Paris+suburbs (I have nothing against that). Thbz 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way ThePromenader, there was already an article about Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, created by User:Olivier. So could you be kind enough to merge the article you have just created with the already existing article. Thanks. Hardouin 23:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Fine. ThePromenader 23:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's empty - and why didn't you do it? Thanks. ThePromenader 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I did do this - a problematic process to say the least so I understand your hesitency. I noticed that there's literally hundreds of empty commune stubs out there! ThePromenader 15:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, this is silly splitting hairs again. I am very aware that the Le Kremlin-Bicêtre is very near Paris, but here we had it listed as one of a list of only a few districts - this makes it seem more important than it really is, no ? Anyhow I thought that list was going. As for "sharp" borders there must be at least some drawn here - to one reading this page Paris is huge. Yet we still have no idea what's in it : ) ThePromenader 11:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest changes

Well, you blink and you miss a lot. I don't understand what's going on with this article, but yet again, lots of squabbling over wording, lots of reverting etc? Could I just ask that rather than reverting wholesale changes that we don't like, we take them individually on their merits? I notice for example that TP has made a raft of changes including changing this sentence: "From the 1840s, rail transport and train stations spilled an unprecedented flow of immigration into Paris. A majority of migrants found employment in the new industries appearing in the suburbs." to "From the 1840s, rail transport and train stations spilled an unprecedented flow of immigration into the streets of Paris, a majority of which had come to seek employment in the new industries appearing in the suburbs." Without having too much of a go at TP, I think *both* versions are bad. Surely: "From the 1840s, rail transport and train stations had caused an unprecedented flow of migrants to spill into the streets of Paris, most of whom sought employment in the new industries appearing in the suburbs." would be much better. In quibbling over whether it's better to have one sentence or two, we've lost sight of the fact that "an unprecedented flow of immigration" isn't even English :) (hint: immigration is an abstract noun, it doesn't refer to people)

So, please please please, let's try and leave our egos out of this, and not focus on whose changes we're reverting etc. I'm off on holidays for a week and a bit, I look forward to the results when I come back :) Joyeux noël à tous! Stevage 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Stevage, as you may have noticed over the days, whenever you edit ThePromenader's edits he always applauds you, whereas whenever I am the one editing his edits he is infuriated and complains bitterly, calling it "revert". What am I to do? Change my pseudonym? For the sake of scientific experimentation, it would be interesting if you edited his history edit, then I would sign your edit with my name. I bet 1,000 Australian dollars (no clue how much that is, lol) that he would bitterly attack this edit signed under my pseudonym. Holding personal grudges is really not helpful... Hardouin 22:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not a very honest argument at all Hardouin. Stevage does not revert and explains his changes. Most of what this page contains is your work and I am quite aware of this - this explains my constantly questioning your motives when I see that a) you do not make this fact known even in our discussion of changes and b) even in spite of this talk you never make any improvemnts yet when b) changes are made any you "don't like" are returned to the letter to their former form. This is a revert. Of course I would be very suspicious of anyone who reverted anything other than vandalism to a former form - if the intent is improvement then more than likely improvement needs to be made. Reverting totally discounts a) the fact that there is a need for improvement and b) the integrity of the person trying to improve. This is what I've been seeing for months now and of course I've had enough of it. ThePromenader 23:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin just reverted again . A complete revert. Didn't even take into account a single one of my edits or arguments, wasting hours of people's time with a single... this is just pure toying and provocation, nothing else. ThePromenader 23:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Two little suggestions:

• Hardouin: Please do not revert :)
• ThePromenader: Please make small incremental edits. Please don#t take Hardouin's reverts personally, but question any unreasonable change one by one.

Thank you. The weather in Germany is lovely, thank you. Merry christmases. Stevage 00:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Points taken. We've got sun and chill in the 5th arrondissement, and wife and I are just leaving for a walk to Notre-Dame (Touristu, ne!). - Merry merry to yous toos : ) ThePromenader 12:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Readings for the New Year

Two articles I found over the Holidays that I find extremely relevent to the improvements needed for this article. I'd like to give Finland a run for their money come January : )

• Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article
• Wikipedia:Summary_style

Cheers,

ThePromenader 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Muséification of Paris

I don't think the sub-section about Muséification should be inside the Demographics section. Indeed, demography is only one of the reasons of muséification (others being the urbanism mistakes of the after-war, the strong feelings of the French for ancient architecture, etc). In my opinion this sub-section belongs to the history of Paris (and its future) or its economy. Other opinions?
BTW, someone just added a link to "Règlements d'urbanisme de Paris", which is an article I wrote for the french Wikipedia. We can remove that link unless s/he creates the article (but the name is of course inappropriate). Thbz 10:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You know I was thinking exactly the same thing just last night about the "Muséeification" section. I actually think it deserves a section of its own as it is a reality - perhaps after the Economy section - the service industry boom, lack of artisans, turn towards tourism are all a part of this phenomenon so yes it should not be where it is. If you think anything here at all is inappropriate, please feel free to change it yourself - if anyone has anything to say on the matter they will post it. Thanks! ThePromenader 10:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should give too much importance to it, especially since it mostly concerns the city of Paris itself, not the suburbs (and the article's topic is the whole metropolitan area, isn't it?). La Défense, for example, is far from being finished (a 400m skyscraper has been officially announced recently)... Besides it's not a very long sub-section (and shouldn't be). That's why I simply moved it to the History section and rephrased it a bit. Feel free to change it, of course. Thbz 12:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's good where it is now. It's true it concerns only the city of Paris, whereas the article deals with more than just the city. It's true the metropolitan area is still growing and is not a museum. Yet, Paris is one of the few metropolises in the world where the central city is becoming a museum while the modern activity is almost only happening in the suburbs. You don't find that in London, NYC, or Tokyo, so I think it's good we have a subsection about it (as is already the case). Hardouin 12:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to differ, but I think "Muséification" doesn't at all belong in the "History" section. In fact it would be very hard to place - as I mentioned earlier, it is a result of many different elements of Paris' growth/culture - it is for this that I suggested that it have a (short) section of its own. As it stands it could stand to be cleaned up a bit, and some of its more POV phrases removed. ThePromenader 14:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Muséification is about what Paris is becoming and will become; it is less about what Paris is now (other sections) than about what Paris was and will be (history of economics, of politics, of demographics, of society, of architecture). I'm not completely satisfied with this sub-section too, but it's not important enough to deserve a separate sub-section. Thbz 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright - perhaps we could at least make it shorter. ThePromenader 16:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, about these topics of museification, conservative administrative borders, Paris and its metropolitan area, I know two very interesting websites that could be referenced in the article, to give more perspective on these subjects:

• parisbanlieue.blog.lemonde.fr
• Le Perroquet libéré

As you can see, there are more and more people in France now who question the narrow limits of the city of Paris. I think the recent riots in the suburbs led many people to think about the subject. Hardouin 12:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's nice that you indicate others who share the same ideas as yours, but let's not lose track: these ideas are not administrative realities and cannot be explained as such, nor can they be given more priority above existing administrative boundries. ThePromenader 13:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

History re-addition

If you would like to "vaguify" (even further) the actual place the Parisii lived it would suffice to change "at" (the île de la Cité) to "near" or "in the area of". We don't have to take a whole line to explicitly spell out doubt - a change of that one word is more than enough to express it. ThePromenader 10:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's better to mention explicitly the doubts of the historians, because many people (at least in France) take it for granted that Lutetia was on the Cité (I personnally used to think that the name "Cité" itself referred to Lutetia itself, while the name apparently dates from the time of Clovis) Thbz 11:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Cité" is a name that is not proper to Paris. It comes from Latin civitas, where it meant a Roman colony, with full rights. In medieval times, the word "cité" started to be used to mean the walled area inside which were the administrative and ecclesial insitutions. The word "cité" was opposed to the word "ville" which meant the walled (or unwalled) area inside which were the merchants and craftsmen. For instance in Bordeaux there was the cité and the ville, and both had their own walls. In Paris the cité was on the Ile de la Cité, whereas the ville was on the right bank. In London the Normans carried that usage, and the walled part of London became known as the "City", although there, confusingly enough, its was inhabited by merchants, not the administrations. Hardouin 12:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

My main concern was about how much room we have here (rather - how much to say) - but yes it is true that the general Parisian consensus is that the Cité was the first to be inhabited - a theory debunked only recently. Yet are we going to put it all there? ThePromenader 12:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Again the history section has blown up again. The history in Paris is not always the history of Paris. Please show some intelligence in making a distinction between the two. There is a "History of Paris" page reserved for details such as these. ThePromenader 13:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Administrative map

About the administrative map, I notice that none of the last series of changes that ThePromenader promised have been carried out. There is still the spelling error on "Metropolitain", there are still the urban areas of Montereaux-Fault-Yonne, Provins, and Nemours, there is still the unexplained color for département 75, etc. Hardouin 11:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! Done but forgot to upload it. Consensus is for the Department 75 color to stay as it is. Thanks! ThePromenader 12:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Administration - Re-Insertion

The re-insertion of the removed information in its exact former form is (again!) a revert. First off, the "administration" section is no place to push the "aire urbaine first" POV through phrases such as this: This région encompasses the city of Paris, its suburbs, and most of the commuting belt beyond. were changed for already-stated very clear reasons. As for the "prediction" text re-inserted to the letter as it was before, please see WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. This is again a case of a single contributor enforcing a POV. ThePromenader 12:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, we just added comments about that editing at the same time, it seems (see my comments below ;). Thbz 12:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I say we open a debate on the subject - the correct context in which to speak of the Paris within its limits, Paris as an agglomeration, Paris as its île-de-France region, and the aire urbaine of Paris. There should be a discernable distinction between these, and this especially with the uninformed reader in mind, but this page shows none. ThePromenader 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Paris as the prefecture of Île-de-France

Apparently there has been a kind of editing war in this section. I have two remarks:

• The following seems nice to me: "This région encompasses the city of Paris, its suburbs, and most of the commuting belt beyond. It is made up of eight départements", etc. It shows what Île-de-France contains (Paris, suburbs, etc) and what Île-de-France is (the sum of eight départements).
• The debate about the Greater Paris deserves to be mentioned, but more concisely. I suggest removing the last sentence ("This issue may be a central one in the next municipal election in 2008") because it's far from certain: the people who are really interested by this issue are not my fellow citizens of Paris proper, but the banlieusards, who do not vote for the municipal election in Paris...

And I suggest not making another revert until an agreement has been reached on this discussion page. Thbz 12:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wait until next month. Claude Goasguen, one of the main contender of the UMP for the mayoral election of Paris is going to publish a book about Grand Paris. I heard Pierre Lellouche, anotoher prominent UMP contender, is also going to make proposals on this subject. So I don't think it is far-fetched to say that this subject will be a central issue in the campaign. Hardouin 12:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin, I don't think you can ask for someone to wait for someone's POV book to appear as an effort to convince another to leave your POV in place. This is not a place for POV period, and Wiki is certainly not a place to express "hope for the future". Period. As you have already said yourself after eliminating a text of mine with a similar tone on the the "unité urbaine" page - and you were right to do so. Follow your own example please.ThePromenader 13:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin, let's wait and see. This kind of hypothesis belongs to a sub-article (Administrative structure of Paris, for example), not to this one. Thbz 14:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that the text is just sitting there unchanged - if it isn't shortened and "de-crystal ball-ized" it will have to be removed again. The goal here is to inform the reader of what already exists, not to fill his head with hypothetical "evidence" of a "may come to be" that is only a contributor's wish and POV. ThePromenader 11:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that: it is futile to describe the administration without using the word "Île-de-France" (anyone who wants to understand the administrative grid of Paris must know what Île-de-France is). But could you stop reverting Hardouin's changes such as the one about the "fifth" or "sixth" rank of Paris' GDP. You will know that he will revert your change in a couple of days, and nothing will result of it. Why not simply say "fifth or sixth"? Nobody cares about the precise rank. It will not make the Eiffel tower shorter... Thbz 21:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean me when you say "stop reverting"? I have done nothing of the sort : ) ThePromenader 12:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like I read the history page a little too fast. Sorry for that ;) Thbz 20:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime I exchanged "metropolitain area" for "île-de-France" in the last phrase - communes are part of a région. This is a section speaking of Administration. Aire urbaines are applied to communes, and not the opposite. This is more than evident I think. I dislike the following phrase :

"This région encompasses the city of Paris, its suburbs, and most of the commuting belt beyond."

"Commuting belt" is misleading, and in a very sneaky way. One who doesn't know better would imagine a vast "busy-busy" area - as it only speaks of commuters - when in reality almost half the IDF is farmland. This phrase also gives no impression of real size. "This région encompasses the city of Paris, its suburbs, and a circle of (insert figure) beyond." would be a phrase much clearer and useful.

If there is no contestation I will be changing this myself - "Much ado about nothing" one may think, but I announce this here ahead of time because this section has already been reverted several times. ThePromenader 12:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What is exactly a "commuting belt"? If it cannot include rural areas, then I agree with you. 45% of IdF is devoted to agriculture according to [3]. Maybe it would be simpler to say "This région encompasses the city of Paris, its suburbs and most of the metropolitan area around", which is what you can see on the map. That has the advantage of insisting about the relationship between the metropolitan area and Ile-de-France. Thbz 21:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

A commuter belt is an area surrounding an urban area in which most people are commuters, which means they live in this area, but they do not work there, they commute everyday to the core of the urban area. Commuter belts are typically largely rural, with commuters and satellite towns spread throughout the rural areas. For instance in England the counties of Surrey or Hertfordshire are considered part of the London commuter belt. Most of the land in these counties is just rural fields, but most people living in these counties are people who commute everyday to London. The same is true in Ile de France, so the word is not misused at all. Hardouin 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

About ThePromenader's recent change, the sentence makes no sense at all now. It said "the complexity of the administrative grid in the metropolitan area of Paris". Now it says "the complexity of the administrative grid in Ile de France". This makes no sense at all, there is nothing particularly complex about he administrative grid in Ile de France. Ile de France is like the other French regions, with departements, arrondissements, cantons, and communes. Nothing special about that. What's complex is the administration of the metropolitan area. C'est l'administration de l'agglomération parisienne qui est complexe, pas celle de la région. Please understand that in many countries there are metropolitan structures that administer whole agglomerations, whereas in Paris there is nothing of the sort. L'administration de l'agglomération parisienne est balkanisée en de multiples niveaux de pouvoirs qui s'enchevetrent: Ville de Paris, communes de banlieu, conseils géneraux, conseil régional, 8 préfets, etc. That's what makes Paris so particular. Take the olympic bids for instance: the mayor of Paris couldn't go alone to Singapore, he had to go with the president of the regional council of Ile de France, and I suspect there were also representatives of the Seine-Saint-Denis general council. Compare this with the London and NYC delegations. They were led by the mayor of London, and the mayor of NYC, that's it. So I think the sentence should be rephrased back to its original meaning. Hardouin 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good points Hardouin. Thanks for the explanation. My favorite sentence would be : "This région encompasses the city of Paris, its suburbs and most of the metropolitan area around", in order to reuse the words "metropolitan area" which is equated in this article with aire urbaine.

Thbz 09:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, nice to hear different voices than the usual ThePromenader's accusations. The reason why I used "commuter belt" instead of "metropolitan area" is this: a metropolitan area is made up of two things" 1- an urban core, also called urban area, the INSEE calls that "pôle urbain". In the case of Paris the urban core goes from Melun to Cergy-Pointoise, and from Roissy to Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines. 2- then beyond the urban core is a mostly rural (but not inhabited by rural people!) commuter belt, which INSEE calls "couronne périurbaine". In the case of Paris: Rambouillet, Meaux, or Fontainebleau are in the commuter belt beyond the urban core. I was just trying to distinguish between urban core and commuter belt in the sentence. If you replace "commuter belt" with "metropolitan area", you don't get that distinction anymore. Hardouin 11:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanations but again this is besides the point. The goal of the original phrase was to describe the administrative reach of the île-de-France - to do this using population movement is a bit irrelevent. LOL to tell the truth I would by far prefer to say "commuter belt" than "metropolitan area" - but it is the very context of the phrase that's wrong!

Please stop trying to chip away at my integrity with your accusations of accusations (and other) - rather answer those who question your POV in a clear, civil, direct and unmuddled way. This way we can can build consensus instead of feeling obliged to give in to resistance. ThePromenader 12:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you read that right, Thbz? : ) What Hardouin said was "it is complicated to explain inter-communal relations within the aire urbaine area using existing administrative borders" - this is actually true, since the aire ubaine spreads beyond the Île-de-France region - but the point is missed completely in all this because we do not apply administrative borders to statistical areas - in reality, quite the contrary.

If the aire urbaine should one day become an actual orgranisational entity then it can be found on a map and explained as such - but for now the only way we can speak of things coherently (and this especially for the uninitiated) would be in using existing borders. I honestly don't see the point of your Olympics paragraph, Hardouin, but in it you've proven quite well the actual importance of the administration of the Île-de-France region and of every departement within. Where is "aire urbaine" in all that?

Do you really understand the implications of accepting the limits of the Paris' aire urbaine as Paris' ? Are you really sure that one reading "metropolitan area" will understand the low-density and indirect-city-connection uniqueness of the INSEE "aire urbaine"? All you have to do is read the talk pages of the French Paris article for a glimpse of what the reality of the situation, and read Largest_European_metropolitan_areas to see how little-shared far-fetched this concept is.

Every publication in existence I have ever read about Paris uses "agglomération parisiénne" to describe the city reach. This is englobed (in a slighty exaggerated way) in the INSEE "unité urbaine" or "urban area" (and these are somewhat comparable). IMHO the content of this article need not speak of anything outside these limits except in passing or as a reference.

I think it would be silly to argue over wording until we get more fundemental errors sorted out.

ThePromenader 11:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think all this is very important. "Commuting belt" sounds fine to me. The administrative complexity is interesting because it applies to something that looks homogeneous to most people (the metropolitan area of Paris or whatever you call it). So Île-de-France may be replace by the commuting belt here. On the other hand, I still don't agree with the last sentence about the municipal election in 2008, because it's pure speculation. But anyway, this is not very important.

Thbz, sorry I missed this one this morning. Alone I don't think this phrase is very important either - which is why I didn't change it - but the space it fills could be better used by a phrase more explanative. You may also notice that in Wiki commuter belt redirects to metropolitan area, and if you take another gentle contributor's point of view to the letter (aire urbaine=metropolitan area=commuter belt) this area does indeed include the 45% of farmland you mentioned earlier. Thus this phrase, when read with other parts of the article concerning Paris' size (bigger than IDF), works as a vague support of them.

But even this is besides the point, because by the phrase itself we don't know what a commuter belt is, nor its size. Your original suggestion was much clearer (eight departments) but I suggest we use a physical measure (breadth or diameter) to say how large this area is. This would be an explanation simple, clear and accessible.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter but personally I'm going to let this lie to see what happens in the coming days. As always, feel free to do as you think best. ThePromenader 18:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan Area Template

Okay, this is taking POV WAY too far. I completely understand the utility of the "aire urbaine" statistical region - it's where a given economical centre's salaries are - but its uses are for now limited to statistics and in no way an administrative fact . Presented as it is one would think the contrary, and one would think it has much more importance and use than it does. Not only this, but the beyond its "unité urbaine" (and this iself with reservations) the "aire urbaine" can in no way be accurately compared with the "metropolitan area" the English-speaking world knows - the very variables used in calculating it are in no way similar from one country to another! Looking at both the Metropolitan area and Largest_European_metropolitan_areas are more than enough to make this glaringly clear.

I think this is taking the general "ignorance" of English Wiki readers and contributors more than a tad too far and a helluva heap for granted. ThePromenader 13:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the template until this issue is resolved once and for all. I don't expect it to reappear before we have had a chance to discuss the matter. Please show some respect for the thoughts of other users. ThePromenader 14:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There goes ThePromenader again. The template is meant as an easy look-up tool for people wishing to find out other communes in the metropolitan area. It is in no way an administrative list. Check Template:Chicagoland for an example of another template related to a metropolitan area. Hardouin 14:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Promenader is again questioning the validity, need and intent of Hardouin's forced contributions. This is not an "answer" suitable as an explanation for a revert. You (as usual) have yet to take into account any argument above. Who are these "other users" who so need this template? It takes up a huge amount of architecture. No we don't need to compare the aire urbaine to a "metropolitan area" that is nothing similar!

Hardouin, You're quite obviously watching this page by the second so I don't see why you refuse to answer any dialogue before enforcing your edits. I refuse to get steamed about this - I don't need to. You have quite obviously crossed the line in a) an enforcement of your own POV, even in the face of those who question it and b) in total ignorance of any arguments they may make which c) shows a general disrespect for any other work outside of your own and when d) combined with to-the-letter reverts makes e) a pretty clear-cut case of page appropriation. ThePromenader 15:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of making your usual personal attacks, could you just tell me why it is appropriate to have a Chicagoland template, but not appropriate to have a Paris Metropolitan Area template? I don't understand why you always irk at any mention of the suburbs of Paris, as if there was nothing beyond the Périphérique but a desert. Your obsession with limiting Paris to twenty small arrondissements is just bizarre. Hardouin 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I really question your intent in using "your usual personal attacks". I question your contributions and your actions, not you. Perhaps you see this as a personal affront. Would you read my postings you would see that I do in no way limit discussion of Paris to its twenty arrondissements. This is misleading nonsense. I will not, on the other hand, support the rather rare and extreme and frankly rather silly POV that Paris is as big as its "aire urbaine". Your contributions seemingly purposely mix/blur the lines in this way; all I want is a bit of context so that the reader can understand! I see you have reverted yet again - and you still do not answer any of the presented arguments. this is really getting quite insane. ThePromenader 15:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that this kind of template has a very small information/noise ratio. It uses a lot of room on the page, but who will really use it? A link to a list located in another article would be better. What should refrain us from adding a template with the "25 biggest towns in the world" or "the 25 most important football clubs in Europe"? That would be of great interest to the people who are interested in big cities or in football (although I don't know if Paris belongs to that list ;) Thbz 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree for the use/noise bit - and I'd even toss the departemental template as well while we're at it. A simple "Departements of France" and "communes of the Paris Aire Urbaine" Category addition would be more than enough as far as the info factor is concerned. ThePromenader 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You are exagerating a bit. The most important football clubs are only minimally relevant to Paris, whereas the suburbs of Paris are very relevant to Paris. Templates are very common on Wikipedia, they are a shortcut to find articles more quickly. If I follow your logic, there is no need for a département template either, as we could just have a link to a list of départements instead. Please have a look at the Chicago article to see the template at the bottom of the article there. Also please have a look at the Los Angeles article to see the templates at the bottom of the page there. These are just a few examples. Hardouin 15:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I know there are precedents. Templates tend to proliferate and, IMHO, they make the articles less readable. But as long as they remain at the bottom of the article, they're not too annoying. Thbz 17:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was gonna say. It's at the bottom of the article, and it doesn't even use 1kb of the article. Hardouin 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

(Tapping Hardouin on shoulder, pointing upwards and downwards) - You have a few arguments to answer to before applauding here, sir. As for this tidbit, I would agree as well, but unfortunately I cannot be happy with an article categorised "not too annoying" : ) Let's not sacrifice quality to how tiresome one's defense is. ThePromenader 17:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Metropolitan area template logo

If this aire urbaine template is to stay - even temporarily - the following changes must be made:

1. The "mairie de Paris" logo must be removed. The aire urbaine is but an INSEE statistic, and this association is pure invention.
2. "Metropolitan Area" must be translated into "aire urbaine" with, at the most, "metropolitan area" in brackets afterwards. The aire urbaine compilation criteria bears very little similarities to any English-speaking "metropolitan area" so must be identified by its own apellation.

ThePromenader 09:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ThePromenader on the logo. This logo is very specific to the city of Paris. It should not be associated with the suburbs. If you want to replace it with something else, maybe a reduced version of http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:AUParis.png could be used. The word "metropolitan area" is not perfect, but at least it's linked to Aire urbaine, so it's less problematic than the logo. Thbz 09:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have answered aire urbaine bellow. As for the logo, you guys are just spending a lot of time and energy on very minor details. The logo is not meant to show any official symbol, it's just there to make the table a little bit less "dry". We could use the Ile-de-France flag instead, but then this flag is both quite ugly and totally unknown from most people, whereas a lot of people are familiar with the stylized white nave on blue and red symbol of Paris. I also note that in international context the suburbs of Paris always rally behind the banner of Paris. For instance the Paris Olympic Games where to be held for the most part on the territory of the commune of Saint-Denis, yet during the olympic bid it was the logo of Paris that was used. I also note that the Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Paris - Île-de-France uses the Eiffel Tower as its logo. So here again the suburbs are represented by a symbol that is proper to the city of Paris. Hardouin 13:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Hardouin, again you have answered nothing, you have but made vague assertions. A logo, an item whose very purpose is to be instantly recognized and associated with the entity it represents, is not a "minor detail". If you really only wanted to make this page "less dry" you would make or a pretty picture yourself - again your motives are quite clear. Change it or it goes.

Now if you don't mind, it's party time. Happy New year - Woohoo! ThePromenader 19:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The Eiffel tower would be OK, because it's a symbol of Paris as a whole (city + metropolitan area). But the Mairie de Paris logo is only appropriate for the city itself, and more precisely for its administration. You wouldn't say that the Mayor of Paris rules over the whole metropolitan area; so why use his logo for the same area? (and that logo was not used as the official Paris 2012 logo : ). By the way, I agree with you that the IdF logo sucks. Thbz 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the quite obvious axing it for its misleading logo, I severely question the real utility (and intention!) of this template. To the uninformed reader it suggests (trumpets!) that the "Paris Metropolitan Area" is real and important political entity - when in reality it is but an INSEE statistic. It is larger than the Departemental template, and placed above it. This template is worse than misleading: it is disinformation. Alone and at the bottom it may not be "too bothersome", but it is yet another (major!) nail supporting the far-from-reality "aire urbaine über alles" POV found throughout this page. We are here to compile elsewhere-published truths, not to invent and share pet theories. ThePromenader 13:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thbz, I wasn't talking of the official Paris 2012 Logo, I was refering to the logos associated with the olympic bid. If you check, the logo of the city of Paris frequently appeared in the bid documents, although the games were to be held in Saint-Denis. Also, talking of symbols, it came to my mind today that the police in the suburbs of Paris is using the blue nave with red and blue background as their official symbol, so you see this is one case where the suburbs of Paris are represented by the logo appearing in the template. Hardouin 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Bigger than" revert war with London

The (more than?) six-month-enduring revert war between the London and Paris pages is a direct result of the above "aire urbaine" ambiguity, and the same authour's trumpeting contribution to both. This issue certainly needs to be resolved. ThePromenader 14:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The so-called "revert war" is not a war at all, it is the repeated vandalism of one single anonymous user who is using different IP adresses. I have already refered the case to some admin, and I think they have already warned that user. Hardouin 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the administrator in question is in fact ignoring you. No matter who the anonymous "vandal" is; it's the changes made that are important: they are always the same. You never explain your reverts, make any arguments or cite sources so it is normal that this revert war continue. ThePromenader 15:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The normal process on Wikipedia is to warn people several times before they are blocked, so it will take some time before this user is finally blocked. But I know he/she's already on some watch lists. Hardouin 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

AGAIN you refuse to answer arguments. Cite your sources, and the war will end! ThePromenader 15:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The sources are already cited at the Economy of Paris article and talk page, but the anonymous user has never left any comment there. Hardouin 16:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What sources precisely, for what data? It is very clear that you two are trying to compare the incomparable. Even if you cited the IDF GDP instead of using an estimation of the "aire urbaine" GDP, London has no IDF equivilent; only its version of the "metropolitan area" whose reach is calculated on different criteria than the INSEE's thus incomparable to the Paris AU or IDF size or GDP. The silliness of the situation is unbelievable, yet is hard to grasp for those who know (or care) what you are talking about - very few.

My former argument affronts the credibility of your POV, the latter the very reason for its overwhelming existence here. The AU seems to be much ado for you but in reality, surtout for English speakers, it is much ado about nothing. If one not understanding reads he will accept until learning differently - This is what I dislike most about the "AU first" POV. ThePromenader 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to join in your crazy war of words, but just to give my 2 pennies - all the evidence I've ever read lists London as one of the top 3 metropolitan areas in terms of GDP per capita. I've read that in about 5 different places - London, Tokyo and NYC were the standard top 3. Don't mind me though... File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 17:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Today's Improvements

As far as I'm concerned the page has gone back almost precisely to its pre-holidays state, even to the badly-placed photos, yet with yet another unwanton addition not coincidently made by the same person who wrote most of the rest of this very POV page. I am getting quite tired of this cycle of unanswered dialog and then reverts to any changes previously announced. I'm a very tired as well of seeing that the only parts of the page really getting any attention are those modified while the rest of the article also needing improvement just sits there month after month unchanged. I'm extremely tired of knowing the reason this page is resitant to change, and tired of knowing that any attempts I do make at changing it will be reverted by one user, and tired of knowing the base reasons why that have nothing to do with the quality of Wiki. Most of all I am very tired of the overall muddledness, ugliness and incomprehensiblilty of this article, frustrated at the knowledge that any attempt to change it will be met with sluggish resistance, reverts and stalling, and almost angered that this tactic of tiring other contributors out to hold claim to a page is actually working. ThePromenader 01:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The Size of Paris

This article's lack of definition is becoming mushily overwhelming. Time to draw lines, and here's where I propose to do it.

• Administration. The Paris administration, in a "Paris" article, should go no farther than Paris and anything under city jurisdiction. Mention of course should be made of its role as chef lieu of the Île-de-France region, but any details thereof should go to the very-neglected île-de-France article. There exists no "greater Paris" administration or even organisation.
• Economy. This will of course speak of Paris' suburbs (as per the agglomération parisienne) but I find it difficult to speak of the Île-de-France's "grande couronne" industry in the same breath as Paris'. The only GDP statistics existing are for individual departments and the Île-de-France région, and should be distributed accordingly to their respective articles. The only credible way "aire urbaine" can be used here is in a brief description (and eve a sentence would do) of "the reach of Paris' economical influence".
• Population. Again of course this will include the agglomération parisienne. Since this is a Paris article, it is only logical that Paris' own population would be examined before we discuss its growth into the suburbs - this is even important and needed as it exposes the glaring disparities between the two. Again it is not very credible (voir unbelievable) to speak of the Île-de-France's outer reaches, and even less the entire aire urbaine, as Parisians per se. Again the only credible use of "aire urbaine" would be to briefly describe the commuter movement around the capital, as - this is important - far from all commuter activity described within is directly with the capital itself.

I think I can stop there as these are the points where precision is most important. Feel free to insert any thoughts.

ThePromenader 10:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Misuse of the "aire urbaine" (national and international)

Now don't get me wrong: I'm not against the use of the aire urbaine statistic: I'm against its misuse. I do understand its benefits - it is a perfect indicator of where the jobs are in a given economy - but this is to be superimposed upon a given administrative region and not to be taken as a region itself per se.

The INSEE-invented statistical unit - and that is all it is - is unique in its genre and cannot be compared to any English-speaking "metropolitan area", or any other similar statistical tool, unless the unit it is being compared to was calculated in exactly the same way. To even attempt to do so is naive and silly; to then publish this personal comparitive creation as fact would be fallacy. All of these following pages (on "urban areas" as well as "metropolitan areas") indicate at the head of their page the a) differences in definition "incomparability factor", (and just look at the riffraff some of their talk pages get):

• Largest_urban_areas_of_the_European_Union
• Largest_Cities_of_the_European_Union_by_population
• Largest_European_metropolitan_areas
• List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population

...yet in this page makes an extensive use of the "aire urbaine" translated directly to (and even linked to) its "metropolitan area" without even a whisper of this disparity. This sort of comparison is "apples to pears", misleading, disinformative and, above all, irrelevent. Conclusion: This sort of comparison cannot be presented, nor used, as fact.

In my flurries of typing I have overlooked the most obvious gem - this is the definition même of "Original research". One of the above pages cites "using" an official source, but none quote or copy any official source directly. The best source there is out there is a UN publication, and even this only concerns the world's "urban areas" (unité urbaine). One page cites this publication but the the statistics it uses are oddly not quite the same, and even more (at first glance) have been added. There in fact exists no quotable publication making comparisons in this way, and this especially for anything concerning "metropolitan areas".

As is this article itself, the aire urbain subject has escaped any real contestation because of its particularities - there are few people in English Wiki with article-quality knowledge about it. This is a sneaky sort of domination - no-one will catch on until someone "learns better" - and even then this person will have the chore of informing others (then them themselves) so that together they can create consus enough to repair all the damage!

This is not a question of just "Paris and its suburbs" - the "aire urbaine" is much larger than that, and if employed for subjects outside the statistical subjects it was made for, the impressions conclusions it produces will be false.

The Paris "aire urbaine" is but an INSEE statistic. There exist no Parisian "aire urbaine" administrative limits. Paris, unlike some of France's other larger cities, has even no mappable organisation englobing its "aire urbaine", so we can't very well go about inventing one. Even if one existed, it could in no way be a complete substitute for references to existing administrative divisions. Even in spite of this nonexistence, this switcharoo is already present here in many surreptitious ways.

Should the urge to "aire urbain"-ize everything remain tenacious or overwhelming, I suggest a new "Paris aire urbaine" article. If the "aire urbaine" one day should become an administrative or regional reality named "Paris", well, all this should be returned right here! Yet, as it stands, there is Paris, the Parisian agglomeration, the Île-de-France region, and the aire urbain is but a tool to describe what goes on within. Keep it clean, keep it true and surtout Keep It Simple. ThePromenader 11:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, starting a "Paris aire urbaine" article is a silly idea - it would almost precisely mirror the île-de-France article. ThePromenader 10:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: Happy New Year ! : ) ThePromenader 12:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen ThePromenader, can you make short messages and straight to the point instead of rambling along? I'm really tired of seeing you always trying to debunk this article weeks after weeks, and describe it as if it was the mother of all evils. Can you concentrate on some other subjects as well? FOR YOUR INFORMATION, check the Madrid article, the Barcelona article, the Frankfurt article, the Milan article, they all use the concept of metropolitan areas, and they even give numbers for these metropolitan areas, although the statistics offices of Spain, Italy, and Germany don't even define metropolitan area. In the case of Spain, I know the metropolitan area statistics come from a university research (which invented "áreas metropolitanas"), and these are certainly not strictly comparable with US metropolitan areas either. In the Frankfurt article, what they call "metropolitan area" is in fact a "Europäische Metropolregion" invented by the German statistics office, and certainly the definition is not exactly the same as US metropolitan areas. As for Milan the "metropolitan area" they refer to is in fact a "Città Regione" which I am quite sure is much larger than a US metropolitan area. So why don't you also go write lenghty messages on the talk pages of these cities. I find your obsession with Paris a bit weird.

Besides, what you wrote about aire urbaine is simply fallacy. True the definition of aire urbaine is not exactly the same as the definition of US metropolitan areas, but no two statiscal definitions will ever be exactly the same from country to country. Do you know that even GDPs are calculated differently from coutry to country? So when you hear on the radio that the US GDP grew 4%, and France grew 2%, if I follow your absurd logic we couldn't even compare these two because the US and French GDPs are not calculated exactly the same. What matters is that although exact definitions vary, by and large the GDPs of France and US are roughly defined the same, and so can be compared. Same about metropolitan areas. Exact definition are not strictly the same, but yet they are roughly comparable. So stop talking of apples and pears. Bear in mind that statistics always have a 5% margin of error, and the difference in definition falls in these 5%. Hardouin 13:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL and you don't like me rambling along : )

Alas, another "fog, distract and dissuade" defense. Read it again, sir; there is no "fallacy" nor "absurd logic" in anything I wrote. I am in no way trying to discredit the statistics of every statistical bureau (as you would pretend I am doing) but I am indeed discrediting your use of them. There is no need to compare with other articles; "other people are doing it" is not a mature argument and in itself does not justify a thing. Do they really compare different countries' "aire urbaine" GDP's on the radio? LOL - The product of entire countries perhaps. More fog IMHO. As for my argument, "Apples to pears" is about a precise summary as you can get.

This article is indeed a sore spot on Wiki as far as I'm concerned, and no, I will not leave it be until it improves. If you do not want other people to touch "your work" then best get around to improving it yourself, or at least start formulating coherent arguments in defense of it.

ThePromenader 15:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just be coherent with your logic, and go also write comments on the talk pages of Madrid, Barcelona, Frankfurt, and Milan for their use of the word "metropolitan area", otherwise you insistence on just the Paris article can only be interpreted as harassment. Hardouin`

You know, I just passed the most agreeable of evenings and it is precisely 5:11 am. In spite of whatever the time or state I am in I can hardly consider the above to be a valid argument. No I will not compare nor meddle where unwarrented; my attention is here where my knowldge is. My logic is quite clear - you cannot misuse statistics to create a nonexistent region. Period. Please let it end there. Thank you. ThePromenader 04:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

POV comment

<!-- Everything from here on is pure POV and will be cut if it is not changed. -->

I'm not sure this is really in the spirit of WP. Here are the sentences:

There are currently plans to create a metropolitan structure that would cover the city of Paris and some of its 
suburbs in order to increase administrative efficiency. The current socialist municipality of Paris is pushing 
forward the idea of a loose "metropolitan conference" (conférence métropolitaine), while some in the right wing 
opposition propose the creation of a more integrated Grand Paris (i.e. "Greater Paris"). This issue may be a 
central one in the next municipal election in 2008.

What is the POV here? I don't know the facts, but it seems the two opposing sides are represented and I'm not sure which one the author prefers. I would possibly change "pushing forward" to "arguing for" or "proposing" but other than that, what's the problem? Happy NY btw :) Stevage 19:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too, sir : )

The POV isn't about one side or another, it's the existence of the phrase itself: it was placed there is to "prove" a POV ("aire urbaine" statistic is more important that administrative regions) present throughout this page. I don't think wiki is a place to predict things that may happen - this proposition is just one of hundreds tossed about at the moment so I think even singling it out for posting here is a form of POV. There was a phrase around here somewhere mentioning Paris' lack of an inter-commune organisation (like those of Lyon, etc) - I think this would suffice as a quite clear and informative NPOV remark on the matter. I'm sorry that the issue is so complicated but it is captial to present it correctly.ThePromenader 20:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That "pure POV" insert does have an irate ring to it, doesn't it? I'll get rid of it. ThePromenader 20:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Stevage, I'm afraid this is yet another example of ThePromenader's harassment. Like I already experessed before, whatever I write is inherently wrong in his opinion, just because I am the author. And he refuses to address similar issues at the Madrid, Barcelona, Frankfurt, or Milan articles, which leads to really question his motives. Hardouin 00:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be silly. If you would like to make a formal complaint about me then do so. That aside, I certainly have been persistent as far as the state of this page is concerned, and it is your protectionism that is corrupting its improvement process. Perhaps if you would stop feeling that this page is "yours" then you would feel less "aggressed". I understand that, because of your linguistic background, you have been able to publish what you please on subjects little known to others and for that see little contest, but as far as this page is concerned this is no longer the case.

My motives are improving this page. I don't understand why I should complain about pages that I've never even seen. ThePromenader 10:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, and trust me I am not the only one, when I see a flaw in an article, I edit and correct it, and if I find the same flaw in another article, I also edit and correct the other article. Here you have spent weeks and weeks telling everybody how in your opinion it is misleading to use the concept of metropolitan area in the Paris article, and yet, when I show you that the concept of metropolitan area is used by other European cities, instead of going on their talk pages to tell them that they shouldn't use metropolitan areas, you simply ignore it. What are we to think? Spain doesn't even define metropolitan areas officially, and the German "Europäische Metropolregionen" are certainly not the same as US metropolitan areas. So why is it the case that you don't go tell them? I'm puzzled. Hardouin 12:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

(scratching head) What exactly are you getting at - you want me to set out on an "anti-aire urbaine" crusade? LOL (donning armour and white tunic with red-blazoned cross). The motives of your questioning are neither clear nor correct - it is the blemishes misused statistical terms cause here that concern me, not the data itself as you would insinuate by "used". And you should say "what am I to think". ThePromenader 12:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly make you more credible if you directed your heated criticism towards other "flawed" city articles as well, instead of just Paris. Hardouin 12:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you hold with the accusatory adjectives please? My ciriticism only becomes heated when you ignore it, which unfortunately is most all of the time. As for my "credibility", I have lived since fourteen years in Paris. I cannot say the same for the other cities you cite. ThePromenader 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Economy Correction

The recent Economy section correction (thanks Thbz) drew my attention to this little tidbit:

The metropolitan area of Paris is one of the engines of the global economy. In 2003 the GDP of the metropolitan area of Paris as calculated by INSEE and Eurostat was €448,933 million, or US$506.7 billion (at real exchange rates, not at PPP).

...this is an error that has been changed and pointed out many times before yet this phrase always returns to this form. There exist no INSEE "aire urbaine" GDP statistics, only GDP statistics for the île-de-France - the reference link (INSEE) even points to this truth. And again (and again), you won't find the aire urbaine statistic applied to anything outside of the individual salary/population movement categories it was made for. It is a reference, not a region.

Again I question the logic - and the need - of citing imprecise comparisons such as these. ThePromenader 19:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not an error. The metropolitan area of Paris is almost exactly the same as the Ile-de-France région. When economists talk about the economy of the Paris metropolitan area (or agglomération parisienne if you prefer), they use Ile-de-France data. This is so much true that the economic development agency of the Ile-de-France regional council official call themselves "Paris Region Economic Development Agency", check here: [4] Hardouin 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a quite obvious attempt to pull the wool over uninformed eyes - every point in your argument is wrong.

1. "Almost the same" is not a mature and logical argument. We are here to re-publish precisions.
2. If "Economists" use île-de-France data (as that's all there is), you should too. The rest is just wily fog - "when economists talk about the Paris metropolitan area" - here you are putting your own words in their mouths. This is quite clear in the last note.
3. The "agglomération parisienne" is no bigger than its "unité urbaine" (agglomeration = "built-up" or "stuck together") extending just outside of the île-de-France's petite couronne. This is much smaller than the "aire urbaine" area as the map clearly shows.
4. Now this part is just funny:

L’Ile-de-France est un des pôles économiques les plus dynamiques au monde. C’est aussi la porte d’entrée incontournable pour accéder au marché européen de l’Europe des 25.

La région Ile-de-France est composée de 8 départements. Elle accueille 19% de la population française et concentre 29% de la richesse nationale.

La région offre une main d’œuvre hautement qualifiée, grâce à la présence de nombreux établissements d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche.
Source: www.paris-region.com

...this is the French version of the site you cite. Where do you see "aire urbaine" in all the above? In looking between the pages it is quite obvious that "Paris Region = île-de-France region." This is exactly what you've done for this entire page - you've purposely misinterpreted information as a means of supporting the theory you impose upon unsuspecting English Wiki readers.

I almost have to thank you because you yourself have provided proof enough to found the above accusation. Until now I have felt quite silly going on and on about details that probably few other English Wiki readers are aware of - or care about - but misinformation is misinformation. Perhaps now one can understand the vehemence of my criticism - we cannot just "let" someone spread pet theories presented as truth in the spirit of "let's just get along" - or in other words, let him do it because he wears us down. Information is education, and this should be taken quite seriously.

If you would like to tend to the much-neglected Île-de-France page you can go on all you want about the Île-de-France region's might. If you would like to speak of Paris, speak of it and all that depend directly upon it, but don't try to use simple statistic (and misuse thereof) to supplant a) existing and quite findable administrative regions that Paris is only a small part of and b) an entire political and administrative system that itself makes little mention or use of the aire urbaine statistic.

Saying that that Paris' aire urbaine is the city of Paris and trying to bend a whole article to this end is just silly fallacy. If this was just error this would be fine, but enforcing a theory with uncitable information and very selective arguments (placed in an overall purposeful ignorance of reality and arguments against) is a worse crime, and over all, an act of self-promotion that is not at all in the spirit of Wiki.

This has to end. Either you cite precise and published sources, Hardouin, or all this page contains must be replaced with more credible information. Should you continue to "stall and protect" discredited text, I'll have to resort to activating the last level of mediation, and this will bring full attention to you and all your doings. After over six months of this it's not the proof your misconduct that's lacking. Enough is enough.

ThePromenader 12:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye "Aire Urbaine", Hello "agglomération parisienne"

Don't be surprised if things change here in the coming days - most of this will be to moving or removing already-indicated-yet-unchanged unfounded and unsourced data. Nothing drastic though: I think rephrasing will be enough to turn the aim of this article back to where it is supposed to be - the city of Paris - and give every element dependant upon on it its place and proper marching order.

"Agglomération parisienne" (or unité urbaine if you will - very translatable to "Parisian agglomeration") best describes Paris and the unbroken area of growth directly dependant upon it, and this is where our attention should lay. Since people will be expecting an article on Paris, each section should logically begin with information 1) concerning Paris then 2) including its agglomeration if the need be and 3) moving beyond if there is call to.

For example, "Area" would spread across all three categories as 1) Detailed 2) description 3) passing mention of influence. Population would be about the same. Economy is an exception as for it Paris serves but for head offices of factories well to the city outskirts - the French Wiki Paris page just says "Voir Économie de l'Île-de-France." I think it is fine here, albeit minus the "metropolitan area" claims founded on neither fact nor source.

Every publication and encyclopedia I have ever read on Paris (in French and English) speaks of Paris as described above. Since our role here is to re-publish information to the better access and understanding of all, why don't we cut down on the ambiguities, jargon and trumpeting claims a bit to publish some fact corresponding to those a reader will find should he want to read further elsewhere. KIS and Peace.

THEPROMENADER 12:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you have single-handedly decided that you will transform yet again this article, and you dismiss everything that is written in it as rubbish. I find your attitude profoundly irritating and counter-productive. Hardouin 00:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Large parts of this article are single-handedly founded on a theme of a theory based on nothing fact or sources, so apply what adjectives you will to this sort of work. Your resistance has only motivated me do the research for concrete evidence founding my original incredulence, and you yourself helped to debunk the theory you've been imposing since so long. I think it is this that most irritates you. I don't know what you call "productive," but it sure isn't those three strikes at the top of this page. THEPROMENADER 09:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you would like to get about to making progress yourself, how about taking care of your own (more recent) writ? Some of it is pure speculation; although you have been informed of this by one other than (in addition to) myself, as usual, it sits there unchanged. This is the very antithesis of "productive". THEPROMENADER 09:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

All demographic, geographic, and economic data in this article are based on serious sources, so stop saying it's based on nothing fact or sources. That's what I find irritating. Hardouin 14:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"It is not the data itself, it is your MISUSE thereof that is at fault."

THEPROMENADER 16:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

TP, before rewriting everything yet again, please tell us specifically what is wrong and why it needs to be rewritten. I'm not really convinced that there's a problem with the whole greater Paris/Paris distinction. This article is clearly about both - it doesn't stop at some imaginary line around Paris. Also, is there anything wrong with using "Greater Paris"? Let's not try and come up with any neologisms - Greater Paris is easily understandable and widely used. Stevage 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Stevage, I won't be re-writing everything, perhaps re-read the first part of original post in this section. I think I explained what I would like to change - looks like you're "scanning" : ). What do you mean by "greater Paris" ? To most this is the "Paris agglomeration", an area in no way the "metropolitan area" imposed here. This is what I aim to clarify. THEPROMENADER 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, if I just leave this open-ended we'll just be led into the details again. I suggest you have a look at the other Paris pages, particularily the French Wiki Paris page, and at any encyclopaedia you can get a hold of - and we'll use the same terms you find there.

Let's leave the social aspects of this aside for a moment: it's the facts and facts alone that count and remain here. Since the very beginning I have contested the selective choice and misleading presentation of the facts this article contains, but I don't think you'll fully understand what I've been going on about until you do the research and uncover the wrongs and the rights for yourself. If we limit our edits to a "let's just get along" standard we'll never progress, and we'll have to be happy with a Paris page that supplants the île-de-France article.

The fact that most of this page is written and protected by one person complicates the editing process greatly. This problem will have to be overcome sooner or later. THEPROMENADER 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have begun to make corrections - find below the details of what I have done.

• The term "metropolitan area". - This term has definitions and uses so varied and contested that I think it is best to avoid using it altogether. I agree now with the "commuter belt" consensus - this is exactly what the aire urbaine is, although I do have my reservations about its rather indirect "communes that have commuters who commute with communes that are "drawn to Paris"" inclusion criteria. Still, this can do no harm if it is explained correctly and used in context. (A clarification: "Communes drawn to Paris" is, as far as I can see, Paris' "unité urbaine" or the "Paris agglomeration")
• Administration. The purely speculative election phrase has gone - although it should not have been I who removed it. The "plans" phrase stays for now, although it is both speculation and misleading, as propositions do not become plans until they are voted. In addition to that I can find no "conférence métropolitaine" or "grand Paris" proposition covering an area greater than the peitite couronne. I will see to this more thoroughly when I find some solid sources.
• Economy. For the final time, there is no "metropolitan area GDP. The only GDP figures existing concern départements and régions. To say that statistics are "not available" when they in fact do not exist is worse than misleading; this problem concerns also the Economy page written by the same author - I myself provided a (since removed) reference attesting to this. I also took the liberty of removing the "above" phrases - the 'hit-list' reference is concise and more than enough. "Metropolitan area of Paris" was repeated (often needlessly) seven times in the "size" section alone.

• • Although in terms of population the Paris metropolitan area is only approximately the 20th largest metropolitan area in the world, its GDP can be estimated as the fifth or sixth largest in the world ^[5].
    I really couldn't see what to do with the above phrase: it is "apples to oranges" and factually untrue ("aire urbaine" GDP again) - so preserved only the latter half. The UN "list of metropolitan areas", contested as it is, lists Paris' population to its île-de-France région, and anything outside of this source is non-existent and original research. Added to the earlier "metropolitan area GDP" mistruth, the result is clearly beyond speculative and misleading.
  • I of course left the last phrase of the "area" section basically as it is, because it is about the only place in this entire article where "aire urbaine" is applied correctly - the workforce activiities and its movement around Paris. The term, all the same, must be explained clearly, and here "commuter belt" works perfectly.
  • The "Sectors" section is essentially unchanged as again the "aire urbaine" is applied correctly here. I moved the "Tourism" phrase to a more suitable spot - instead of removing it for its singularity and the fact that it was placed to spite earlier edits - yet I cannot find the number indicated here. Sources must be cited for this section. Yet even then I don't agree with this phrase because of course Paris' tourism is wee in comparison to the huge industrial expanse of the entire île-de-France region - put this way we wouldn't think it was important to the city itself. Isn't it? And once again I had to separate aire urbaine and île-de-France economy matters.

I hope my explanations are clear enough. I think this is enough for today. THEPROMENADER 11:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Near the end of my editing I noticed commuter belt redirects to metropolitan area. LOL! All the same, there is no reason why we cannot use the term aire urbaine as it is - this would identify it for its uniqueness, link it directly to its explanatory page and eliminate all confusion with its much-denser and misleading English metropolitan area faux ami counterpart. English readers know they are reading a "French subject", and of course will understand. Let's KIS. THEPROMENADER 12:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ThePromenader's personal attacks

I have just received a message on my talk page from ThePromenader, and I would like to copy its content here, so everybody can form their own opinion about ThePromenader's behavior. Personally I think threats and calling names is really crossing the red line. Hardouin 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Paris page bis bis bis

---

Hardouin, I've really at the end of my patience with your "involvement" in the Paris page. It's obvious that you don't care a fig about anything other than placing and protecting your personal POV, and this is glaringly obvious in the page's content and its revert-filled history. You have enjoyed a period of domination and free reign thanks to the lesser knowledge of English contributors (and the lack of patience in others) for the 'rubriques' that you have choosen to deal in, but this period for you has come to an end. You will, please, from here on, allow the Paris page to improve. THEPROMENADER 16:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin: The normal Wiki practice, when one disapproves of the actions of another editor, is to leave him a message on his personal talk page to save him embarrassment. Yet you insist on posting it here - fine. I even fixed it up for you. Above I speak in a tone I would not use here, but there is nothing personal attack in any of the above. If you need translation: "involvement" has a "overly-preoccupied" double connotation to it; the "has come to an end" part means "you are no longer alone in having in-depth knowledge of the subjects on which you choose to write (namely Paris)". The "names-calling" part is just added imagination - I"m calling you out but I'm not calling you anything. As for the POV part, I have (with your help) made my case (and your POV) clear in the second-last post; I suggest you read it again.

In the immediate I would like you to desist on trying to spread insinuations about the "wrong" my doings: It's weasley. Again, should you like to make a formal complaint against me, by all means please do.

In the meantime, stop your wholesale reverts to good-faith edits, and stop imposing your own writ and additions in their stead. And again, clean yourself what you've been asked to, or you can't complain when others do. THEPROMENADER 21:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

ThePromenader's economy edits

I see no reason for replacing "metropolitan area of Paris" with "Ile de France région" in the economy section. Nobody, outside of France, knows what Ile de France is, whereas everybody understand the meaning of "metropolitan area of Paris". Even inside of France there are many people who are not very familiar with Ile de France, and most people refer to it as the "région parisienne", or RP. Even the regional administration of Ile de France officially refer to Ile de France as the "Paris Region" in their English publications (check [6]). ThePromenader, you are trying to split hair in four, and you make things less easily comprehensible by average people. By and large the Ile de France région and the metropolitan area of Paris are the same thing. At the 1999 census, 99.003% of the inhabitants of Ile de France lived inside the aire urbaine of Paris, and 97.03% of the inhabitants of the aire urbaine of Paris lived inside Ile-de-France. In other words, the Ile de France région and the metropolitan area of Paris are almost exactly the same thing. I'm not inventing these numbers, they come from the 1999 French census, check yourself. So can you please stop spliting hair in four? Hardouin 13:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me - I see very good reasons for replacing this term and I have stated them such, ahead of time and provided sources proving them to boot. You had one week to a) fix your own mess and b) give me good reason to not make any changes and you did not - in fact you did nothing but watch the page. Again you pounce and pull a wholesale revert - and you call the writ above an "explanation" for this? Do you really consider yourself best-placed to know what foreigners know about other countries? "By and by the same" is your POV - you cannot even find any sources to found your far-flung claims, you have been debunked and exposed many times, yet still you insist. Will you stop with the "you say the numbers are bunk" lame biscuit? You take the numbers from one place and a name from another and slap them together as one - this is wrong. And again you cite that silly site? Let me refresh your quite convenient short memory here. Even on this site, Paris region == Île-de-France as you can full well see. "Metropolitan area" is not a suitable alternative to the name of a well defined, well-known, and little-changing administrative region that the very statistics you cite are based upon. And even in light of this, where have you ever, ever used the term "Paris region", and how on earth can this justify using "metropolitan area" everywhere instead of the terms everyone uses and understands?

Either you provide sources speaking of Paris' economy and administration (ou de Paris tout court) in the terms you insist on using here - and not the many other pages of your own writ as you have tried with other contributors - or you have no justification at all for reverting. You already don't.

THEPROMENADER 14:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ever since your got involved with this article, you have had this obsession with sharply separating the city of Paris from its suburbs. I have just explained above that the Ile de France region and the aire urbaine of Paris are so nearly the same (99%) as to be considered the same by most economists and demographers, but you don't pay attention to what I write. Please check the 1999 census. Please understand that with your edits, someone not familiar with France who is checking this article gets the idea that a- the city of Paris is a small city of 2 million inhabitants, and b- the city of Paris is part of a much larger region called Ile de France, much like Barcelona is part of a larger region called Catalonia, or Sydney is part of New South Wales. You are totally misleading readers by doing that. If they read you, they will have no clue that Paris is actually a metropolis of 11 million inhabitants, one of the 20 largest in the world.

I have singled the above out, as here you admit and expose your POV theme precisely. The above is only your opinion and you have not, and can not, find any citable factual sources sharing this purely personal and little-shared POV. Paris' aire urbaine' statistical area has 11 million inhabitants, but this statistical area is not the city of Paris, nor Paris as a city, and you have never, and nor will you, provide sources and sources enough to prove that your POV is a factual, docmumented and widely-accepted reality. THEPROMENADER 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

They will have no clue that the Ile de France region is not something like Catalonia or New South Wales, but it is small and corresponds almost entirely to the metropolitan area of Paris. Can we stop with this obsession that Paris ends at the Péripherique? Hardouin 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I will no longer play your games. You are using every tactic imaginable to stall, waylay and discourage any improvement to this page not your own. I am tired of your selective and misrepresentative choice of facts, selective or non-existent arguments to defend them, and when you have no viable defence, trying fog, distraction and denigration. Again you try to put words in other people's mouths: I never once spoke of where I wanted Paris to "end" (find it!) but I did say, and a-many a time, that I knew for damn sure where it didn't. If I really thought as you say above, I would just cut everything Île-de-France altogether. So again: nice try.

You're very opinionated and very pushy about making absolutely sure that you're heard, but an opinon must have grounds to have worth. I came, I saw, I doubted, I researched, I asked you to change, you did not, I changed, you reverted. And again. And again. Even after I cite sources and you find none. Yet still you think your opinions, although proven groundless, must still be heard above all others? What's more, Wiki isn't opinion, it's FACT.

Either you cite sources proving that the terms you choose to force on Wiki readers are indeed monnaie courant for speaking of Paris and its Economy, or you will be happy with a Paris page that speaks of these in terms written and used most everywhere and understood by a majority. Read the bleeding French Paris page.Your POV is not above these, so if you have no proof to the better you have not choice but to drop it. So drop it.

THEPROMENADER 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you are just being childish. Three reverts in one day and not a coherent argument or valid citation in sight. If you want to defend against change then go about it in a reasonable way. Answer the above, provide sources, and convince me. In the meantime, desist. THEPROMENADER 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Tactics"? Trying to "stall" and "waylay"? Could you please drop your warlike tone? This is out of place. Can you explain why when Stevage or other users post comments, even if you disagree with them you always answer their messages in a correct manner, but whenever you disagree with me you are always extremely aggressive.

You and I now have a long history - you claim to have a short memory, I don't. Others listen to reason and make improvements and don't have a history of wholesale reverts. THEPROMENADER 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As for sources, I have already cited lots of sources, and all figures are referenced, but for some reason it's not enough for you. One more time I strongly recommend you (and everybody interested in this) check Encyclopaedia Universalis, the trusted French encyclopedia. Let me quote the starting sentence of their Paris economy section. That's Encyclopaedia Universalis, Edition 2002, Paris entry, page 393:

Paris, economic capital

Apparently, it is easy to measure the weight of Paris, economic capital: Île-de-France accounts for 29% of the population of the country, but also for 5 million jobs, 38% of white collars [...] etc.

So as is clear, Paris is here equated to Île-de-France. Encyclopaedia Universalis also recommend several books on the subject.

• - Yes, the encyclopedie Universalis equates Paris' Economy with the île-de-France. I do this to the letter in my new edit, so why do your revert? While you're at it, why don't you read the rest of the article (of which your quote is pulled only from the "Paris, captiale économique" introduction whose last paragraph begins "the reality is more complex") to "Une notion dont le contenu à évolué" and page 394's "Paris, capitale de l'agriculture française" just for laughs. Although interesting, none of this justifies taking Île-de-France statistics and saying that they're the aire urbaine's. Neither does it place Paris' limits at its aire urbaine. THEPROMENADER 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Among others, I recommend in particular:

La Métropole parisienne, système productif et organisation de l'espace, by F. Damette and P. Beckouche, Paris 1990.

• - Looks like a book on the aire urbaine. I have nothing against the aire urbaine itself; of course it has its function and uses. Yet I don't see how this serves as a reference proving that Paris is its aire urbaine, and I don't see how this justifies saying that the île-de-France's GDP figures were taken from the aire urbaine census. THEPROMENADER 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the lecture of this and others will help you realize that economists equate Île-de-France with the metropolitan area of Paris. You can also have a look at the following quote, from Jacques Lévy, a reputed professor of geography:

"Osons le dire, l'aire métropolitaine de Paris, dont le périmètre Ile-de-France offre une approximation honorable, est une ville." (you can find the source here)

• - This is a quote. Of someone's opinion. It is nothing more than that. THEPROMENADER 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, you can also have a look at Demographia here. As you can see, Demographia also equate Paris Metropolitan Area with Ile de France. I note that Demographia is a widely used reference on Wikipedia. So stop saying that there are no sources. And drop the warlike tone. Hardouin 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopaedia you cite, and most every publication in existence, uses the Île-de-France region as a reference and boundary. Yet you take this and try vainly to found it with the proposition of another and a book on another subject. And there is nothing at all official about the website you cite. Your disassociated reasoning is again not what one could call a coherent arguement.

The aire urbaine does indeed represent an economical reach, but the GDP figure you cite was not taken within this area. Period. And "Almost the same" is neither a mature or justifiable argument. So until the INSEE starts compiling GDP's for aire urbaines, or until the aire urbaine itself becomes a city or rergion per se, you will be happy using existing boundaries and the statistics corresponding. Anything outside of this is beyond POV; it is pure invention. Stop trying to make apples look as oranges.

If you would read my writ before knee-jerk replacing it with the version of this article you keep so carefully on your hard drive, you may notice that I did indeed use the aire urbaine activity, and, what's more, used it in its proper and provable context. This in addition to other overall improvements. In light of this and the above, your reverting is once again (again!) inexcusable.

I live in the city this article is about, and have done so for a long time. I have read much about all its workings, and studied much on its history. Never in all my experience or readings have I ever come across a publication speaking of Paris as this one does. This is what drew my attention in the first place. You have over the past year (or more) managed to rewrite almost the totality of the page into your own POV, uncontested because of your knowledge "over" most other English Wikipedians. Again, as I said before (before!) : this time has come to an end. I see you, know your propos is invention and dead wrong so I call you out. And I will continue to do so until it is corrected, and that by anyone at all.

Even making me waste my time to write this is a tactic. You use any tactic within the book (save wholesale reverting) to waylay resistance: ignoring propositions, avoiding dialogue, reverting, ignoring the arguments of the person you reverted, then insinuatingly denigrating him should he pose any real resistance. In short, you tire people out. And you repeat this cycle as often as it takes for you and "your page" to be left alone again. It is not without reason that there are so few contributors to this page. Here as well I call you out.

I have shown a quite naïve and boundless faith through all my postings in the human ability to reason, but here this case is lost. If you would like to state your case here, fine, but answering to vague and incoherent "justifications" for wholesale reverts is no longer a question. I will be doing things "by the book" from here on. If there is further reverting this page will be getting the attention it deserves, as attention it needs.

THEPROMENADER 09:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What a lovely thing to come home to. A fifth revert in 24 hours without a letter of the faulted text changed and still no factual sources. I am totally sick of this. None of the sources Hardouin has ever cited speaks of a "metropolitan aread GDP" nor an "aire urbaine GDP', and the links he places above are not sources - they are quotes; save the first which only confirrms my île-de-France writ, they are singular expressed opinions and in no way reality. Paris is not its aire urbaine and you have never given any sources statiing this either; this is your personal POV shared by no factual publication. Opinons are NOT fact.

This is my last warning: provide factual sources founding your claims, sources we can verify and use ourselves as a reference. Should you again place your pride and POV above fact and revert yet again, you will have a shiny new badge which will only bring more attention to your page appropriation and imposed fallacies. Let this page improve: Wiki is for repeating FACT, not shouting down others with OPINION.

THEPROMENADER 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Threats, and more threats, that's all you do. I have spent months and months showing you sources and citations, but you pick only those that are convenient for you, and call everything else POV. Spliting hair in four as you constantly do in your edits is not a way to inform people. As people say in France (since you love French citations), il ne faut pas que l'arbre cache la forêt. Hardouin 21:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the phrases you cite apply to the present situation. No, not "threats", "calls to reason" that you ignore. Still no factual references. And your many reverts too - seven in two days! And not a letter of your original writ changed. Of course I get angry and call you out. You show numbers but you don't give them their proper title or context and you warp them to your POV. Not only this, you refuse to answer to it.

"Splitting hairs" is always what you accuse people of when you can't talk them into the ground so that they'll leave you and your page alone. Do you already forget the Mairie de Paris logo?

Wear your new badge proudly. THEPROMENADER 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation Filed.

I think we have gone around in circles long enough. I have other Wiki projects and pages that I would like to tend to, and this 5 months of "rant and reason" has been taking up too much of my time better spent there (and elsewhere). I have just applied for Mediation.

This dispute is centred on one main issue for the moment, but in reality goes beyond that. But first things first.

1. More than half of this article is presently the work of one person, user Hardouin. This would be fine on its own. He has yet to disclose this himself.
   
   
2. The same author has made the "metropolitan area" a central theme for this article, and insists that everything within it is Paris and should be discussed as the city of Paris itself. The reality is that Paris aire urbaine, for which "metropolitan area" is a quite misleading translation, is at present but a statistical area created by the INSEE to determine worker movement around a central city. This statistical area is unique in its determination (it includes indirect commuting and encompasses an enormous area, 45% of which is farmland).
   
   For this the aire urbaine cannot feasibly be compared with denser metropolitan areas with any accuracy. The introduction to the metropolitan area page itself makes this quite clear. This page is in a "bigger than you" revert war with the London page because these controversial ambiguities.
   
   Hardouin insists on writing that INSEE GDP figures for Paris' Île-de-France (verifiable here) belong to the "Paris metropolitan area economy". No such thing exists, and for that Hardouin can cite no source for his claims. Yet instead of saying that no economy numbers have ever been compiled for this "Paris metropolitan area", he insists on saying that they are "not available". There exist no political or jurisdictional entities based on the aire urbaine statistic, and no encyclopaedias, even French, cite the "aire urbaine" when speaking of Paris. Just for note: references both English and French speak of the Île-de-France as a limit for Paris' economy and the "Paris agglomeration" (a "built-up" area roughly one-third the Île-de-France [7]) when speaking of the extent of Paris' population. The French Paris article mentions the aire urbaine once in passing. I have nothing against the aire urbaine statistic, but it must be used for what it is and in context - as I have done in my editing to the economy section found here in case it has again since been reverted.
   
   
3. Even this would be fine should the above user be open to reason, but he refuses to engage in any dialogue when contributors post improvement propositions for consensus. I did this over 5 months ago, and after a long wait (and almost no change to the page itself) posted that I was going ahead with my rewrites. Hardouin then warned me [8] against "massive reverts from other Wikipedians". To date Hardouin is the only 'reverter'. This "ignore dialogue/watch page/pounce/revert" cycle has been going on ever since.
   
   
4. After around three months I filed for Third opinion and Request for Comment, and when this didn't end (begin) in anything sought consensus and edit help with the page's original contributors. Along the way I met a few people who I have asked for help as well. Yet this page has only in part changed to the better as newcomers have been submitted to the "revert scheme" as well. Myself I was reverted when rewriting the History section, which is a subject my speciality, cut in half from its former size thanks to another Wikipedian - what followed is still above in the talk page, a total revert for "errors" which were in fact "other details", and even these could have been simply "corrected". Instead Hardouin re-inserted his own text once again, this time leaving parts of it edited, but at the end it just became another revert war. Over nothing.
   
   
5. In all, the general disdain and "revert" Damocles sword hanging over any edit not "acceptable" to the author of most of this page corrupts the editing process. It can also be completely maddening, and I have blown my stack more than once. Yet only once have I resorted to anything "personal attack", although Hardouin accuses me of it all the time. What also sours any dialogue is his insinuating here and to others that I am some sort of "bad person" (for many vague reasons), and even going behind my back to edit a plan I made and contributed. I'll hold the adjectives for this sort of behaviour. In all, I dislike the "personal" in all this - what should count is just the facts - we are here to re-publish knowledge to the better use of others, and once we leave our writ, that's it.

I don't know what to suggest. I have done everything 'by the book' and wasted hours trying to reason. My edits, like all of them, were in good faith and based on fact. There is no excuse for this kind of protectionism. THEPROMENADER 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As usual, you are misrepresenting things. Do you forget that other users, such as David.Monniaux or Stevage, have complained or criticized some of your edits? So stop presenting this as if it was all the fault of one person. If you don't like the fact that people edit your edits, then don't write on Wikipedia. Here nothing is copyrighted. If I find what you write misleading, it is only normal that I edit your edits. And so do others. Instead of having constructive discussion, you always burst into anger and lenghty messages. It is very hard to have a calm and cool discussion of things with you. I have more than once experienced that. No matter what I say, it seems you are always against it, just because it's me. I'm not trying to portray myself as a victim, but your attitude leads one to wonder, to say the least. Hardouin 01:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"As usual", I misrepresent nothing. As usual you have totally ignored every argument and introduced new distractions.
All the same:

• You two examples you cite: the first when I was a newbie, a situation that I ended up correcting myself, and it is from this that I began "waiting for consensus"; the second was a disgruntled reprimand that ended in explanation and apology.
  • And to refresh your conveniently short memory, the second instance ended in the "complainer" complimenting. Read it yourself just above. Ignoring this, you of course destroyed any improvement by reverting in place of your own writ once again, "justifying" this through a new "wear 'em down" campaign. THEPROMENADER 09:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• This is the fault of one person. No other user reverts as you do, and you yourself have in detail been called out on this by the same contributor you say "complained and criticised" about me. - it's all in the archives.
• You cannot "'know best" when you cannot factually cite any citable reference in existence (even a web page) speaking of Paris as you do.
• It is normal that you edit my edits, but it is not normal that you constantly wholesale revert to your own unchanged writ.
• "Misleading" does not mean "against my POV". I take my facts from books and provide sources.
• You have never tried to engage in any pre-emptive discussion of any sort.
• My lengthy posts are my making sure you see reason, and you amplify their length by obliging reply to new "details" you introduce to fog your "justification" for a total revert. The history section is a perfect example of this.
• The very purpose of your above post is to portray me as a "bad guy" and yourself as a victim.

Leave anything I add to this page where it is until this dispute is resolved.

THEPROMENADER 08:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Contested Content; POV

This is a revision of a first much more elaborate version found here

What is a "Metropolitan area"?

The "metropolitan area" statistical concept is relatively new. To date it is the most accurate way of mapping a core agglomeration's influence on its outer regions through charting commuter movement between 'core' places of employment and habitation. Inclusion criteria and definitions for areas bearing this name differ greatly between countries using it, and a single worldwide standard has yet to be created.
THEPROMENADER 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What is an "Aire urbaine?"

The French INSEE equivalent of the above statistical unit, the aire urbaine[9], uses an indirect inclusion criteria that makes it much different from its North American counterpart - in addition to counting commuters who travel directly from the city centre, it also counts commuters who commute to other areas that commute with the 'core'.

The completed aire urbaine is named for its 'core' agglomeration, or in this case, Paris. Thus the 'Paris metropolitan area", or "aire urbaine de Paris", as a statistical region embraces, across sometimes vast expanses of land, distant rural communes (counties) to encompass an land surfact that is 45% agriculture. Because of their exreme differences, the North American-understood metropolitan area term cannot be applied 'as is' to the Paris aire urbaine without a note of explanation.
THEPROMENADER 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How does the "aire urbaine/metropolitan area" affect Paris?

For the time being, it doesn't. The Paris aire urbaine (metropolitan area) is still but a statistical method applied to Paris, and not the other way around. It has no administrative function, organisational function, or even inter-communal association. It is a term little used today, but some transportation organisations have begun to refer to it, and politicians are only just beginning to catch on to its real analytical value. To date, outside of the INSEE statistical agency itself, no organisation calculates its data on Paris' aire urbaine (metropolitan area). The calculation standard is still administrative divisions: communes, départements and régions.
THEPROMENADER 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What does the "aire urbaine/metropolitan area" have to do with this article?

Too much. Everything. As detailed below, this article's recurring theme is that "Paris is as big as its metropolitan area". This is not only a view shared by next to none, but is totally unsupported by any factual resources - and certainly not by web-sites of official agencies and organisations.

The aire urbaine (metropolitan area) is calculated in a way completely independent of any existing administrative boundary save communes, but by coincidence it covers an area roughly equalling Paris' Île-de-France administrative région. In this article, this coincidence has been used as an excuse to transfer any and all data taken from the Île-de-France région to the metropolitan area title, even statistics. The term "Greater Paris" generally refers to the Île-de-France, as does the term "Paris region", and these too have been either replaced or equated to a "Paris metropolitan area." The goal here seems to be to create an image of a vast "Paris metropole" whose thriving importance supplants even the role of administrations.

This is factually and conceptually plain wrong. No citable reference in existence, and again, no official web-sites, makes this sort of comparison.
THEPROMENADER 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So how big is Paris then?

Paris is small; one can cross it by foot in two hours. It has a very marked physical and political border with its neighbouring suburbs. Once over the péripherique, one is no longer in Paris, and is in a commune of a completely other name with its own municipal government. What's more, it isn't even in the same département as Paris. In fact, Paris is united administratively with even its bordering suburbs through only the régional Île-de-France which itself englobes eight departments including Paris. This is a problem for sure, but it is reality.

Yet to limit this article to these limits for all subjects would be folly. For matters of population growth, the Encyclopaedia Britannica (2006) and Encyclopédie Universalis (2002) speak to the limits of the Paris agglomeration in their respective "Paris" articles - that is to say to the limits of its conurbation or "built up" area. For things Economy both references speak of production throughout the Île-de-France. Both encyclopaedias use precisely the terms stated here. Since we are expected to cite sources, I would only expect that we do the same.

If we were to stretch beyond these limits for all subjects (as this article does), we would be writing an article on either the Île-de-France or the Paris metropolitan area. Both contain Paris, but neither are Paris.
THEPROMENADER 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we make everyone happy?

To speak no further outwards from Paris than the limits of the Parisian agglomeration for all things save Economy, with all areas mentioned named as they are in their references. I see no harm at all in adding "metropolitan area" with an explanation as a brief description of commuter activity around the capital, much like in the French Wiki fr:Paris article. Simple, non?

THEPROMENADER 15:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested reading:
- "Suburbia stays in the Neighbourhood - the lack of Sprawl in France" - Haya El Nasser (USA Today, Wed. 1-5-2000).

Plan of the "urban sprawl" that supposedly justifies the "metropolitan area" appelation making it comparable in area to NY or London:
- L'occupation du sol en Île-de-France - from the official Île-de-France website.