Talk:Paris/archive 03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Paris Talk Archives
Main Paris talk page Talk:Paris/structure_discussion Talk:Paris/archive_01 Talk:Paris/archive_02 Talk:Paris/archive_03 Talk:Paris/archive_04 Talk:Paris/archive_05 Talk:Paris/archive_06 Talk:Paris/archive_07 Talk:Paris/archive_08 Talk:Paris/archive_09 Talk:Paris/archive_10 Talk:Paris/archive_11

This is Archive 3 of the Paris Talk page. Please do not edit this page except to update the Archive link box.

Contested Content; POV

This article speaks of Paris like no other publication in existence. The "aire urbaine" statistic (explained below), has been erronously translated and applied to this article without explanation, making Paris look as a huge and sprawling metropolis comparable to North American "metropolitan area" counterparts. The use of this latter term through all points of the article is not only inaccurate but factually (no references) impossible. Below are the recurrant article misconceptions singled out and explained one by one.

aire urbaine != metropolitan area

The aire urbaine is a statistical tool unique to France. It measures commuting between and around a central "pole" area, in this case Paris, and the land surounding. Its inclusion criteria is very indirect as it includes communes (like counties) "that have at least 40% of its resident employed population has a job in the pole, or in a commune drawn (in the same way) by the same."[1] The result is a vast statistical area including land 45% farmland.

The metropolitan area definition and inclusion criteria is so varied from country to country that a general idea of "what it is" is vague at best - this is duly noted duly in the introduction to the metropolitan area Wiki page - and this impeaches the credibility and accuracy of any comparisons with the metropolitan area of any other countries. All the same, comparison is even quite elaborate here, and has even resulted in a "who's the biggest" revert war with the London article. There is little call to use this term in this article in the first place (see below), but if it is needed, because of its uniqueness, there is no reason why the term "aire urbaine" cannot be used, explained briefly and linked to its corresponding page.

aire urbaine != Île-de-France

The economy section expounds repeatedly "Paris metropolitan area GDP", but no such thing exists. All referencable publications in existence use the Île-de-France region as a limit for speaking of Paris' economy, so there is no reason why this article should not too. What's more, the GDP figures cited by the very institute that created the aire urbaine take their figures from the Île-de-France as seen here. Even in spite of an absence of support for a "metropolitan area GDP" theory, its author indicates only that the figures are "not available".

Justification for the above has been attempted by saying that the aire urbaine and Île-de-France are "almost the same". This is an "apples to pears" argument, as the first term describes an analytical statistical limit and the second an administrative region. The fact that they are similar is only coincidence, or, as their origin an purpose is completely different, should be accepted as such.

aire urbaine != Greater Paris

Every web site in existence using the term "Greater Paris" speaks of and refers to the Île-de-France [2]. The same for every government, industry and association, even the one this page's authour insists on citing in English and French. Still no mention of aire urbaine or metropolitan area, only "Paris region" and Île-de-France.

aire urbaine != Paris

There is no citable reference in existence that says Paris is as large as its aire urbaine. Not even a web page. Only here. This must be embarassing for Wiki.

The above indicates real and concrete factual errors and imposition of POV throughout several sections of the article, so I trust that the tag I have placed will remain in place until this is answed to correctly and sorted out. The author of the contested misconceptions has already tried removing it once, so now that this is posted I trust this will not happen again.

THEPROMENADER 10:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

added "greater Paris" sub-section. THEPROMENADER 23:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a reason to panic here. Some terms have been slightly loosely. Some statistics which applied to one definition of Paris have been misused to apply to a different one. And I'm not seeing what "mother of all POVs" could possibly be imputed with such a dry topic as stastical divisions. You want "mother of all POVs"? Go look at climate change or holocaust or something. A little less inflammatory language, please.

Okay, removing "mother of all". THEPROMENADER 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest we simply define "metropolitan area" to be Ile de France and go from there? And that we avoid using "aire urbaine" (if, as you say, it doesn't exist outside of france), unless absolutely necessary? Stevage 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think using "aire urbaine" or "commuter belt" would be wiser. Using metropolitan area linked to such will link to an article whose introduction tells how ambiguous this term is. The metropolitan area is not the île-de-France. THEPROMENADER 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Introduction.
   The city of Paris proper has 2.1 million inhabitants [1], but its centre of influence extends to cover a "Greater Paris" metropolitan area that has a population of about 11.1 million [2]
   - This is an untrue association. See aire urbaine != Greater Paris -

If it's untrue, please fix it. What *is* the population of the metropolitan area? I tried to google for it and came up with a figure of roughly 10 million. Fix it. Don't scream at people.Stevage 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would love to fix it. Scream at people? No upper-case here - Separating text from italicised other. I don't think you read the above - "Greater Paris" is the île-de-France, nothing else. THEPROMENADER 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

- See Aire urbaine != metropolitan area. I stress that the latter is not wrong per se, but it is inaccurate, contested, extremely doubtful, extremely speculative, and has no place in a website whose role is to re-publish information. I would like to know the source of this claim as none are cited. Present in the introduction, it only serves to reinforce its authour's "metropolitan area" POV.

Quite frankly, this looks more like disagreement over which term to use, rather than some insidious POV. It seems to me that all definitions of metropolitan areas are somewhat vague. Should we not just say "amongst the largest 25 urban areas in the world"? Stevage 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean largest 25 metropolitan areas. I would agree but I don't see the point - and I did sress that this wasn't "wrong," just vague and uneccessary. THEPROMENADER 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

1. People.
   Inhabitants of the whole Paris metropolitan area are known officially as Franciliens, i.e., from Île-de-France.
   - See aire urbaine != Île-de-France. Again a surrepticious introduction of POV. "Francilens" is from "Île-de-France" and could be simply stated as such.
   

This paragraph is clearly using the definition "metropolitan area = Ile de France". You are presuming that metropolitan area = aire urbaine. That's where the disagreement is coming from. Stevage 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not at all where the dispute is coming from. The metropolitan area (aire urbaine) is not the île-de-France. "Francilien" has described "someone from the Île-de-France" even before the concept of the aire urbaine existed. So there is no call at all for the term "metropolitan area". This what one could call "slipping one in". THEPROMENADER 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Demographics.
   As a matter of fact, as of February 2004 estimates, the population of the city reached 2,142,800 inhabitants, increasing for the first time since 1954. As for the metropolitan area, it reached approximately 11.5 million inhabitants in 2004, growing twice as fast in the 2000s as it did in the 1990s. The metropolitan area of Paris has been in continuous expansion since the end of the French Wars of Religion at the end of the 16th century (with only brief setbacks during the French Revolution and World War II).
   
   As can be seen from the figures, only 18.5% of the inhabitants of the metropolitan area of Paris live inside the city of Paris. Visitors to Paris, who mostly stay within the city, are rarely aware that 81.5% of "Parisians" actually live outside of the city itself, in its sprawling suburbs. A majority of Parisians also work outside of the city proper: at the 1999 census, there were 5,089,179 jobs in the metropolitan area of Paris, of which 67.5% were located outside the city. These peculiar facts are due to the conservativeness of French administrative limits (see Geography section above).
   - This one shows this article's imposed theme to a tee.

It would helpful if you would spell out what you think the "imposed theme" is. This is getting frustrating. You're angry at something, but I can't see what. Stevage 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The "imposed theme" is ""Paris" is a huge thriving metropolis, is more important to France than the Île-de-France region, and is comparable to the world's largest metropolises." THEPROMENADER 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That is why you put the disputed flag on the article? I'm speechless. However I'm grateful to you for at last summarising your objection. Now can you please restate that same sentence, but in a way that expresses *your* point of view? Forgive me for not seeing what is wrong with that statement...yet.Stevage 02:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hehem. I should have stressed that the "bigger than the Île-de-France" was the central misgiving. Of course Paris is a metropolis comparable with those of other countries - but only to the limits of its agglomeration. Do you really want to include towns separated from the city by vast expanses of rural land? May I remind you (sorry again) that the Île-de-France is 45% farmland. Should this be presented in the "great metroplolis of Paris"? THEPROMENADER 09:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

- Not a whisper of the city of Paris itself and its differences with its "aggomération" suburbs, just all lumped together as a whole as "metropolitan Paris". And again comparing the incomparable (See Aire urbaine != metropolitan area) The last phrase, using only "Paris", just adds confusion, but the reader will most probably assume we speak of the same area.

If you think it's imprecise, fix it. I don't know what the figures refer to, but if they refer to Ile de France, then obviously you can't just replace it with some other definition of Paris. Stevage 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just again a general flounting of the metropolitan area being the center of all and nothing else. Aire urbaine is indeed the term to use here in the imposed context but there is no metion of the city itself. Comparing this area with other cities... it gives ambiguity the importance of fact. This could be written more simply. THEPROMENADER 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Economy. - almost the entire Area section is in flagrant error and full of POV. See aire urbaine != Île-de-France. Again the ficticious "Paris metropolitan area GDP" - no such thing has ever existed in any book, nor in any statistic. There exists only the Île-de-France statistics for anything GDP as even the reference shows quite clearly. All encyclopedias, governmental agencies and staticians speak of the Île-de-France when speaking of "Paris' economy". The "aire urbaine" statistic shows only where people are working and what jobs they do; it has nothing to do with GDP, or product at all, so can't be cited as such. The authour, instead of falling back to the correct Île-de-France district for giving correct statistical info as no "metropolitan area" GDP numbers exist, insists on stating here and in his Paris Economy page that Paris' metropolitan area GDP numbers are simply "not available".
2. Administration.
   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").
   - "political propositions" are not "plans" until they are voted. This is pure crystal ball speculation. Yet perhaps one day the authour's POV will one day become reality. Unfortunately, today, it is not.

War plans are war plans regardless of whether a war ever happens. But by all means change the word 'plans' to 'proposals' rather than debating it here. Stevage 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Partly the point - Wiki is a place for fact, not debate. There are tons of proposals in the works. IMHO this is still "crystal balling". THEPROMENADER 01:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Enough for now. Short conclusion tommorrow. Long day's work and I'm beat. THEPROMENADER 23:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

So yeah. What is this really all about? I'm running out of patience here. Every time I visit this page there is yet another blow up between you two. Personally I don't see a crisis here. If some of the terms have been misapplied, they can be fixed. If statistics are in fact wrong, well, it wouldn't be the first time that Wikipedia has been in error. Could you perhaps come up with a simple, concrete, concise proposal to "fix" this article, and write it up here? Hint: It doesn't have the word "rewrite" anywhere in it. Stevage 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have already run out of patience. I did do a correct, neutral and factually correct correction (I rewrote nothing - find it in the history) but Hardouin reverted at least five times without even changing a word of his writ, engaging a real discussion (in ignoring arguments) and providing verifiable citable sources. I then took the last step and called for mediation.

In the meantime if you would like to do the research you'll get a good idea of what's wrong. On this note, your input actually is of little help to this as you have not taken the time beforehand to find and verify the correct and most commonly used terms and the veracity of what's written, and this creates a fog that of course will be taken advantage of. It comes down to this: you will not find any other article in existence speaking of Paris as this one does. This is wrong for Wiki for many reasons above POV. It's the facts for me and nothing else. Sorry to have dragged you into this, but it must end. THEPROMENADER 00:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was going to conclude with a description of the "imposed theme" but I have spent all the time I can affort in the above. It comes down to this - everything here must be NPOV, meaning verifiable fact. Everything listed above is not for various (indicated) reasons, but most of all simply because it is far from common usage to refer to Paris as its "metropolitan area" - common usage is "Paris" or "Paris region". The former is a city, the latter is the île-de-France. This is just where the irrelevency starts. This is not a question of "making compromises to better get along", this about fact. Again I'm sorry that I must draw the line, but I have had enough. All of the above must be referenced or corrected to "common usage" terms or remain disputed. There is no compromise for fact. THEPROMENADER 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I really wish you could be more clear. What POV are you imputing? You say there is no article that speaks of Paris "as this one does". What in particular? We don't work on the basis of some "underlying theme" or some "overall" problem - we work on specific paragraphs that have specific problems that can be fixed. It's not Hardouin's article, and it's not yours either. It's just what it is, and it belongs to no one. For what it's worth, NPOV does not mean "verifiable fact" - it simply means, neutral. Eg, the statement "I am wearing jeans" is an unverifiable fact but it is not NPOV. You should be very wary of accusing people of making POV statements as it gets their nose out of joint.

I don't really want to get into a discussion about common usage, but it seems to me that "metropolitan area" and "Greater Paris" are easily understood terms and sound normal. "Paris region" doesn't sound English. "Aire urbaine" I have never heard of outside the context of this article - and I wager our readers haven't either. I strongly recommend we use common terms, but if we don't, we should at least have a quick note up the top - then we can use whatever terms we like. Stevage 02:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree about providing clear explanation for terms used. If too long for insertion in the article it could always be a footnote. THEPROMENADER 09:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is simple. If no publication in existence uses these terms to speak of Paris, where does the idea of writing them come? Directly from the writer's head. This is both original research and against WP:POV. Also, you'll find Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute enligtening, especially this passage. this is also very informative.

Please Let me remind you that our role here is to re-publish existing fact. I won't even get to the writer's motivations for his choice of terms, but you've hit it on the head with "metropolitan area sounds normal" - even today, do you know what an "aire urbaine" is? The idea "metropolitan area" gives you, English-speaker, is not it.

My apologies but this is a discussion about common usage - citable fact using common usage terms. Again I suggest that you read up on this before suggesting what should or should not be used as a term - and we haven't even gotten to the "where and how" of it yet. My actions in no way suggest this is "my" article; I don't care at all who makes changes, I care just that this article's misconceptions be corrected. Hardouin knows very well his own misconceptions and the unprovability of his claims, yet he wil not make any changes himself and impedes those of any other contributor. So I must draw attention to the error here by other means. I am damn sure of both the factual innacuracy and "Paris == its aire urbaine" POV shared by almost no other, so please, by all means, verify this. Start with the encyclopedia Britannica and the Encyclopedie Universalis. Please - If you do not cut down to the facts in all this, you won't understand much of what I'm "getting at" and you'll just be providing more occasions for us to be spun in circles. THEPROMENADER 09:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: And please read the top (of this section) " *** != *** " part again - I outlined this article's terms and ambiguities quite clearly there and provided links and references. Thanks and cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)