Talk:Île-de-France (region)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Île-de-France (region) is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents 1 Fun Editing? 2 Île-de-France and the metropolitan area of Paris 3 Paris, the département 4 Ile-de-France

[edit] Fun Editing?

Are you guys serious? This is an article on the Île-de-France. It would be relevent to say something like "The Île-de-France région is... made up of... covering an area of... ... much of this filled by the Paris metropolitan area... ." Instead you do the opposite and compare the Île-de-France to the Paris metropolitan area without even explaining what the latter is. The final result is a passage confiming the existence of the metropolitan area without providing any additional information at all, and I don't think this is the goal of this article. Yet at present around one third of the introduction (to this Île-de-France article) is dedicated to the Paris urban area and Paris metropolitan area! You guys are quite a pair. THEPROMENADER 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"At the last census in 1999, 88% of the regional population lived in the Paris urban area and 99% of the same regional population lived in the Paris metropolitan area which also includes satellite cities (respectively 9,644,507 people and 10,842,037 people). "

... much of the above is irrelevent to this article, and what's left makes little sense to the layman. I suggest putting informative value before agenda, and paying more attention to where you place it. THEPROMENADER 15:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you were deleting the part about making the connection between the Ile-de-France region and the Paris metropolitan area. As I like consensus, I believed a solution could have been to give some statistics about the percentage of population in Ile-de-France living in the Paris metropolitan area, and that's indeed 99%.

As for the sources of the figures, I got it from the Splaf. It's a website about population statistics from the 1999 census. In this website, you can find detailed figures for each departments, here's an example with Seine-et-Marne (77). There were 1,193,767 inhabitants in that department in 1999. Among them, that page told us that 1,083,793 were living in the Paris metropolitan area. I've simply made the sum for the figures of all the 8 departments of the Ile-de-France region, and I've found the figure which is written in the article.

I wanted to post a source actually, unfortunately, I didn't manage to find the similar information on the official INSEE website, hence I got over it. If you would like to, you could take the Splaf as source. Every of the figures mentioned in that website are correct and from the 1999 census... unfortunately, it remains unofficial. Metropolitan 00:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's ok - I can tell you that I did my best to find a source, but still didn't remove the phrase. If anything, I dislike that phrase for its pointlessness - again, comparing the Île-de-France to the Paris MA serves only to give the Paris MA importance, and this is silly, especially here. That phrase, if I remember correctly, was Hardouin's work on the Paris page - where did you get it, or was it already here? Anyhow, the thing is with Wiki is that, because everything must be source, we can't concoct numbers at will, and especially just to 'prove a point'. Now that it's 'downstairs' It's become a lesser problem - but the original authour should either find the source or correct it! THEPROMENADER 06:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrections done, and content added making your content seem relevent to this article. I don't know where you got those "in/out of the MA" numbers, or who would even think to concoct numbers comparing two areas that have strictly nothing at all in common, but the closest I could find was an INSEE press release indicating the percentage of France's population living/working in or near a major city - this is clear in context - but numbers based on one area describing where people don't live in another? Nothing. So please indicate where you found these numbers. THEPROMENADER 17:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to check your grammar and spelling before editing, and to stop accusing other people? Thank you. Hardouin 00:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Hardouin. You can correct anything you like, and you'll be doing Wiki a service for it - so no need to spoil the editing atmosphere. It would also help if you held the invented allegations. As for your re-re-insertion into the intro: the phrase, as it is, is both irrelevent and uninformative and must go: you must explain what the Paris metropolitan area is, otherwise its pointless to compare anything to it. It doesn't seem you've read I thing I wrote yesterday, or that you don't care about other people's understanding. Read again please, and show some respect for others. THEPROMENADER 06:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

(Moved this to its proper section) - Excuse me, but how does this comment justify your total revert to every improvement, even language, to the introduction? You did indeed move what was demographics info to a more appropriate place, but if you want to revert, you must do so in a transparent manner and leave your reasons on the article talk page. Since neither was done I am reinstating the effaced improvements. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"a statistical area encompassing the Paris urban area and its surrounding satellite cities and commuter belt." replacing "a statistical area encompassing the Paris agglomeration and its surrounding area of commuter activiity." ?

I don't see reason in this, if not just to re-insert "satellite cities" whose presence in this phrase explains nothing - it only confirms the presence of unexplained "satellite cities" - "paris urban area" is fine as a change but hardly more explanatory, if not less, than "agglomeration". This is hardly what I'd call an improvement, but I'll leave it for now. THEPROMENADER 07:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Hardouin - again I see you reverting and making false claims in the comments. Might I remind you that it was I who began editing this article, and it was you who followed me here to revert my changes. Please follow your own comment-added advice: let other people edit. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Promenader, stop with your bullying attitude. You simply can't impose your will on several people that disagree with you. Your self-styled "improvements" are not improvements at all. Here is why:

• you replaced "Île-de-France is one of the 26 régions of France." with "Île-de-France is one of France's 26 régions." although the format for most other French régions is "xxx is one of the 26 régions of France." Care to explain why the change just for Île-de-France?
• you wrote that the région is referred to by locals as the Région Parisienne. That's not correct. The région is referred as such by everybody in France, not just by inhabitants of the Paris area.
• you deleted the abbreviation "RP", any reason for that?

In light of these, I can only interpret your reverts as a desire to appropriate this article and impose your edits, even when they are undeniably worse than the original content of the article. Hardouin 13:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My what? You were the one who reverted my edits without comment, as very well explained above. As for your belated justifications that indicate nothing 'wrong' worthy of a wholesale revert - "format for most other French regions" is a pure nonsense affirmation, especially for an English article - and what is wrong with removing one word if it bothers you? Instead you must revert everything outright? And you say absolutely nothing about the other changes I made.

All behaviour such as yours does is make people angry. Especially since, after all the editing, virtually nothing has improved, and the very phrase targeted for correction, supposedly yours, is still unfounded and once again in place. Backtracking is protectionism; improvement isn't. THEPROMENADER 13:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

With you, nothing is ever wrong with your edits. Do you ever admit errors? And I'm talking about the French régions articles on the English Wikipedia here, not on the French Wikipedia. Hardouin 13:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And FYI, the District of the Paris Region didn't become the Île-de-France région from 1976, the change happened in 1976. It is little details like that that make most of your edits botched. But then, you're not a detail-oriented person, I think that's quite obvious from your many edits. Hardouin 13:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No I am not 'wrong'; you are either dealing in linguistic semantics that could be corrected at a keystroke or comparing two entirely different events that of course don't equate. I'll leave you the last word as I'm beginning to think that you find this fun. THEPROMENADER 13:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, reverting without coherently and clearly justifying fault shows that you think that your fellow editors edit in bad faith, and such behaviour won't stand. I made the reasons for my edit quite clear above: one yet-unexplained area compared to another similarily unknown entity means absolutely nothing to the reader - and, should he in this case learn, he would find the comparisons unfounded and irrelevent. Reverting to unwieldly "of the" prose that has already been thrice-corrected is not an improvement either. Re-insert what you can justify as a replacement for fault or as something of importance - or in other words, improve upon existing edits. Anything else, for any other reason, is questionable in motivation. 22:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Again a revert with no talk page leavings, again a refusal to reason, again a refusal to simply improve upon edits instead of simply reverting (to your own) and again, Hardouin, you've transcended the WP:3RR rule. Report filed. THEPROMENADER 23:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I've almost never heard anyone speak of the Paris region as the "RP" in speech I've reinstated that information. Another reason for my disenchantment over the above reverts was that the reverted-to text wasn't even proper English, so I cleaned up that as well. As for the phrase comparing the Île-de-France to an (irrelevent as a comparison) Paris metropolitan area only explained in the demographics section, it serves absolutely no informative purpose in the introduction. like I quite clearly stated twice before: a) a city's statistical area is not a measure for an administrative region and b), this especially when we don't know what this statistical area is. Yet imagine, in the introduction, indicating the size of the MA in km² and comparing the IDF to it - this would be even sillier! Why not indicate the size of the IDF in km² ? This would seem both reasonable and informative. THEPROMENADER 07:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Île-de-France and the metropolitan area of Paris

I have restored the sentence concerning the metropolitan area in the introduction which was had been deleted once more by ThePromenader despite him being told by several users (User:Metropolitan, User:Pedro carras, and I) that Île-de-France essentially corresponds to the metro area of Paris (land area wise, and population wise). Promenader keeps deleting this against reason and consensus. Everyone in France regards Île-de-France as the metro area of Paris, or as French people would call it "l'agglomération parisienne". Actually, the Île-de-France articles in other language versions of Wikipedia also contain reference to this in their introductions:

• Spanish Wikipedia (es:Isla de Francia): y constituye el área metropolitana de París. ("and it constitutes the metropolitan area of Paris")
• German Wikipedia (de:Île-de-France): sie ist größtenteils mit dem Ballungsraum Paris identisch ("it is for the most part identical to the metropolitan area of Paris")
• Korean Wikipedia (ko:일드프랑스): 대략 파리의 대도시권에 해당한다. ("it corresponds approximately to the metropolitan area of Paris")
• Dutch Afrikaans Wikipedia (af:Île-de-France): wat grotendeels ooreenkom met die metropolitaanse gebied van die hoofstad Parys. ("which for the most part corresponds to the metropolitan area of the capital Paris.")
• Finnish Wikipedia (fi:Île-de-France: Alue koostuu Pariisin metropolialueesta ("the (land) area consists of the metropolitan area of Paris")
• Hebrew Wikipedia (he:איל דה פרנס): (from right to left) .אזור זה חופף למעשה את אזור המטרופולין של פריז ("This region corresponds in effect to the metropolitan area of Paris.")

Promenader's insistence on deleting this sentence in the English Wikipedia is running contrary to almost everybody else's opinion except his. Hardouin 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: A quick note on semantics: Promenader often claims that French "agglomération" is not the same thing as English "metropolitan area". This is not true. French people almost always translate "metropolitan area" as "agglomération" or as "région" (as in "la région lyonnaise" for instance). A more technical term is "aire urbaine", but it is rarely used outside of statistical circles. For a proof of this, check fr:Grand New York which refers to the New York metro area as "l'agglomération de New York". Hardouin 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You actually reverted the entire phrase, even the language improvements. Your comparisons are irrelevent, and your affirmation absolutely untrue - they are not the same, and the French do not think and never speak in this way - if they did you would be able to provide ample solid evidence of it, outside of echoes of a wiki article written by yourself [1]. Any unproven affirmation of this sort is just putting your own opinions in other people's minds and mouths. Your referring me to fr:Grand New York is nonsense for two reasons - the first being for its obscurity (why don't you simply provide a French dictionary entry for "agglomération"?), and I think we both know what the second one is. The list of other wiki articles is just ridiculous because these are 99.9% likely to be direct translations of what was written here.

All of these arguments are irrelevent anyways, because who ever hoping to be taken seriously would compare the size of a region administratively comparable to a county to a statistical area based on a city - without indicating anything at all about the size of the latter? The realistic application of this sort of comparison would be if the county was a creation based on the aforementioned statistical area - and, in this case, nothing could be farther from the truth.

So, with all the above faulty arguments, unproven affirmations, and and even illogical allegations of course unfindable in any real reference, there is little base for consensus. All this amounts to is one contributor using any means possible to confuse, delay or simply cancel any opposition to quite personal opinions published as fact. This sort of behaviour falls short of many Wiki article requirements, including Verifiablility and No Original Research (or Wikipedia is not a publisher of original_thought).

Strung through the above are other more personal false allegations - User:Pedro Carras has never said a thing about the Île-de-France to anyone. I have never argued that the IDF and the Paris MA are different in size so I thank you for not purposely warping this into a seeming other argument.

I especially dislike the affirmation: "Everyone in France regards Île-de-France as the metro area of Paris, or as French people would call it "l'agglomération parisienne". - it is even insulting for its mix of arrogance and flagrant untruth. Not only do the French never use even the French equivalent of "metropolitan area"; what contributor can hope that no-one will pick up a dictionary to verify an allegation, or seek confirmation with the very agency whose role it is to precisely define such terms, the INSEE? This is giving more importance to personal opinion than reality, a total disregard of the very goals of Wikipedia, and taking other contributors for complete fools.

The fact that all the above is enforced by baseless reverting makes this situation a distateful one indeed. THEPROMENADER 13:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm almost certain that the above will remain unanswered as long as I do not correct the article yet again. Please prove me wrong on this. THEPROMENADER 13:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum bis:

Hardouin (Talk | contribs) (Restored sentence deleted by ThePromenader against reason and consensus.)

This comment claim is completely false. User:Metropolitan had nothing to do with the phrase you are protecting - our (his and my) discussion was on the population differences between the IDF and MA [2]. A phrase that, although unsourced, is still there btw. I can't even find what sort of misconduct this can be classified as, but it is tiresome and corrupting. THEPROMENADER 14:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

ThePromenader, I really fail to see where's the problem in saying that Ile-de-France corresponds approximately to the Paris metropolitan area. There's a map right below in this same article which is picturing this. Such a sentence is meant to be an indication. What's so awful in such an indication ? I really wonder what could be the problem in here... Metropolitan 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of problem, more a question of use. There's no argument that the IDF and the PMA are similar in size: but of what use is this comparison to the reader if he knows the size of neither? What use is there comparing the size of a county to the limits of a city's commuter belt? I think I was quite clear above.

Anyhow, the relevence of the 'compered to' term is quite well outlined - in context - in the demographics section, and may I remind you that this was my addition. THEPROMENADER 16:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In French, agglomération doesn't mean metropolitan area, or aire urbaine. It refers to a continiously built-up area. French official term for it is unité urbaine. I'm the autor of the mistake on fr:Grand New York, and I apologize.
Almost all Ile-de-France inhabitants are in Paris metropolitan area, but Ile de France is certainly not conterminious with Paris metropolitan area. Some rural parts of western Seine-et-Marne are still out of it, and most Southern Oise, some parts of Eure and Eure-et-Loire are part of it now.
Ile-de-France is not conterminious with Paris agglomeration either, with almost all Seine-et-Marne (exept hevaily urbanized eastern part, near Chelles and Melun-Sénart) out of it. Southern Essone and Western Yvelines and Val d'Oise are also out of it. A very tiny part of Oise is also part of Paris agglomeration.

Here is a map of Paris agglomeration.--Revas 14:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Mille fois merci! Leaving a message on your talk page concerning your Fr:Wiki edits. THEPROMENADER 15:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Revas, are you from France? In France the word "agglomération" is not necessarily used in the clear-cut sense of "contiguously built-up area". For example, Roissy, Goussainville or Moissy-Cramayel are outside of the unité urbaine of Paris, yet most people would consider them to be part of the agglomération parisienne. It's quite clear that the word "agglomération" has a more loose meaning than what you imply. Also, Île-de-France is not coterminous with the metro area of Paris, and nobody has been claiming it. The article specifically says that the territory of Île-de-France corresponds "for the most part" to the metro area of Paris, which nobody can reasonably deny. Hardouin 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's late and i'm tired and you all seem to understand French. Therefore I'll answer in French : J'habite du coté de Moissy, et Moissy fait bien partie de l'unité urbaine de Paris, au même titre que les communes alentours (Lieusaint, Savigny, Cesson et clika) depuis le recensement de 1999 (qui a pris acte de l'existence d'une continuité du bâti entre Paris et Melun). Roissy en France (pas Roissy en Brie) et Goussainville font aussi, me semble il, partie de l'unité urbaine. Le mot technique qui désigne une agglomération (ensemble de batiments agglomérés en un lieu) est sans aucun doute l'unité urbaine en français. Il est exact que dans le langage courant, la limite entre les différents terme est bien plus ténue, mais cela ne nous permet pas d'affirmer que le terme aire urbaine correspond à agglomération. I'm sorry for using French, but I need to sleep ;-) --Revas 22:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though it is unclear what the above intends to prove, I don't think we're looking to imitate a 'riverain's offhand usage here - were this the standard, no French article would ever mention anything "aire urbaine". If you would like to confer with fact please look at the INSEE for more precise and world-standard article-worthy definitions. "Agglomération" and "aire urbaine" are right up top. As for the similarities between the latter area and the Île-de-France: this, for the Île-de-France alone,and only by conincidence, is size. Therefore to compare one to the other in indicating the size of neither is rather pointless. THEPROMENADER 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As not only have I proven the "is the same size of as the MA" (non)comparison as uninformative, but shown that the MA is irrelevent to the Île-de-France, I have removed it from the introduction once again. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris, the département

That was a pretty petty revert, Hardouin. Paris in this list is not a city, it is a département. Would you revert-war over this too? Stop the disruptive provocation. THEPROMENADER 18:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The official long form name of Paris is "Ville de Paris" (i.e. "City of Paris") as proven by this letter: [3]. The city and the département are the exact same thing. The département does not exist independently or apart from the city of Paris. City and département administration are merged, same as San Francisco is both a city and a county. The Conseil de Paris (Paris Council) acts both as a municipal and departmental council as explained by the City of Paris website: [4]. Hardouin 21:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, Paris is both a commune (city) and a département, and in a list of départements it looks silly to have its city name indicated - especially to the uninformed. This name-form in the list is called context; context like the completely different one you have chosen for its convenient ability to defend your already-taken action - instead of looking objectively at what's written and its meaning in relation to existing fact as we should do here.

Just another grain of sand turned into a titanical problem on the sole issue of a single Wikipedian's attitude. I suppose it's those seeking clarification who are at fault here too. THEPROMENADER 22:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in that letter does it state anything to what you are putting forward. Please see loi 75-1331 of the 31 December 1975 for the facts. Unless you provide the law which states that the departement name has changed or that the two have been remerged into one, any reversing that you do of the facts is considered vandalism as you have been informed of the difference. The fact that the Conseil de Paris sits as both the Conseil municipal and as the Conseil général means nothing to the distinction of the departement from the commune. --Bob 21:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ile-de-France

It is written: "Île-de-France was the name of the historical province that existed before the French Revolution, but the name had long since fallen out of use. Today, many people and even some official institutions still continue to use the term "Région Parisienne" instead of the official "Île-de-France". Well, it's partly true. Today the name Ile-de-France is used by everybody, as well as the adjective francilien (by the way, it is correct to write Ile-de-France without the ^ on the i). Région parisienne is still used, but I have the impression it refers to a smaller area in people's mind. The name L'Isle de France would come from Frankish Lilde Franke, little France... It's possible, as the word isle has been pronounced eel or ill since as early as the 11th century, and Frankish stopped being spoken in the 10th century. Lastly, the white flag with the red letters is not the flag of Ile-de-France, but that of the Conseil régional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liam D (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC).