Talk:Paris/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.
Talk Page Archives Paris Talk Archives
Main Paris talk page

This is Archive 4 of the Paris Talk page. Please do not edit this page except to update the Archive link box.


Contents

No Fussing About

This page is improving: Its structure is being cleaned up, redundant parts removed, all around a central "modern Paris" theme set into a language and context accessible to a wide variety of readers from all cultures.

The job is major so perhaps it would be a good idea to use talk sub-pages for major edits, that way we can keep this talk page clean and not worry about over-editing the original Paris page. To avoid all "revert" conflict I would like to suggest for any major changes, starting a topic titled with the topic needing editing: this way all proposed improvement ideas will be open to scrutiny and dialog. The same if we have any qualms with something recently changed or added: this way we can maintain dialog in eliminating any excuse for unruly reverting.

In light of the above, a revert of any previously discussed improvements without any prior warning or show of interest in the editing will be inacceptable. I ask all concerned to please allow this page to improve.

Cordially,

ThePromenader 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (aka "Josefu")
ThePromenader 17:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a bit more of a fan of "change it, then see if people can see problems with it, let them improve it again". Reverting any major good-faith change is pretty mean. Discussing every change *before* implementing it is possibly a bit too bureaucratic for this task? Stevage 17:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely. Actually the "This is what I'm doing!" warning would serve more to avoid conflicting (voir simultaneous) edits. ThePromenader 22:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Work in Progress

Can we discuss the tweaks and qualms of each section under its own heading below? I hope this can sort discussion out nicely. Virgin territory, new tweaks, new title...

Area

I cleaned this one up a bit this morning, but I'm having problems with its second and third paragraphs - the latter is frankly incomprehensible. Do we really need to go to such comparitive lengths? Yet remove this and there's almost nothing left to the section. There's the "understandibility factor" as well. Plus I didn't find the "square area" statistics so couldn't source them - I will look later but if someone in the meantime...

I'd in fact re-title this to something like "Terrain" or "Geological Lay" so that, in addition to the city's actual spread, there could be a description of some of the city's geological features (rivers, islands, hills).

ThePromenader 09:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Land area and geology are two distinct things. Add a geology section if you wish, although some might consider it too detailed information for the article. Hardouin 12:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hardouin, your changes to my changes are fine but perhaps indicating Paris as a "commune" here is making unnecessary complications. Anyhow this is more or less explained further down in "Administration" so best add detail when timely. As for "too detailed", what of all the inaccessible comparisons? Also I think "some" would think it quite natural even to explain the lay of Paris in the same breath as its shape, let alone under the same heading. ThePromenader 15:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
If there is a geological/topographical section, can I suggest it be at the end of the article? It's a bit odd that the altitudes of the various hills is right up the top, when this information is valuable to almost no one. Otherwise, make a Paris topography article and get rid of it all together. Stevage 13:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I do see the sense of putting a topography part up top - it allows us to imagine where the city is and its size, and how it occupies its land. It gives a reader a "zooming in" feeling as we move from its place in the earth to its land (river, island etc) and how much of this it covers: this gives a reader a base upon which to place all the detail he will find further into the article. Actually I'd even spend a passage in a bird's eye visual description of the city and its most visible landmarks in all this (Eiffel tower by river shore in western Left bank, Arc de Triomphe visible across the river at the western end of a west-east line that is the Champs-Elysées): This would not only be factually rich for a reader, it could be interesting. I think this would only take a passage or two to do as it would mention only the major landmarks. This could even be a summary combination for geographical location, altitude and area, so the more "exact" information could have its own page... what do you think? ThePromenader 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I've given this a bit of thought over the past few days (while taking clients up, down and between all parts of Paris) and am thinking that there should be two parts to this - A descriptive "area" section (visual "lay of the land") followed by a - I am very taken with this suggestion - "description" section that would describe where the major landmarks (parks and monuments) lie in the above - and I had even the "inkling" idea of, as perhaps a conclusion, describing what parts of the city are animated by day and by night. This section could have a "see districts" link under it... ThePromenader 14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Information architecture

I understand that some people are having strong feelings about how this article page should look like. Without going into the details, here is my feedback: the Paris article is way too long and a substantial part of the information contained in this article should be moved to sub-articles.

The rationale is quite simple: think about the reader. Who is the typical reader of such an article? Probably 2 main types: 1- someone browsing Wikipedia and looking for an overview about Paris, and 2- someone looking for specific details.

The article as it is today is absolutely discouraging for the first type of reader, and most people won't read anything in this article and simply zap to another one. Period. So I guess that it misses the point of informing readers about Paris at all.

The second type of reader will most probably browse and look for the section of his/her interest and will click on the specific sub-article. The current Paris article makes it quite difficult for such a reader to quickly find information.

Information architecture is a key aspect of any readable article or website. Look for instance at the Hong Kong article. Hong Kong is a city about the size of Paris. There are literally hundreds of Wikipedia article specifically dedicated to Hong Kong topics, yet the main article itself remains readable and detailed information does not appear overwhelmingly in the main article.

A few examples about the Paris article:

  • does the history section of the main article need to be so long?
  • does such a long section about the population growth belong to the main article?
  • does the long section "Workforce and sectors of the Paris economy" belong to the main article?
  • does the list of mayors belong to the main article?

I hope this can help. olivier 14:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Olivier! Please help here if you have the time.ThePromenader 14:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I have just had a look at the Hong Kong page - vendu! It's great down to its footnotes and references. Thanks for the example.
ThePromenader 17:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
There is truth about what you say. At the same time, one thing I have noticed over the months on Wikipedia, is that as soon as we start trimming an article by creating sub-articles, there are always new users over the months that come and add new info into the trimmed sections, so that in the end we end up with a main article that is as long as before it was trimmed, and sub-articles that are redundant with the main article. It's very hard to coordinate people.
Perhaps in this case we should just add a hidden comment <-- Please don't make this section any longer --> into that bit. Stevage 10:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Also sometimes it's just very hard to make a concise summary for the main article. Take the Paris economy. As you can see from the workforce by economic sectors, the Paris economy is very diverse, and it's very hard to summarise it in a few lines, as there are so many different economic sectors involved. If you put the long list of economic sectors in a sub-article, how would you summarize the Paris economy in the Paris article? That list in particular I added yesterday because of Josefu (aka ThePromenader)'s complaints that the article said nothing of what exactly is produced in Paris.
I'm not sure it's that tricky. If you only had one sentence, you would say "Paris has a diverse range of economies, including the following: ....". If you had two, you would keep a comparison with other specialised cities. If you had three...etc. :) Stevage 10:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I have already summarized the Economy of Paris article. Hardouin 12:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The Paris mayor list we can easily move into a sub-article, that should be no problem. Population growth we can also easily put it into the demographics of Paris article, as it will be easy to make a short summary. History section is quite hopeless, as it is the section most edited by people, who constantly add new info, most of the time irrelevant (such as Paris lost the 2008 and 2012 Olympic games, irrelevant in a quick summary of Paris history). Perhaps we could simply translate the Paris history section of a Larousse dictionary, which is both quite thourough and short. What do you think? I don't think translations of our own would expose us to copyright complaints, no? Hardouin 15:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hardouin, again you are attempting to "stall into the details" to delay change. You asked for opion, you got it, and what needs to be done is clear. There will be no "coordination of people" and you certainly will not be attempting to do anything of the sort. Nor is there any "my writing" or "we who wrote the article" writing responsibility to perpetuate. What is written is the only thing of importance here, and if you want to protect your work from scrutiny, criticism and change, best write a book and get an editor. People are free to contribute to this article in any way they please, and it is only normal that there will be a "maintenance cycle" of new additions, cutting, moving, rewriting followed by more new additions. Your blocking this page in this cycle is most probably the very cause of its sorry state.
ThePromenader 15:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Delistification

There are a number of "lists" on this page. I hate lists. Can we turn them into prose, and get rid of the less prominent items on the lists? In particular:

  • List of hills: Why bother?
  • List of landmarks: Turn the most important ones into prose, move the others...somewhere?
  • Chronology: Is the History section not sufficient? Suggest we scan this, if there's anything vital missing from History, move it there, otherwise dump this section
  • Museums: Turn into prose

I could probably dig up the reference to the manual of style where it says that lists are totally evil under all circumstances. :) Stevage 15:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Go to it sir; you're the "prose guy" : ) If you would like some input for context (order of things and the relation between them) I could help there. The chronology could most certainly have its own page, as could the monuments (there's already a "museum list" page)... actually I don't know about the altitudes: would they really merit a page of their own? ThePromenader 15:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be a good idea if everything "list" would be accordioned under a unique "other articles concerning Paris" subtitle and moved to pages of their own and marked as stubs - in their present state they're incomplete, but this would be a pretty good invitation to elaboration. And new categories! ThePromenader 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Instead of a list of ten items, there should be a prose section mentioning five items, and a "main article" with another twenty items. Not that the "main article" should necessarily be a list - that could itself be prose.
Did I mention that I don't like lists? :) Stevage 11:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I have delistified Monuments and Landmarks, creating Paris landmarks. The text in this section should probably be one long or two short paragraphs, so please add more information as appropriate. Stevage 12:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I have delistified Parks and Gardens. The List of parks and gardens in Paris already existed, but could possibly be turned into prose as well. In this instance I didn't remove any of the items that were in the short list, but just turned it into text. A couple of related articles still missing.Stevage 12:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Great to see things movin' ahead, but I know you'll miss those lists... but I think this whole section needs re-thinking as, as it is, it seems to have its *ss between two chairs. None of the sections (lists or paragraphs) are complete (with the info they have), nor can they be pages of their own. There should be a "paris monuments" page that is more than just a list - what are the majority of the monuments about? There is something to be said there. And the same for any "list of" page for that matter - I can, for example, write more than a tad on Paris' parks and gardens. Like, for example, before the 19th century Paris didn't have any. ThePromenader 19:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, obviously a page that talks about Paris landmarks in general, while citing examples would be ideal. I don't have any specialised knowledge, so I'll leave that stuff up to you. All I know is, lists within a larger page are ugly and lazy, so I'm booting them off into subpages, and you can do what you like with them afterwards :) A quick summary sentence along the lines of "Before the 19th century, Paris had no gardens, but a program of jardinification led by Napolean XVIII since then has led to the following gardens being created" would be great. Stevage 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Arg, you work late. And that would be Napoleon XIV who did that sir : ) No, really, what I meant was if someone's going to create a "list" page, might as well add a summary of what the list's about, otherwise it will just be a directory. If that job needs a doer, if you boot it I'll... um... shoot it. Bed time for now though. ThePromenader 00:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Education

I'd like to add an education section, but I simply don't know aything on the topic. It would mention the Sorbonne, Sciences Po, and the University of Paris. ENA I gather moved to Strasbourg this year. Are there other major universities that I'm missing? Which famous people came through these universities? What is particularly remarkable about the universities in Paris? Thanks. Stevage 14:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There are several "Universities" in Paris. Sorbonne is one of them (n°1, of course); Dauphine has also a very good reputation. ENA has moved to Strasbourg at least 5 or 10 years ago. Note that, in France, many of the best students don't go to the university, but to engineer schools (Polytechnique and Centrale have moved to the suburbs, Les Mines is still there (in the Jardin du Luxembourg), or to Normale Sup' (which trains professors, both in science and in philosophy or litterature: the best minds in the country are probably there), or to Sciences Po (most politicians and many journalists have been trained there before going to ENA). You may also mention the Collège de France because it's unique: the best professors give high-level lessons there to everybody (free entrance). And the "quartier latin" which still hosts most of the prestigious educational institutions. Note that, in the Middle Ages, the whole Left Bank was called "The University". And also mention the Cité Internationale Universitaire, where thousands of foreign students live in a privileged environment (an kind of parc with remarkable buildings by Le Corbusier and others...). But maybe this is too much ;) Thbz 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, even having spent a year at a polytechnique I don't really see the difference between that and a university. I don't suppose you feel like attempting to start this section yourself? :) Stevage 02:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
(Scratching head) I can tell you everything about Paris' Universities and colleges up to around... the 1789 revolution, but nothing after. This does merit a short section though. Pretty please? ThePromenader 07:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Have you spent a year at Ecole Polytechnique or in a "polytechnique" institution somewhere else ? Ecole Polytechnique is a school owned by the Army. It's located in Palaiseau (south of Paris) ; it's the most famous engineer school in France (the next ones are Centrale and Les Mines) ; most of the French politicians and CEOs are "énarques" (ENA) or "polytechniciens" (Ecole Polytechnique). The French engineer school system (which I know a little about, since I went through it!) is separated from the University system and deserves another article, but this is not Paris-specific. Thbz 09:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
No, actually the Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble. Anyway, what are the 5 most important tertiary institutions in Paris? Why are they important? How many international students come each year to study in Paris? Stevage 15:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
To be more specific about a section dedicated to Education in Paris: I don't think this section should be very large, because the education system in France is very centralised and unified. Few things are specific to Paris, so Education in France (which at first sight looks very good to me) tells you everything you need to know. Young French students dream of École Polytechnique or ENA, not of Parisians universities which do not mean much more to them than Grenoble or Toulouse universities. Of course foreign students prefer to come to Paris, which I can understand... If ThePromenader feels like writing a few lines about the ancient "Université" (which gave its name to the whole Left Bank in the Middle Ages), maybe I could add something about the situation now... Thbz 15:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay for the writing, but it will have to be tomorrow. I'll set up a sub-page for that. Thanks Thbz. ThePromenader 07:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Administration

Son of Administration

Sorry to backtrack, but I've found the time on this fine Sunday morning to really read this section, and see that there's still a few ambiguities and a glaring addition (was it there before?) that simply has to go :
"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."
...for the simple reason that this is an article about Paris, and not an article about how we would like it to be. Then there's this little chestnut:
"This région encompasses the city of Paris, its suburbs, and most of the commuting belt beyond."
...which insinuates (yet again) that the "commuting belt" has a central function when it in fact does not. You can lie statistical regions on administrative regions, but not the other way around. Besides, most readers won't have a clue what "commuting belt" signifies for Paris - at best they will get the impression that all within this region commute directly with Paris which is not at all true. This attempt to "reverse-stamp" Paris on its "aire urbaine" is again repeated here :
"The hundreds of suburban communes around the city of Paris also each have their separate administrations, which accounts for the extreme complexity of the administrative grid in the metropolitan area of Paris."
...you could have more simply said "the île-de-France administrative grid". The intent of all this is quite clear.
The above corrections are completed now, and the île-de-France plan placed to "fill the space" left by the unneeded "petite couronne" map. ThePromenader 13:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As for the appropriation and modification of my île-de-France map submission, I can't at all object, but I can feel insulted that I was not consulted properly beforehand. I could have made better changes myself (for the very simple purely technical reason that I have the original illustrator file), but first I must know what I am to change and why, otherwise I will not be able to do so accurately. I also think that removing the "built-up" areas is a bit much, as they gave a very good impression about who lives where. If it must be accurate I can add the correct "unité urbaine" data - hard to find because it is used for only the most technical statistical ends. You will find no Paris "unité urbaine" map anywhere but on the INSEE site - nor Paris "aire urbaine" for that matter. Actually, as an aside, a google search for an "aire urbaine" map associated with "Paris" gives this: (Google) - two of the three results are here on wiki and the work of... well. In any case the map as it is is quite sloppy and I will see what I can do to fix it. Hardouin, you mentioned that you have links to this so they would much be appreciated if they can help to this end.
ThePromenader 12:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually aires urbaines are quite used outside of INSEE. In Google you should type "aire urbaine" only, without the word Paris. The mention of plans to create a Greater Paris is quite appropriate, this gives us a sense of evolutions. We don't offer only a rigid picture of what's the situation now, but also a sense of what may happen next. That's what encyclopedias always do. About Île-de-France, at the 1999 census, there were 10,952,011 inhabitants in Île-de-France, and only 109,974 of them did not live inside the aire urbaine of Paris. In other words, 99% of the inhabitants of Île-de-France live inside the metropolitan area of Paris, so it is totally justified to say that Île-de-France is the commuting belt of Paris. Hardouin 13:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think my arguments are quite clear, and this page does not need any more statistical ambiguity than it already has. As I said before, no other web page in the world concerning Paris (ab)uses statistical data in the way this one does, not even French pages, and most importantly, not even the INSEE's own website. Your way of presenting things is rather backwards and misleading. You have even been reminded of this by someone even more knowledgable than myself and still you refuse to listen to reason. Care to explain why? ThePromenader 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
No, your arguments are not clear at all, I'm sorry to say. Your prose is often long winded and difficult to follow. From what I understand, you basically don't like the fact that this article talks about the metropolitan area of Paris, you'd rather it talks only about the city of Paris, but this makes no sense at all. We are in 2005, not in 1905. I have already pointed out to Encyclopaedia Britannica and to Encyclopaedia Universalis, which both refer to the whole metropolitan area of Paris, not just the city proper. I invite everybody to check these encyclopedias. Hardouin 13:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Now you're just trying to muddy the water and avoid the argument altogther. The Enclyclopedia Britannica (open in front of me) in fact does not speak of any "metropolitan area", it speaks of a "Paris region" and at most "Parisian agglomeration". I don't at all mind your using the term "metropolitan area", it's your misusing it that I dislike. Again, I am not alone in calling you out on this, so why do you refuse to listen to reason? ThePromenader 14:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The concept of aire urbaine was introduced by INSEE in 1995, therefore it is no surprise that Britannica is not using the word metropolitan area yet. It takes time to update paper encyclopedias. The great advantage of Wikipedia is that we can update things much more quickly. As for people "calling me" on this, can you be specific and cite user names instead of making vague insinuations? Hardouin 14:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I have the 2006 Encyclopaedia Britannica and the entire Paris entry for the 2002 Encyclopédie Universalis and neither of these mentions the Paris "aire urbaine". Without even getting into that, I don't understand how you can cite a source as proof then say later that that source couldn't be proof. You know very well of who and what I spoke earlier but if you must make me drop all tact to spell it out look here. ThePromenader 18:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The edition 2002 still contained information from their 1975 edition, so trust me, they don't update it very quickly. What matters is that they refer to the whole "connurbation" as they call it, which we now call metropolitan area. As for the link to my talk page, I see that you are spying any of my move. Honnestly you really have time to waste. This French user who messaged me is just ONE user, and I answered his message on his talk page, which you have probably already read I suppose. ONE user is not PEOPLE. You always make generalisations from one user. That's what I call bad faith. Hardouin 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Now you're getting nasty again. Universalis' "outdatedness" doesn't change the fact that you cited it as proof for your arguments. Where did I say "people"? - I said "I am not alone in calling you out" and "you have been reminded of this by someone more knowledgable than I". If you don't mind, I have more than once left messages on your talk page as you on mine. And of course I know of his talk page because it is he who I asked to kindly help me to make you see reason - so much for "spying". Yet again you are just trying to fog the obvious. Yet now that you make me think of it you do indeed have two people telling you that you are flat wrong in presenting things as you do myself included. How many unmaskings do you need? You really should rethink your position ; you cannot strive to make people, no matter the reason, learn only what you think they should know. ThePromenader 20:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Administration substructure

If the admin section is going to stay this long it needs substructure. It may make Paris's multiple roles much clearer to have a City/Commune/Department/Region structure. Stevage 01:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL just an addendum - Paris is a City/Commune/Department - complicated, non? Thus now there are two administration sections - this one and "Region". Cheers : ) ThePromenader 09:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought to do that this very morning as an epilogue to my 2am edits. Done. ThePromenader 08:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Administration revert

Hardouin, would you please explain why you reverted the changes made by ThePromenader to the Administration section? I find it very discourteous to revert good-faith changes made by others without even adding a comment to explain why. Of course you're very welcome to improve work done by other people, but reverting should be saved for cases of pure vandalism, which is not the case here. Thanks. Stevage 14:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your message. I did not revert changes made by ThePromenader, I only restored information that had been deleted (prefecture of police, prefecture of Paris, complexity of the administrative grid). Hardouin 15:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
See the "Revision as of 12:52, 15 December 2005" - it amounts to almost a total revert of much of the work I did rewording, trimming etc. I'm quite happy to discuss the merits of the work I did, but it's just rude to revert without so much as an explanation.
As an example, you reverted this:
Paris' and its neighbouring departements – Hauts-de-Seine (92), Seine-Saint-Denis (93) and Val-de-Marne 
(94) – were a single "département", Seine, until they split up in 1968. In 
spite of this, the prefecture retains jurisdiction for the police and fire brigade for all four départements. Paris 
thus has its own traffic wardens, but no municipal police force.
to this:
The Prefecture of Police jurisdiction, which used to be the whole Seine département, is now limited to Paris 
proper, but for some matters (such as fire protection or rescue operations) it still covers the three 
départements of the petite couronne. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of the Prefecture of Paris, 
previously called Prefecture of the Seine (before 1968), is now strictly limited to the city of Paris.
and this:
Number 75 was once the official number of the Seine département, which encompassed the 
city of Paris and its nearest suburbs. In 1968, Seine was split into four new départements: the city of Paris 
proper (which retained the number 75) and three départements (Hauts-de-Seine (92), Seine-Saint-Denis 
(93) and Val-de-Marne (94))
What exactly are you saying was deleted, and by whom? You seem to have clobbered work that I did in your efforts to "restore" this information Stevage 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This part that you mention above was indeed entirely wrong, that's why I rewrote it. Paris (75) and its three neighbouring départements (92,93,94) were not a single département before 1968. The Seine département that existed before 1968 was smaller than the current 75+92+93+94. Check Seine (département) for more details. Also, there is no "the prefecture". There are TWO DISTINCT prefectures, the Prefecture of Police on the one hand, and the Prefecture of Paris on the other hand (plus also the Prefecture of Hauts-de-Seine, the Prefecture of Val-de-Marne, and the Prefecture of Seine-Saint-Denis). So you see I reverted this because it was too simplified and thus very misleading. Hardouin 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish you had stated this at the time. It would save a lot of ill feeling. Stevage 23:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Tourist Statistics

Um - I do understand why this was put there. After all our discussions about getting rid of lists, is it really a good idea to add another one? ThePromenader 17:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That was my first reaction too :) I think the information is relevant and interesting, but I'm not sure of the best way to present it. Maybe in a little table down one side? Stevage 23:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I have moved it to a little table down the side - I think that works. Stevage 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I took the liberty of daintying up your table a bit and adding some space to its left ; ) ThePromenader 13:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Population growth

I've removed the comparisons with other cities. I just couldn't see the relevance. At maximum, *maybe* the comparison with SF has a place here, but basically the links seem a bit arbitrary and to say more about how other cities define their city borders.


For comparisons, in the metropolitan area of London, approximately 60% of people live inside Greater London proper (2001 census), while in the New York-Newark-Bridgeport metropolitan area, 37.8% of people live inside New York City (2000 census). Even in the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County metropolitan area, 22.6% of people live inside the city of Los Angeles proper. Paris can be more rightly compared to the San Francisco Bay Area, where only 11% of inhabitants live inside the city of San Francisco proper. However, unlike in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is no city inside the metropolitan area of Paris that rivals Paris, the largest city (commune) after Paris being Boulogne-Billancourt, with only 108,300 inhabitants in 2004.

International comparisons are needed. You can't understand statistics without comparisons. A figure in itself means nothing. Look, let me give you an example: I can tell you that 17% of people in France are 20 y/o or younger. This in itself means nothing, and is not going to inform you much. But if I also tell you that in the third world people below 20 are 30%, that in Europe they are 15%, and just 13% in Germany, then the figure starts to make sense, you can infer that the age of the French population is more similar to developed countries than third world countries, but that nonetheless it is slightly younger than in the rest of Europe, in particular Germany. International comparisons are needed to make stastical figures informative. Hardouin 01:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you reword it to make it shorter? As it stands it's long, and it doesn't seem to make a non-statistical point. It has been pointed out many times in the article that the boundaries of Paris are small. Hence it would seem to flow logically that the majority of inhabitants must live outside? The tighter you draw the circle defining "the city", the more people must logically be found outside, no? There may be a more significant point than that there, but for the time being, I as a reader, could not see it.
I apologise for removing the section without discussing it here first - I didn't realise you had written it. Stevage 03:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Stevage, I second you for removing the City comparisons - in fact this was one of the first things I proposed to do to this page. Your first reaction was dot-on: You just don't see the point. Only if you live in one of the cities compared to will you have a chance of understanding (and perhaps not even then). People can fathom a "hit-list" comparison (Europe's third largest...) perhaps then giving a statistic (...with 12% of its population...), but singling out seemingly unassociated countries just for reasons of comparison comes across as being rather non sequitur. ThePromenader 10:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but I see now that it has been cut down. Good start : ) ThePromenader 11:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


Department map

Hardouin, I've restored the department map as I think it serves to visually explain to the user at what level Paris is being viewed. Most of the information in the map is, as you say, redundant due to the regional map, but it's more detailed, and shows clearly the shape of the Paris department and the three around it. Do you feel strongly that it should not be there, or just that it's not necessary? Stevage 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may, Stevage, that map has little importance today as it shows a jurisdiction belonging only to the Police Prefecture. Historically this region was more or less Paris' former "Département de Seine" (the jurisdiction of the all-powerful "Prefecture de Seine" administration that was later split up into two "Prefecture de Police" law-enforcement and "Prefecture de Paris" law-making administrations) but I think the administration section no longer goes into that depth of detail. ThePromenader 10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As always, lots of mistakes here. The Préfecture de la Seine was not split into the Préfecture de Police and Préfecture de Paris. The Préfecture de Police already existed before 1968. This is how it goes:

  • before 1968:
    • Préfecture de la Seine
    • Préfecture de Police

For instance during the French Second Empire, Baron Haussmann was Préfet de la Seine, while Symphorien Boitelle was Préfet de Police.

  • after 1968:
    • Préfecture de Paris
    • Préfecture des Hauts-de-Seine
    • Préfecture de la Seine-Saint-Denis
    • Préfecture du Val-de-Marne
    • Préfecture de Police

So as you can see, the Préfecture de la Seine was split in four, whereas the Préfecture de Police was left untouched, although its jurisdiction was reduced to Paris proper. It is false to say that the little map shows the jurisdiction of the Préfecture of Police. The jurisdiction of the Préfecture of Police covers only the city of Paris. It extends to the Petite Couronne only in a special cases, such as the coordination of police action. And it can also extend to the Grande Couronne when the Prefect of Police acts as Prefect of the Paris defense zone. Yes, it is very complicated.

Anyway, about the little map, I put it in the first place because there was no other map available, but now that we have a larger map of Île-de-France, it is not necessary anymore. If the goal is to make the article as short as possible (as I thought that was the goal now), the map should be removed. But if you prefer to leave it, then leave it, but it defeats the purpose of tightening the article. Hardouin 13:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Where in my phrase did I say "1968"? Napoleon vested the power over the entire department de Seine to a single "Prefet" when he created the office in 1800, since then this office has been divided into two, and today only one remains to any extent. Please read what you intend to criticise before you criticise it. ThePromenader 13:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. Napoleon created TWO préfets: the Préfet de la Seine, and the Préfet de Police, both created in 1800. The first Préfet de Police in 1800 was Louis-Nicolas Dubois, whereas the first Préfet de la Seine in 1800 was Nicolas Frochot. Hardouin 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Alright then, I stand corrected. Apologies. But this does not at all discount my argument. ThePromenader 14:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think if there is a "Paris as department" section, it deserves a map - as a "each subsection gets a map" kind of illustration. When ThePromenader says it shows a jurisdiction belonging only to the Police Prefecture. does it mean that the boundaries of the department of Paris have no real significance other than for the police? If that is the case, we could well do with a shorter section here. Stevage 13:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you would like a simple answer, the administrative limits of the "département de Paris" are no bigger than the city itself. ThePromenader 19:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The Promenader was trying to say that the map (Paris + petite couronne) shows the jurisdiction belonging to the Préfecture de Police. As I have explained above, this is wrong. As for the département of Paris, it has significance for those public services administered by the département. For instance, if you have no income you receive RMI, the minimum income for poor people. RMI is administered by the département of Paris, not by the city, although in practice the département and city are ruled by the same Conseil de Paris. The département is also competent for control of legality. For instance, there was a funny example when I was in Law School, if you start building a nuclear plant in the département of Paris without having an administrative authorization, the Préfet de Paris (prefect of the département) will declare you have committed an infraction and fine you (as would happen in any other French département). On the other hand, the Préfet de Police, in charge of public order, will probably send the police to stop work on your nuclear plant (whereas in other French départements, the prefect of the département would be in charge of both public order and control of legality). These are examples where the département of Paris is competent, not the city. Hardouin 14:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, not explaining something down to 100% to-the-roots intricate detail is not being wrong. It seems that you're misunderstanding me on purpose - we are not speaking of the function of each jurisdiction but its reach. The Prefet de Paris' responsibilities include the administration of the police in all the petite couronne's departments and if I must prove this than look here. All I said this morning - and this began simply - is that if the map in place was to show anything it would be this jurisdiction. Other than that it would be a map of the petite couronne which by itself would be pretty pointless in a section labelled on "Paris as a departement" as the département of Paris is no bigger than itself. Let's not even get into the intricacies of the Prefect of Paris being also the Prefect of the île-de-France - if you want to present Paris from that angle you must remodel the article. You cannot show administrative limits and speak of wider function and expect people to understand. ThePromenader 19:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to be very confused about all these prefect things. The link you pointed to above is for the "Préfet de Police", it is NOT for the "Préfet de Paris". And if you care to read the webpage you yourself asked me to read, you would find out that the jurisdiction of the Préfet de Police is Paris proper. Only in a few circumstances does that jurisdiction extends to the Petite Couronne. Hardouin 11:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course that should read "Prefect of Police" if the page I went through all the trouble of indicating is that of the Prefet de Police. Yet my error. I also said "administration of the Police of all four departments" which means that, in other words, Prefet de Police is "da boss" over all this area. Please don't be so intent on finding error, you'll always miss the point of what's said. And, btw, why is that map still there? Through all this I thought we did agree that it no longer had any importance. ThePromenader 11:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's get along

I think everything I would like to say on this topic is covered at WP:Civility. Stevage 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And this is also an interesting page. Adrian Robson 12:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Lol. Puts it in perspective doesn't it - do you call them 'closed captions' or 'subtitles'? I thought it was pretty simple actually. Subtitles are what you see on SBS, closed captions are what deaf people use. But, hey. :) Stevage 14:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Immigration section

Hardouin, I hope you don't mind what I've done to this section. I've tried to retain the comparisons with other cities, but do so in a more readable way, with slightly less precision. Footnotes give the dates of the censuses, which aren't hugely important as they're pretty close to each other. Is there any support for Paris being one of the most multicultural? As I noted in the article, Melbourne is at 38%, so 19.5% doesn't strike me as particularly high. Stevage 02:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Stevage, I have removed your mention of Melbourne and its 38% because this figure is ONLY for the City of Melbourne proper. What it says is that 38% of the 50,175 residents of the City of Melbourne in 2001 were born overseas. This says nothing of the metropolitan area of more than 3 million people. Typically, inner cities tend to have much more foreign-born than whole metropolitan areas, because "natives" tend to be in the majority in distant suburbs. For instance in the article it says that 27.5% of the inhabitants of the New York metropolitan area were born outside of the US, but inside New York City there were actually 40.5% of foreign-born. Australia being a country of immigration, I wouldn't be surprised if the metropolitan areas of Melbourne, and above all Sydney, had high percentages of foreign-born. If you can find the relevant statistics for the whole metropolitan areas at the Australian statistics office website, then put it in the article. Put we cannot put figures that are limited to inner cities only. Hardouin 12:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, thanks for correcting that. Stevage 14:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I did some research and managed to find figures for Eastern Melbourne, (around 20%), Victoria (somewhat higher, don't remember), Sydney (31% [1]), Australia (22%) and some other towns. The figure of 31% is not interesting enough to include IMHO. Interesting though to think that Paris is considered "multicultural", when the whole of Australia has a higher average of immigrants. Stevage 14:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, in Australia many of these foreign-born come from UK or Ireland, whereas in Paris they come from cultures very different from France. In any case, if London with 19.5% of foreign-born is considered "multicultural" (this was so flaunted during the Olympic bid in Singapore), then Paris with 19.4% can certainly be considered multicultural too. Hardouin 15:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, probably lots of the Paris "immigrants" are Algerians, Tunisians etc. Fwiw, I'm happy to consider Londoners a different culture. I did note somewhere in my brief researches that there were something like 200 countries represented in Melbourne. In other words, basically all of them. Stevage 20:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)