Talk:Paris/Archive 5

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


Contents

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.wikipedia.org 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 : )

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:

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)