Talk:Île-de-France/Archive 1

Archive 1

More info

I need more info... does anyone know some more sites for the l'ile de france or possibly the région parisienne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.110.219 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2003 (UTC)

More information

hello, this website is gay!!! it needs more on ile de france, more information!!!!!!!!!!!! im begging you!!!! please!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.188.18 (talk)

Literal meaning

Article needs info on literal meaning of Ile-de-France. Doesn't Ile mean "island"? Badagnani 05:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fun Editing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Île-de-France and the metropolitan area of Paris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum bis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Real Ile de France

Ladies, the real Ile de France was a historic place - the island in the Seine River where Notre Dame now sits. And it was much more than that as it was the reputed place where the goddess Isis landed in ancient times on coming to Paris. And there are several areas where temples to Isis reportedly were located - at that island and also at the Plaza of the Star (d'Ecoile) (her Star Sirius) - the plaza about the Arc d'Triomphe.

Further Note, Napoleon and sculptures related to his crowning as Emperor all show Isis at hand sometimes crowning him or next to him.

And this important history should be mentioned if not in this discussion section, in a paragraph in the main article, girls.

/s/ ten cent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.68.78 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Paris, the département

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

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

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

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

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

Ile-de-France

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

Please don't forget that the conseil régional flag is the official flag for the région it represents - they are one and the same. France's "historical provinces" (where they still exist) once covered areas much different than today's régions, but in some cases their "old" flag is incorporated into the flag representing the new administrative region... but unfortunately for the Île-de-France, this is not the case. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag change

Hello - Virgile1991, please stop changing the flag of articles on modern-day régions to a flag representing a very different "historical region" that no longer exists. There are many articles on France's former historical regions (eg. Île-de-France (province)), so keep that type of change there where it belongs, thanks. THEPROMENADER 18:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IDF logo.gif

Image:IDF logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IDF flag.gif

Image:IDF flag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again.

Hardouin: propagandising your personal points of view through bullying tactics (while accusing any who resist of the same), and this in spite of all talk-page reason, consensus and fact, is hardly what Wikipedia needs from anyone.

This especially when the term you are trying to impose has a) never been used by the INSEE to describe any French territory in any of their English documentation, so is original research b) provides no information in the way it is used (if you want to give an impression of size, give an area, not a "comparison" to something whose size is unknown to all!) and c) is a term whose definition is ambiguous (Encarta defines it as an area similar to Paris' unité urbaine!) and the US definition of "metropolitain area" is certainly not the same as France's aire urbaine.

We are here to inform, not to present personal theories as fact. Your contribution is plain wrong and inacceptable for all of the above reasons, so as long as you insist on imposing it, I will remove it. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you dispute the OECD source? No. So please stop reverting my edit. You have no authority to delete users' contributions made in good faith and with a source. Hardouin 19:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the very phrase in question - it is very clear that it is original research, if not pure invention. But do read the below. THEPROMENADER 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your "source" is nothing of the kind for the phrase in question: the paper cited only describes the île-de-France (letter for letter) as a "metropolitan region" (not "metropolitan area") for the purpose of that study - its "metropolitan regions" have nothing to do with any "metropoltan area" or France's aire urbaine. It is in no way a statement of fact, and in no way a comparison of the Île-de-France and any aire urbaine/metropolitan area. Presenting this as "proof" for anything is extremely suspect.

Since no mainstream source of any kind could exist for your claims, you chose a seeming "source" to "back" your little-shared point of view - not fact - but even then it is nothing of the kind. Such behaviour can be seen not only as pigheaded but dishonest. Read the above again. THEPROMENADER 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The source says exactly this (on top of page 163): "the Region Ile-de-France whose areas of competencies roughly matches the Paris metropolitan area", so it does talk of a Paris metropolitan area. Apparently you haven't read it properly. Hardouin 00:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the source is irrelevent to the phrase it is linked to - nowhere does this article mention competencies that are the subject of that part of the paper - here we are talking about geographical size.

What's more, since there exists no official definition for "Paris metropolitan area" (it exists nowhere in any of France's administrative English documentation), what does that paper consider it to be? This just adds another level of obscurity.

This is really getting insane. Would you really erronously cite an economics paper written by a foreign organisation - that creates its own method of comparison for its own international purpose - and forego France's own official authourity on demographics, the INSEE, just so that you can use a "pet phrase" - that is in its use here - in an article on France - is practically of your own invention/definition? Get real.

Like I said, the contribution you are trying to impose is wrong, and what's more, no matter how much you try to insinuate otherwise, I'm sure you know it; yet it's only because its wrong that I will continue to remove it. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The stupidity of comparing a fixed administrative entity to an e'er changing ambiguous and undefined one aside (aire urbain?), the term "Paris metropolitan area" is original research in itself - it doesn't exist in any official English-language French documentation at all that I could find, neither in any English-language documentation published by the INSEE! You can't simply invent a local practice that has never existed! What part of this do you not understand?

Now you kids are sending e-mails back and forth behind the scenes to "enforce" this upon the article? Grow up please. THEPROMENADER 13:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, kids.

Instead of continuing this stupid revert war over "information" that is nothing of the kind, I'm going to rewrite it in a proper and informative way that serves a real purpose. Unfortunately the term "metropolitan area" must go, as it does not officially equate with aire urbaine, and never has, so to state it as equal is both wrong and misleading, not to say pure invention. Doubly unfortunately, this problem is widespread.

In thinking that the real intent here is to inform, I hope you like the new version. Cheers.THEPROMENADER 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Before calling other editors "kids", you should read WP:Civility. Hardouin 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this an answer for reverting to your own inventive propos? Providing real information doesn't seem to be your goal here - rather it seems to be presenting "your knowledge" that you seem to think much "better" than others. Yet you have once again returned "your phrase" back to its original, misleading and rather fanciful original research state.

Those seeking knowledge rarely see (your) talk-page and revert-war shenanigans - they only see what's presented to them in the article as information. You can enlighten no-one with opinions presented as fact - so cease. All of my arguments above are valid ones, so I suggest you read them again.

"metropolitan area" has never been an official translation for "aire urbaine", so you cannot present an "aire urbaine" as being one.

Please, grow up.

THEPROMENADER 14:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If only to add to the most obvious of the nonsense of all this, this article is on the Île-de-France, the fixed administrative entity, not the e'er-changing Paris aire urbaine - so the latter should be measured to the former, not the other way around - yet even this you refuse to clarify ! Incredible. THEPROMENADER 14:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Insane. Again User:hardouin reverts ad letteram without a word of justification. I'm sorry but until it can be proven that all of the above is untrue, I will continue to eliminate that phrase. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Two users (User:Stevage and User:Metropolitan) have already told you that your revert is not justified ([5], [6]), yet you continue to revert. You seem to be leading a personal crusade here. Hardouin 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can it with the manipulation. Both responding to your (most probably inaccurate) "complaint", one of those users just dove into the personal issues without even looking at the problem, and the other also refused to even consider the same, or even improve on it. The latter is rather odd, don't you think?

My reasoning still stands, as it is founded. The "international wannabe" opinion of one wikipedian cannot outweigh nor replace every French institution and reference in existence.

By the way, that was your fourth revert. THEPROMENADER 17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday you made a fourth revert just 2 minutes after the expiry of the 24 hours time period ([7]). And today you made a partial revert than can be interpreted as a fourth revert ([8]), because partial reverts count as a revert all the same. So don't start me on this. Hardouin 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. My. Goodness. "Almost gotcha" and a "gotcha" to match yours. One difference: I don't willingly go over the WP:3RR line against your bullying - but you do against any resistance to it. Get real, already - what message are you trying to leave about yourself here? THEPROMENADER 18:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm tempted all the same to report it. THEPROMENADER 18:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

PPS: This edit is pure shite - you didn't even try! :

"Île-de-France has a land area of 12,012 km² (4,638 sq. miles). The built-up area of Paris fills its 12,012 km² to near 23%"

...and in addition, changing "aire urbaine" to "Metropolitan area" for good provocative measure. How trite. THEPROMENADER 18:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's too bad if I crossed the WP:3RR line - at least I didn't do it intentionally as Hardouin did. I'll take the consequences. Such intentional and bullying tactics should not go unreported. THEPROMENADER 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Be more careful of your language, even unvolontary that doesn't help you in your point. As for comparing Aire Urbaine with Metropolitan Area why not? Of course the article should explain the differences but then again the two uses are fairly comparable (this is commong from someone administrating a large urbanism forum) Matthieu 13:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind comparing the two (for example, placing "metropolitan area") within brackets after "aire urbaine" (or its translation, "urban area") for clarity) for purpose of discussion, but the two terms are definitely not interchangable. "Metropolitan area" is not the term France's INSEE uses in its English communiqués [9], so linking this term to INSEE statistics (or others taken from the same source) would be creating falsehood. Using the same for discussion and comparison to the methods of other countries, yes, but presented as a proper name and verifiable fact in an article, no. I hope you see my point.

I also don't see the point of comparing the size of one area of unknown girth to another of equally unknown size - in this case the Paris aire urbaine and the IDF - this is not really informative. Perhaps giving the real size of the IDF (km², eg) would be more useful? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My incivility

Excuse my exasperation, but this from the start has been an exercise in provocation. When a contributor returns after eight months to make a single edit - replacing ad literam a much discussed and contested phrase removed one year before, and refusing to modify it in any way at all in reverting to it outright without any attempt at reason and in all denial of criticisms and proofs - this is hardly an act with reader interest in mind; it is but a rather obvious, pointed and disruptive attempt to spite the contributor who contested the phrase in the first place.

My reasons for contesting this comparison of the subject of this article to an inapplicable and ambiguous term is quite clear and founded, and all indicated (in exhaustive detail, with references) through the discussion above. THEPROMENADER 16:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the problem, but I see your "The Île-de-France, because the région of its country's capital, is the most populated region of France." as severely non-sensical. What is the causal link between being the capital of a country and being its more populated area ? There are numerous examples of countries whose capital city is not the largest city by far (USA, Switzerland, ...). Rama 07:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally you should be free to fix this - I hadn't realised that the article was still under protection. Your note is not the only nonsensical comparison in this article. I'll request unprotection. THEPROMENADER 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There you go, sir. Break a leg : ) THEPROMENADER 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again.

I see that User:Hardouin is back again for another round of non-commented reverts to protect "his" article, even if it uses terms fictional in their context and it doesn't make any sense. I suppose that he'll have to complain about all the fuss made over his reverting, as usual.

Anyhow, to show that yesterday's edits were reasoned:

a) The phrase I removed is nonsensical. It is like saying "a woggit is as big as a nobbit" when you know the size of neither.

b) This User:Hardouin is fully aware of, thanks to another article protected because of his insistance on reverting to "his" inventive version, and the endless discussions thereon: Please see Talk:Economy_of_Paris. We do not use the terminology of one country to describe regions of another that already have names of their own. We even agreed to this, and have a cabal conclusion to confirm this, but User:Hardouin is blatantly ignoring all conclusions, consensus and agreements - only reverting is important it seems.

Another round of un-commented reverts against the above? Would it be normal to leave the article in that state? Would it be normal to bow to one who would preserve this only because he is pushy, arrogant and aggressive? I think not. Either re-write the passage in a sensical way, without using inventive terms, or I will continue to remove it. Period. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep removing a sentence about the metropolitan area of Paris that is backed by a source, so what is your justification for doing this? None. Several editors have told you not to do that, read the messages on this talk page (Stevage, Metropolitan). Please stop your revert crusade. Hardouin 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Again you revert to "your" non-agreement binding, non-factual, nonsensical version - "metropolitan area" as a proper name is counter-factual, as we AGREED - and AGAIN you remove the contributions of another editor. Stop reverting like a pigheaded idiot, and see reason, please. The revert crusade is yours, so thanks for holding the ignorant-targeted turnaround accusations. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not removed the contribution of another editor. Check the history page and stop making unfounded accusations. It's you who keep removing sourced edits from this article. Hardouin 12:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How nice of you to ignore all fact and reason in all the above - is everything "personal" to you? This is a big waste of time: Even if the phrase is nonsensical, I'm putting it into a version acceptable to our compromise. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than continue Hardouin's silly "tit for tat" revert war, I edited the article - without removing anything - to reflect our compromise, and in the bargain made that silly "a wigget is as big as a woggit" phrase into something informative - although it is still more noise than info. By the way, Paul Delouvrier created the the RER network in the Île-de-France - the aire urbaine didn't even exist then. This phrase was yet another example of User:Hardouin using any means at all - even stating mistruths - to impose his "I live like in the U.S." propaganda buzzwords. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 12:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the introduction has ONCE AGAIN returned to its former "a wigget is big as a woggit" format. Stating "a wiggit is 90% the size of a woggit" makes just as much sense when the size of neither is indicated - what kind of dimwitted contributor could find that to be informative, and revert constantly to the same in the bargain? One who "wrote it that way" perhaps. This is just another shining example of User:Hardouin placing his bad case of WP:OWN over anything information or fact. Grow up. THEPROMENADER 05:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Need I mention that User:Hardouin forewent his most basic English grammar rules in his hurry to revert to "his" version (leaving his pet phrase unexplained again) - we do not begin sentences with numerals; even a grade-schooler knows that. Edit intelligently, not protectively, and certainly not destructively. THEPROMENADER 19:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ontario, Île-de-France

It says in the article that it has a population greater than the population of Ontario. According to both the Ontario article and this article that statement is false, Ontario has a population of ~12,000,000 people. Basser g 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. It states a 'comparable population'. Which it does have. Sorry Basser g 22:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

hatnote

Shouldn't the hatnote contain the Île-de-France dab page? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardouin, ThePromenader, and the metropolitan area.

You two have now been debating this single point for at least two years - it was one of the first discussions I got into when I got into Wikipedia in Novmeber 2005. Fortunately I've never witnessed another argument quite so excruciatingly long, protracted, petty and pointless. Surely it is a waste of time for both of you to continue the argument - this is not like some denial of the Holocaust, or even POV in the Israel/Palestine conflict. It's just not worth it. How long do you really intend to man the trenches for? Another two years? Five? Ten? For what benefit? Stevage 02:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how long a few are going to make Wiki a source of incorrect information and a pedestal for a personal propaganda that only locals can see for what it is. I'm one of those, so sorry to those of you who just don't "get it". Look at the facts, and you'll see that a few put their own opinions about a certain terminology higher than the very institution that created them; the very idea is completely stupid, and makes Wikipedia seem a complete and immature laughingstock. Most don't see all the bullshit that goes on on these talk pages - what is judged is the article.

The "Paris metropolitan area" does not fucking exist anywhere in any INSEE or government English-language publications, and there is a damn good reason for this. France has its own demographic categories, terminology and official translations, so live with it. Wikipedia is not a personal essay on how things "should be", so publish fact, and grow up already. THEPROMENADER 17:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, TP, small issues of terminology are not what make Wikipedia a "laughing stock" or not. Long diatribes, personal feuds that span into the years, and bitter squabbles over what amounts to petty nitpicking do a much better job of that. Even if you (or Hardouin) were absolutely right about this terminology issue, you could much better have spent these thousands of hours of your time improving all the other articles related to France, and just totally left the Paris articles alone. Wikipedia would have been the better for it. Stevage 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you comment only on the quibbles without knowing what the quibbles are about, then that doesn't help Wikipedia much either. Wiki is for fact, not socializing or fanning flames. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(added) Sorry about my tone there. Part of my exasperation can be explained by the fact that there are so few helping to improve Paris-related articles: were there more knowledgable contributors there, stupid, long-drawn arguments such as the one you witnessed simply could not exist. THEPROMENADER 00:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"If you comment only on the quibbles without knowing what the quibbles are about". Heh. I know more than one needs to know about the quibbles. I'm saying to you "this argument is not important and is wasting everyone's time". Your response: "oh, but if you understood the argument, you'd take my side!" Allez, stop. Laisse tomber. Passe a d'autres choses... Stevage 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Inventing translations that counter all official ones is "nothing major"? This isn't about "sides", it's about evident fact. Look at what's right in front of you. THEPROMENADER 07:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right. It is "nothing major". It is not worth spending a fraction of the time you have both spent on this. It's just terminology. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of red links and even more stubs out there. Much more worthy of time and effort. Stevage 01:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, fact is not important, only that articles (no matter their quality) link together. That's a quite lazy way of thinking, and one quite against the raison d'être of Wikipedia (sharing knowledge), if you want my opinion. Also, inventing terminology is quite against the rules - probably for the same reason. I don't understand why you see no issue with this, either.

Actually the major remaining work in the Paris & region-based articles is providing citations for challengable claims; although it is our dear friend who (re-)wrote most of these, he refuses to provide references - as he has always done - and it will be a hell of a task to chase all these down ourselves. I frankly don't have the time these days. THEPROMENADER 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The last edit had ruined the page layout and the information on the right came at the top of the article without format; please preview when you change! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.238.39 (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1