Talk:Paris/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

'Referencing'?

I've been catching up on all the resourcing work done here (and learning to use the new templates) when I (again) came across the reference to "the French Connection" - following it to the top, I found this text that seemed rather odd to me (I'd never heard of Haussmann being the origin of Paris' Ville Lumière appelation):

"Paris became known as Ville Lumière in the second half of the 19th century, when Baron Haussmann, who had been put in charge by Emperor Napoleon III of the drastic transformation of Paris into a modern city, tore down whole quartiers of houses and narrow streets dating back to the Middle Ages, opening large avenues which let light (lumière) come into the former mediaeval city."

...then I followed the link and read the cited book excerpt, and found this:

"The pale, locally quarried Lutecian limestone facades we associate most strongly with la Ville lumière are Georges-Eugene Haussmann (1809-91) creations designed for the vast middle class who suffered from a severe housing shortage after the Revolution. During the Second Empire (1851-70), Napoleon Bonaparte‘s nephew, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte lll (1808-73), hired Baron Haussmann to metamorphose the shattered, war-torn city from a bleak, crowded metropolis where living conditions were dreadful into the most elegant, imperial city on earth. And, indeed, his city-planner rose to the challenge."

The passage on Haussmann relooking the city simply used the la Ville-Lumière sobriquet as a replacement for "Paris" ! It looks as though whoever wrote that Etymology 'City of Light = Haussmann' passage just did a google for books containing certain words he/she had written instead of verifying what he/she wrote is true or not. Are there many other gems like this? THEPROMENADER 07:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are. This is the same problem that I have highlighted in my comment about the Bangui edit (most of the French community drunk by 10 am), a comment which Blofeld asked an admin to remove. Perhaps because he's ashamed if someone mentions this edit? In this age of internet, with Google Books and tons of internet websites, you can find books or websites to support pretty much any claim, even the most bizarre or grotesque ones. I can write "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States" in the Barack Obama article, and present hundreds of websites as sources to support that claim. On a formal level, it will respect the Wikipedia guidelines (sourced information), but it is of course completely wrong. It is the same with the drunk French community of Bangui, and many other edits in the Paris article. For example, in the paragraph of the book that you have highlighted, I stopped reading after seeing "metamorphose the shattered, war-torn city". When Napoleon III came to power, Paris wasn't a "shattered, war-torn city". This bizarre citation alone should have led the editor to discard this dubious book as a source. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

True that the book in question looked more like a bed-and-breakfast guide. THEPROMENADER 15:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• The issue redacted was not your point about "drunk at 10am" (note how I said "point? perhaps"... that's an implication that you were on to something) but how you brought it into the discussion... as a tool for claiming an editor was not assuming good faith. We can discuss the accuracy of the sources, particularly with potentially controversial material, but a source being incorrect does not mean that an editor is knowingly inserting false material (which you seemed to imply). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ashamed? The Bangui article has absolutely nothing to do with this article iand it is completely irrelevant to attack my work on other articles here. The quote given in the source tells a lot about the French garrison at Bangui, it was used by the French military, meaning men. That in the line of duty the French officers were reportedly frequently drunk is very relevant to understanding the city during the colonial period in my opinion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit has been deleted anyway, so no need to argue anymore on that silly point. It would be great if you could admit mistakes sometimes though. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of the text in etymology and history is unchanged but sources were added. It is possible that some of the sources only mention the subject indirectly but the vast majority of the book sources should be fine and snippets can be accessed via a google book search. What section is the "Paris became known as Ville Lumière in the second half of the 19th century, when Baron Haussmann, who had been put in charge by Emperor Napoleon III " sentence in, can't seem to find it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Der Statistiker, can we keep 'other page' discussions about other editors out of this article discussion in particular please?

@Blofeld, I edited that phrase this morning because it was in error, and replaced it with a shorter and widely-known fact referenced by a relevant source. THEPROMENADER 14:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That was me - I didn't add the text, but I think I did the reference. Mea culpa, so thanks for fixing it.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 15:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ermagerd, another one. "Val de Seine, straddling the 15th arrondissement and the communes of Issy-les-Moulineaux and Boulogne-Billancourt to the south-west of central Paris is the new media hub of Paris and France, hosting the headquarters of most of France's TV networks such as TF1, France 2 and Canal+.[138]" is referenced by a vague map in a Microsoft Windows 8 guide. THEPROMENADER 15:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Of the most luxurious of these, the Hôtel Ritz appeared in the Place Vendôme in 1898,[196]" is linked to a book about the life of a relatively obscure (although strange) Paris celebrity. I'm seeing many links to inaccessible Google books (the pages cited don't even appear, and we can't access them unless we know the keywords the contributor used to turn up the pages cited). Searching on... THEPROMENADER 16:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

References for the Val de Seine business district can be found in the SDRIF of the Île-de-France region, but there are hundreds of pages to go through to find the proper reference. It's one of the so-called "territoires de projet" that they have defined if I remember correctly. Otherwise there are simple newspaper articles that mention it, for example this one: [1]. Or pictures: [2]. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a few things in http://www.apur.org/sites/default/files/documents/273.pdf (the part titled "industries culturelles"). It is not very detailed, and slightly outdated, but I think it can be a useful document if we want to describe the economic geography of Paris.--Superzoulou (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC) edit: Actually, it does not directly mention Val-de-Seine, but http://www.apur.org/sites/default/files/documents/192.pdf does. --Superzoulou (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of purely 'hunting down' weak/erronous references one by one, it would be more productive to concentrate on the article itself - the contributor focused on a section would most probably be knowledgeable about what he/she is writing about, so perhaps it would be more productive to let him/her judge the quality of the references as he/she edits, and the same would most probably already know good/better ones. I spent only a half hour chasing down references, and for sure it's a time-wasting PITA (because of the three-step process it takes to do it). Just iterating my thoughts. THEPROMENADER 20:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, what's the point of spending time editing the article if the hours we're gonna spend on our edits are going to be either reverted (as were ALL my edits in early July by SchroCat, not just one or two edits, but all of them, including reverting back to outdated 2009 census figures), or completely rewritten afterwards. I'd gladly participate in the improvement of the article, but for the moment I can't see why I would spend hours of my time on it just to have everything reverted by Blofeld & co. afterwards. Your thoughts? Der Statistiker (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Care to back up your lies with diffs? I reverted one of your edits (twice) - your monumental statistics bloat: not all your edits. If you're going to carry on churning out your bad faith bile, please at least try to keep it truthful. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You reverted this edit [3], this edit [4], this edit [5], this edit [6], this edit [7], this edit [8], this edit [9], this edit [10], this edit [11], this edit [12], this edit [13], and this edit [14], all 12 of them reverted by you in two big blanket reverts ([15] and [16]). Time wasted by me: 3 hours (to research data, write them down in the article, write proper citations, reword parts of the article and move things around to remove information repeated twice, etc.), 3 hours of work reverted by you in 9 minutes, with only this single explanation: "Not really an improvement" (!). Der Statistiker (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverting a series of edits remains a single revert. It would also be helpful to the discussion if you stopped trying to personalize everything. Focus on the content, not the contributors. Resolute 23:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted this single edit, after you had reverted Blofeld's removal of it. After Blofedl removed it you should have come to the talk page (it's what WP:BRD strongly advises users to do), but instead you went into edit war mode right up to the limit of 3RR. So, I reverted one of your edits, which were not an improvement overall. The 2009 figures may have been germane, but the monumental statistics bloating deserved to die a horrible death: it was not an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody will be reverting any edits that are a real improvement to the article. The above 'Lumière = Haussmann" example is a good one - how can anyone in good faith revert that? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

By what I've seen so far, during the short but massive rewrite, it seems that one or two contributors were doing the rewrite, and others were 'following up' with references for the text written. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how else can one explain, Gilderien, "That was me - I didn't add the text, but I think I did the reference."? Or was the 'Haussmann' phrase I corrected from a much earlier version of the article? Either way, one could basically write anything in the article content, say, "Paris is a communist city", and I'm sure if another editor searching for a reference in google books, something will turn up, say, this. This sort of 'team work' doesn't work, and I don't understand the motivation for working in this way - was there some sort of 'rush', or 'goal' to get this article to GA status? The result is an article that, at first sight, ~technically~ looks right, but I doubt that most GA reviewers verify the veracity of article content (although they should) and chase down references (although they should) - if they did, I don't think this article would have GA status today. THEPROMENADER 04:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's my impression too. Some people seem to favor form over content, which is very counter-productive. And how can you discuss with people who won't even recognize what they have done, as per SchroCat above? Der Statistiker (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, I reverted ONE of your edits (which may have been constituted of a series of previous edits), but was still ONE edit. It was part of your edit warring while trying to force your personal choice on the article you consider that you own. See, I recognise and know exactly what I have done: you seem to be the one with problems identifying what has happened, and have real problems in telling the truth about it afterwards, even when the diffs are presented to you. The only other thing I will say is that—as numerous others have tried to impress on you—it may be more productive if you try and keep to the point and discuss the edits, rather than other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(Waving, pointing upward) Can we have conversations about something other than hurt feelings and accusations? Was I right about the rewrite referencing? Perhaps some input from the authours would be nice. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Waou, not even the authours will answer - I take their silence as confirmation. It there a 'GA trophy wall' somewhere that someone's hell-bent on filling? Pffffft - moving on. THEPROMENADER 12:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You were wrong. Unfortunately being 9 hours behind you and travelling for 24 hours is a little obstructive to replying to all your comments as soon as I would like to. I left a note on your talk page.--Gilderien Talk to me|List of good deeds 14:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my earlier post, was in a bad mood. Okay, so the references in question were added to old content. I'm still wondering at the usefulness of Google books references if we can't even access the pages cited - again, we'd have to know the google search terms used to turn those pages up. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I rather suspect that Google Books varies what you can look at based on location, but in any case I would assume it would be relatively easy to find the page needed (search the page number?).--Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 13:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to search by page number. Shouldn't this sort of thing be researched ~before~ referencing? Again, with references like this, the article ~seems~ to be referenced, when in fact, it is not. Doing a search for text already written in google books is a lazy practice - the 'referencer' is bound to find something that corresponds to his writ - but the reference may not have at all anything to do with the phrase referenced, as in the example that started this thread. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"Etymology"

Shouldn"t that be called "Names" ? To me an "etymology" section should only be about the etymology of Paris, but this one actually describes the various nicknames of the city. --Superzoulou (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

True that 'etymology' is a useful title if we only discuss the origins of the city's modern name, Paris. How about 'City Names' or... 'Appelation' ? THEPROMENADER 18:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

'Toponym' would be an even more fitting title, IMHO. THEPROMENADER 11:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Toponym seems more suitable, agreed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That should be "toponyms" with an s, shouldn't it ? --Superzoulou (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, since there are many... I think we all agree, go ahead and change it! THEPROMENADER 05:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, it would have been nice to let Superzoulou make the change - it was his suggestion, after all. Cheers.THEPROMENADER 09:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference who makes the changes, at least to editors on here who don't have a resentment of others and serious ownership issues.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about basic politeness, and it's usually the editor rushing to make a change (before anyone else can touch 'his' article) who has ownership issues. THEPROMENADER 05:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fortune 500 vs CAC 40

It has been mentionned in previous threads, but I though I'd have to readd it in light of this edit. Should we have say that Paris is a headquarter of 34 Fortune 500 company, or that it is the headerquarter of most major French companies. To me the Fortune 500 thing does not make much sense in the lead, because the list changes every year, and may remain outdated more often than not, and more importantly because a Fortune 500 ranking is strongly affected by structural artefacts. Frand has many large companies but not so many mid-sized ones. Paris may have more Fortune 500 companies than New York City, but I doubt that anyone can seriously claim it makes Paris more "important" or "powerful" economically than New York. --Superzoulou (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, the Fortune 500 figure is updated every year by some editors here, so no need to worry about an outdated figure (besides, there are many outdated figures in this article, starting with the 2009 census figures which SchroCat reverted to after I had updated with the 2010 figures!). Regarding what you call "structural artifacts", I don't see where the problem is. It is a fact that France has many large companies, so why trying to hide it because, according to you, the country has less mid-sized ones? Stating that country A has many large companies is just a fact, and Wikipedia is about collecting facts. It doesn't imply that country A also has many mid-sized companies. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: I completely agree with the comment by that anonymous IP by the way. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a fact that France has many large companies. It may make sense to mention it inside the article., but a city economic importance, whatever that means, is only loosely correlated to the number of headquarters of large companies. Well actually, I am sort of ok with it they way it is, associated with "high concentration of national and international political, cultural and scientific institutions", as long as it is not coupled "weasely" claim to being an "engine of the global economy". --Superzoulou (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Paris is not an engine of the global economy?? Der Statistiker (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not know, I do not know what "engine of the global economy means" (or rather, I could make up definitions that would make the claim more or less true, and other that would not). --Superzoulou (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Demographics

As I think the demographic section should be improved, I have started a new version. It is quicker than trying to define a lengthier layout, and that might help to come up with new ideas. A few remarks:

• some things remain to be done (at least improving style and formatting...)
• I have tried to balance Paris proper / Paris urban area. I do no know if that is the way to go, but I think we should settle for one unique solution for the whole article.
• I have tried to remain quite short, and avoid overly detailed figures (they can easily to find in the reference given anyway. I do not think it is useful to provide population figures with high level of precision outside infoboxes and tables. That sounds a bit strange, and people looking for precise data should go directly to the sources provided, and there are several ways to measure the population anyway). I would gladly make something a bit longer, as it seems to me that a baic grasp of the demographic data is essential if we really want to understand a city. But I suppose that it is a matter of personal taste and education.
• I have trimmed down a part that was rather overplaying the high density aspect. Actually, it is not true that the density "could be compared only with some Asian megapolises and the New York City borough of Manhattan". It can be compared to Barcelona or Cairo for instance, and if we focus on more local levels, we can find very high densities in many places.
• I have removed "The city's population loss was one of the most severe among international municipalities", it is not properly sourced, and I do not think it is true.
• I have removed "Reasons for the migration include deindustrialisation, high rent, the gentrification of many inner quarters, the transformation of living space into offices, and greater affluence among working families.". I think that it is true but leaves out the most important part, the improvement in transports. In any case, we need a proper source.
• Much relies on a single French-language source -INSEE-, I guess that we could find others if we want to make a more developed article, but really, it is the main source for best source for most demographic statistics about France.
• I have tried to provide the same kind of content as in other similar articles, but there is no ethnicity section, contrary to what we have for American and British cities, the most obvious reason for this is that ethnic statistics are banned in France.
• I do not know what to do with the religion section. It is probably part of the demographics or sociology, but we actually have very little reliable data. So we are left with "christianity has been important in the city history", which should rather go to the history section, and "there are many bautiful churches" in Paris, which is more about tourism/landmarks. The French article does not contain any religion section.
• I have refocused immigration on the current situation. If we are to keep things short, I do not think that 19th century immigration should be the priority.

Current

City proper, urban area, and metropolitan area population from 1800 to 2010 The population of the city of Paris was 2,234,105 at the 2009 census, lower than its historical peak of 2.9 million in 1921. The principal factors in the process are a significant decline in household size, and a dramatic migration of residents to the suburbs between 1962 and 1975. Reasons for the migration include deindustrialisation, high rent, the gentrification of many inner quarters, the transformation of living space into offices, and greater affluence among working families. The city's population loss was one of the most severe among international municipalities and as a result the city administration is trying to reverse them with some success, as the population estimate of July 2004 showed a population increase for the first time since 1954, reaching a total of 2,144,700 inhabitants, which reached 2,244,000 by 2010. Paris is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Its density, excluding the outlying woodland parks of Boulogne and Vincennes, was 24,448 inhabitants per square kilometre (63,320/sq mi) in the 1999 official census, which could be compared only with some Asian megapolises and the New York City borough of Manhattan. Even including the two woodland areas, its population density was 20,169/km2 (52,240/sq mi), the fifth-most-densely populated commune in France after Le Pré-Saint-Gervais, Vincennes, Levallois-Perret, and Saint-Mandé—all of which border the city proper. The most sparsely populated quarters are the western and central office and administration-focused arrondissements. The city's population is densest in the northern and eastern arrondissements; the 11th arrondissement had a density of 40,672 inhabitants per square kilometre (105,340/sq mi) in 1999, and some of the same arrondissement's eastern quarters had densities close to 100,000/km2 (260,000/sq mi) in the same year. At the 1999 census, 19.4 per cent of its total population was born outside of metropolitan France. At the same census, 4.2 per cent of the Paris aire urbaine's population were recent immigrants (people who had emigrated to France between 1990 and 1999), the majority from Asia and Africa. 37 per cent of all immigrants in France live in the Paris region. The first wave of international migration to Paris started as early as 1820 with the arrivals of German peasants fleeing an agricultural crisis in their homeland. Several waves of immigration followed continually until today: Italians and central European Jews during the 19th century; Russians after the revolution of 1917 and Armenians fleeing genocide in the Ottoman Empire; colonial citizens during World War I and later; Poles between the two world wars; Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, and North Africans from the 1950s to the 1970s; North African Jews after the independence of those countries; Africans and Asians since then.

Proposed

As of 2010, the population of Paris proper stood around 2.3 millions, while that of Paris unité urbaine, roughly corresponding to the city and the surrounding built-up area was about 10.5 millions. Though substantially lower than at its peak in the early 1920s, the density of the city proper is one of the highest in the developed world. Compared to the rest of France, the main features of the Parisian population are a high average income, relatively young median age, high proportion of international migrants and high economic inequalities. Similar characteristics are found in other large cities throughout the World. Population evolution The population of the city proper reached a maximum shortly after World War I, with nearly 3 millions inhabitants, and then decreased for the rest 20th century to the benefit of the suburbsMost of the decline occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when it fell from 2.8 to 2.2 million. This trend toward de-densification of the centre was also observed in other large cities like London and New York City. Since the beginning of 21th century, the population of Paris has tended once again to rise, regaining more than 100,000 inhabitants between 1999 and 2009 despite a persistent migratory deficit and a fecundity rate well below 2. The population growth is explained by the high proportion of people in the 18-40 age range who are most likely to have children. Density Paris population density reaches 22,000 inhabitants per square kilometer - 25,000 if the outlying Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes are taken out. It is one of the highest in the developed world, only slighly lower than Manhattan. The residential density tends to be higher in the Eastern part of the city, while the centre-West contains more offices aris urban unit (built-up area) extends well beyond the city limits, and comprises all of the surrounding départements of Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis, and Essonne, as well as substantial portions of Yvelines, Val-d'Oise, Seine-et-Marne and Essonne. It includes heavily built-up inner suburbs, with densities comparable to those of Paris itself, as well as more distant and more sparsely populated areas. The average density for the whole urban unit is below 4,000 /km2. Income Though low wages are relatively similar in all Metropolitan France, high wages are higher and more numerous in the Paris region The median income for 2011 was around 25,000 euros in Paris against 22,200 for Île-de-France and 19,200 for the whole Metropolitan France, ranging from 16,400€ in the 19tharrondissement to 41,800 in the 7th . Generally speaking, incomes are higher in the Western part of the city, and in the Western surburbs than in the Northern and Eastern parts of the urban area. Migration About one third of foreign immigrants to France settle in the Île-de-France region, about a third of which in Paris proper. Twenty percent of Paris population either is a foreigner or was a foreigner at birth, and 40% of children have at least one immigrant parent. Most immigrants come from Europe or Africa: out of the 300,000 foreigner officially living in Paris in 2010, 29,000 were Algerians, 28,000 were Portuguese and 21,000 were Moroccans. Recent immigrants tend to be more diverse in terms of qualification: more of them have no qualification at all and more or them have tertiary education. Population exchanges between the Paris region and the rest of France are relatively intense. About one half of region population was not born there. In total, net migration flows are strongly negative, but it is heavily age dependent. While many retired people leave Paris for the Southern and Western parts of France, internatl migration flows are positive in the 18-30 age range.

That's a sight better, Superzoulou (you forgot so sign!), especially with the visual - to hide nothing, of my making - that instantly shows how far Paris' urban spread actually goes. I actually made that graphic to end a long-standing argument about 'how big Paris really is' - the red part is the actual 'city' density (closely-grouped buildings) and the pinky parts are looser agglomerations whose populalations (above a certain percentage of) commute to the urban area... I'm sure you know all that already, but perhaps a word of explanation would be useful to other contributors. In short, Paris' (and France's) demographic scheme is so much different than other countries that it deserves more than a brief explanation. A 'commune' system little changed since its creation (the late 1700's), Paris' borders almost unchanged since 1860, and the INSEE (France's cencus bureau) base all of their data on the same administrative subdivisions... Paris isn't the 'Five Boroughs' for sure.THEPROMENADER 14:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: The map/graph duo is a ~damn~ informative one: look at the map, see the spread of each area, look down to the graph, see what's going on there. Bravo for finding that ; ) THEPROMENADER 06:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good, but can you add references after punctuation and fill out the urls with Template:Cite web? Needs a copyedit and reword in parts and I'd prefer to give exact figures on population census rather than approx, but I like your idea for it Superzoulou.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I had already added the references, but forgot the references/ at the bottom. I'll do the templating, but would rather wait until we have the definitive text. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

His name is ThePromenader, not Superzoulou. Regarding The Promenader's proposal:

No that was me ;). --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you forgot to sign! Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

2019 Census Paris Region (Île-de-France)

Country/territory of birth	Population
Metropolitan France	9,215,134
Algeria	330,935
Morocco	253,518
Portugal	234,399
Tunisia	127,827
Guadeloupe	81,269
Martinique	75,959
China	71,500
Turkey	67,982
Mali	66,085
Côte d'Ivoire	63,810
Senegal	60,124
Italy	58,141
Romania	53,848
Democratic Republic of Congo	52,449
Spain	45,828
Sri Lanka	45,786
Cameroon	45,370
Republic of the Congo	38,651
Haiti	36,685
Poland	35,871
Vietnam	35,251
Cambodia	30,321
Réunion	30,077
India	29,623
Serbia	25,632
Lebanon	21,066
Madagascar	21,002
Germany	20,523
Pakistan	20,178
Russia	19,019
Mauritius	18,840
Guinea	18,709
Brazil	17,887
United Kingdom	17,789
United States	17,583
Other countries and territories	857,720

• I broadly agree with it, although there are little things that will probably need to be tweaked here and there, but it would be too long to detail. For example, it should be "About one third of foreign immigrants to France have settled" instead of "About one third of foreign immigrants to France settle", because the number of immigrants living in the Paris Region is of course the reflection of past migrations. The percentage of immigrants who arrive in France now and settle in the Paris Region is probably much higher than 33% (ancient flows of immigration were less focused on the Paris Region).~

One third is for recent immigrants, apparently meanining something like 2000-2005 http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?reg_id=20&ref_id=16769. I have not found the detailed figures, but they must be available somewhere. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought it would have been more. In any case, that stat (people arrived in the last 5 years), was exactly the one I had in mind to find a current figure (for current waves of immigrants). Your document is a bit old though (2006). We have the 2008 figures now (INSEE changed the methodology in 2009 I think so no data more recent than 2008), although I see the tables are currently unavailable on the INSEE website, and this being France, the technical problem won't be solved until the end of August. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would insist less on the evolution of population in the city proper and more on the evolution of population in the whole urban/metro area. Reading the previous demographics section and your proposed one, it would seem Paris was a city in decline, and now, since Delanoë came to power, it is suddenly growing again. In fact, Paris always kept growing (except during WW2), but people were moving to the suburbs, and now there is a tendency to go back to the inner city, as is happening in many other Western cities (NYC, London, Tokyo, many German cities, etc.), even though the suburbs are still growing of course. We should present this big picture, instead of a narrow look at the inner city proper, and contextualize it in light of what's happening for inner cities in the rest of the Western world.

Yes, I am not sure how we should handle that, but we should settle on a single solution for all sections (demographics, economy, etc.) --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no obvious way to do it, because we don't necessarily have all data for all geographic levels. Sometimes we have data only for the Paris Region, sometimes for the Paris metro area (aire urbaine), sometimes for the city proper. It's better to be flexible and use the best data we have for each subject, as long as we specify each time to what geographical level the data refer to. In general, the most available data are for the Paris Region. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit wary about switching to and fro between different topic just because it is easier for the writer. Sometimes, it may be necessary to use a different area as a proxy, but most of the time I think we should be able to find the data we need.

Note that there is also an article about Paris aire urbaine. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also an article about Demographics of Paris. ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my point was that if we want to talk about the greater Paris area, we can use dedicated articles, whereas we have no articles specifically called "Paris (city proper)" so that it might make sense to focus the Paris article on the city proper.

We can create a City of Paris article to discuss specifically issues related to the 20 arrondissements. This will be even more needed once the Métropole du Grand Paris is created. Brussels deals essentially with the Brussels Region, and then there is a special City of Brussels article for the city proper. Same with London. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've heard this suggestion many times before, but there is no call for it as far as far as Paris is concerned. "Greater London" is known even officially as "London" (and the "City of London" is ~tiny~, known also as "The Square Mile") - comparing Paris to this is comparing apples to oranges. As for the "Métropole du Grand Paris", let's wait and see if it will officially called "Paris" - if not, there will be a need to create a new article called "Greater Paris Metropole", if so, we will have to modify this article. THEPROMENADER 18:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• For once, I agree with Blofeld in the need for exact figures instead of approximate figures such as "one third", because as a reader, such approximate figures always make me doubt of their accuracy. When some data come from an official serious source, the figures quoted are usually exact figures. Approximate figures tend to come in general from 2nd or 3rd sources, and I always tend to doubt them as a reader.

To my knowledge I've agreed with you on most of the points you've brought up so far on most things except restoring the full length demo and admin sections in the main article which I don't think you really support anyway, so I'm not sure why you think I'm totally disagreeable with you, quite the opposite actually.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

One trouble with exact figures is that they require some rather lengthy qualification. It does not mean much to say 2,343,454 people in 2011.if you do not tell whether it is the beginning or the end of the year, and the way they are computed. The INSEE sometimes use alternative definition of populations, and the criteria have changed a bit over time. Exact figures may give a misleading sense of accuracy and comparability. I have mostly used INSEE studies and statistics as a source, and there is a link to more detailed figures in the reference. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's why whenever I have edited this article (and other articles), I have always indicated the exact date for each figure (for example "Jan. 2011"). Exact figures not only give an air of seriousness to the reader, but their great usefulness is that they allow a search on Google, whereas an approximate figure is of no use on Google (don't forget that web links change quite often, so most likely in 2 or 3 years time most of the web links in the citations here will be dead links, but readers will always be able to retrieve the sources by putting the exact figures in the Google search engine). Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This would be a perfect example of a need for 'floating footnotes' - the text would contain approximate figures, but it would be great if a link (blue '*'?) after it, when hovered, opened a tooltip containing exact figures. Does this exist already? THEPROMENADER 21:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia, hovering over a note provides with the text of the note, but apperently it does not yet work on talk pages. Perhaps we could have something like "As of 2010, the population of Paris was 2.25 million(look at the note)

Yes! THEPROMENADER 18:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would add the immigrant table in the immigrant subsection, as was done in the London article#Demography. The flags and visual aspect of it is more pleasing to the eye than just a dry text without illustrations.

It is rather nice and informative, but I tend to think it takes up too much space relative to the importance of the topic. Maybe a short version on this page and leave the full version for Demographics of Paris ? --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought about that already. ;) The problem with a short table is that it gives a rather misleading view of immigration and its diversity in Paris. For example, if I had ended the table after 5 countries, it would have given the impression that most immigrants in Paris were Maghrebans (many readers won't take the pain to click on the source and read the whole INSEE tables in French, let's face it). One solution could be an expandable table, where only a few countries would appear (say up to China, or up to Spain), and then the rest of the countries would display after the readers click on "expand". I've seen some expandable tables where nothing shows up before the reader clicks on "expand". I don't know whether it's technically feasible to have a few countries appearing and then the "expand" option offered after these few countries. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The full length table is way too long for the main article. I'd accept the tables of naitonalities I think if you cut it off at around 10 or the 50,000 people mark or the top 15 countries at the very most.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"I'd accept" - please. How about saying "I think" ? THEPROMENADER 21:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That aside, don't you think that the table makes more noise (takes more space) than it provides information? THEPROMENADER 18:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, does "Paris region" mean Île-de-France ? I think it should be made explicit but do not have the courage to browse a 80mb database. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The Île-de-France Region now always refers to itself in English either as the "Paris Île-de-France Region" or as the "Paris Region" (here for example). It has become their standard policy, because they have realized people outside of France confused Île-de-France and France. On Wikipedia, Paris Region redirects automatically to the Île-de-France article. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What's more, the Île-de-France has been referred to ~popularily~ as the "Paris Region" by the locals themselves since at least the late 1950's - you'll see that as a fact on the news (like for weather for example), in books and in everyday conversations, but 'Paris region' is much less used to reference the Île-de-France in official publications. THEPROMENADER 21:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, it seems that Île-de-France was oringally called "région parisienne", before it got its current name, but I am not sure French people always have in mind the administrative regions when they talk about "région parisienne". If that is the common name in English, I am fine with using it (provided of course we want to give a table about the region, not just the city of Paris). --Superzoulou (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding religions, there are indeed no serious religion figures for French regions. We can, however, mention the main religions of the Paris Region, and list their main places of worship (Catholics and Notre Dame, Muslims and the Grande Mosque of Paris, Buddhist and pagodas of Vincennes and Evry, Hindus and the Tamil religious festival every year (is that in the 10th arrondissement?), Protestants and the Oratory of the Louvre (a word about St Barthélemy perhaps?), Orthodoxes and the Russian orthodox church (is that in the 8th or 9th arrondissement?), White Russians at Ste Geneviève des Bois, etc. We can also give the number of immigrants from countries where each religion is dominant (for example, we have no data for the number of Muslims in the Paris Region, but we can give the number of immigrants in the Paris Region who come from predominantly Muslim countries).

Anything of religious relevance specific to Paris could probably be merged into the demo section. I'd try to avoid using the word "strongly" so many times though..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How about 'Places of worship'? Counting churches is easier than counting worshipers, but are neutrally representative of the same.THEPROMENADER 21:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That is probably better than nothing, though I am not sure it would give a very accurate view (I would guess that the average church is larger than the average mosque, on the other hand, it is probably less crowded). --Superzoulou (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Places of worship tend to be quite sensitive to 'demand' - they open and close depending on the masses. Since there is no religious statistical data, but there is statistical data on places of worship, I think noting these, with neutral phrasing such as "Paris' places of worship are, for the majority, Catholic churches and cathedrals", would give the reader a good idea about the religious goings-on here. THEPROMENADER 11:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding ethnicities, there exist no statistics at all, but the immigration table will replace them nicely. People can draw their own conclusions by looking at the main countries/territories of origin of the migrants in the Paris Region.~

Yes, though ethnicity is a bit different as county of birth.--Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the best we can offer. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your map of the Paris urban and metro areas was great, but it is now outdated (new 2010 definitions of the unités urbaines and aires urbaines). It would be great if you could do update it, to cover the 2010 territories of the unités urbaines and aires urbaines, although it's probably lots of work I know, but it was one of the highlights of the section, and should be up to date.

I guess you mean (pointing to self) mine. Ouch. Yes, touché, it needs to be updated for sure. It's not so much work, actually - if I can find the original 'commune' vector files... the French version of the article adopted that map and translated it, but in doing so changed the colours... if that means there is something that could be improved over the present colour scheme, suggest away. THEPROMENADER 21:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• What about the administration section? Der Statistiker (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The administration section is just above the demographics, which may make it easier to understand the demographics. But it currently includes info about Paris as the administrative center of France, and headquarter of international organizations, which seems an unrelated topic to me. I think it should be refocused on the way Paris and the Parisian region are administered. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think so too. And we'll have to have a new section (and article!) about the Métropole du Grand Paris, when the law is passed by the French Parliament this Autumn. In fact I thought it was rather absurd to entirely rewrite the article when the Grand Paris is just about to be created, which will probably require another rewrite of the article in 2014 or 2015. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Grand Paris has been 'coming soon' since around twenty years now, and I don't think it's going to be here as early as we think (hope). The government can't even decide what to call it, and the antiquated 'commune' system (and party 'ownership' of each) that's slowing things down: one dissenting commune vote is enough to bork any progress towards unification. Anyhow, I'm hoping just as much as you are, but it's a bit early to toe the starting line for Grand Paris. THEPROMENADER 06:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: there is nothing wrong with creating a section (even article) about the ongoing Grand Paris project (and it should be at least mentioned that it is 'in the works'), but it would have to be constantly updated. Perhaps a mention in the Paris page linked to a 'Grand Paris Project' article? THEPROMENADER 07:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@ThePromenader: regarding your map, you can find the updated list of communes for the 2010 unité urbaine here and the for the aire urbaine here. I have no idea where you can find vector files. If the commune map you're using is not the most up-to-date, note that the commune of Bleury (Eure-et-Loir) was merged with the commune of Saint-Symphorien-le-Château (Eure-et-Loir) on Jan. 1, 2012, and the new merged commune is called Bleury-Saint-Symphorien. PS: personally I tend to prefer your color scheme rather than the one used in the French version.Der Statistiker (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the Grand Paris, THIS TIME is different. The bill proposing to create the Grand Paris was adopted by the National Assembly on July 23. Have you followed the news? The bill will now be discussed by the Senate in September. The entity created will be officially called "Métropole du Grand Paris" in French. It will come into existence on Jan. 1, 2016. It will contain at least 127 communes, and perhaps more (the exact list of communes included in the Grand Paris will be known on Nov. 30, 2014). I would wait until the bill is adopted by the Senate and the law then enacted by François Hollande before mentioning it in the article though (the law creating the Grand Paris will possibly be enacted by François Hollande in October or November). Der Statistiker (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

2019 Census Paris Region
(Île-de-France)
Country/territory of birth Population Metropolitan France 9,215,134 Algeria 330,935 Morocco 253,518 Portugal 234,399 Tunisia 127,827 Guadeloupe 81,269 Martinique 75,959 China 71,500 Turkey 67,982 Mali 66,085 Côte d'Ivoire 63,810 Senegal 60,124 Italy 58,141 Romania 53,848 Democratic Republic of Congo 52,449 Spain 45,828 Sri Lanka 45,786 Cameroon 45,370
Other countries/territories Republic of the Congo 38,651 Haiti 36,685 Poland 35,871 Vietnam 35,251 Cambodia 30,321   Réunion 30,077 India 29,623 Serbia 25,632 Lebanon 21,066 Madagascar 21,002 Germany 20,523 Pakistan 20,178 Russia 19,019 Mauritius 18,840 Guinea 18,709 Brazil 17,887 United Kingdom 17,789 United States 17,583 Other countries and territories 857,720

Obviously I have some reading to do. Thanks, and cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoo. A lot of mayors are going to be hurting. Okay, we've got a few years to wait yet. THEPROMENADER 06:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added a copyedited version of my proposal to the article, as it appears that there was consensus that it was already better than the current version. --Superzoulou (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've created a collapsible version of the immigrant table where the collapsed section starts after Spain. This displays a few countries, while allowing people to see the rest of the countries if they wish to. Your thoughts? Der Statistiker (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a really good idea actually.--Gilderien Converse|List of good deeds 03:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the collapsible table in the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I am a bit uncomfortable with the Metropolitan France, Martinique, etc. Politically, the déartements d'Outre-mer are as much part of France as the Métropole. I feel it would be better to have île-de-France/rest of Metroplitan France/DOM-COM, though I am not sure I could make a very rational argument for that. --Superzoulou (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That would make the table longer. Besides, there is a clear cultural difference between people from Metropolitan France and Overseas France. The latter are often treated as immigrants in Metropolitan France, even though they are not immigrants legally speaking. You only have to look at the recent incidents in Trappes, a suburb of Paris, which were triggered by two Muslim converts from... Martinique. Things like that wouldn't happen if the migrants from Overseas France were regarded strictly the same as migrants from, say, Provence or Brittany. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it is that clear. Actually, the guy the guy who started the incidents in the first place sort of looks like a blue-eyed muslim convert from Tours or some place like that who was sitting next to me in a plance, and who was coming back from a "spiritual journey" in India. Anyhow, I am not suggesting that we totally remove the Métropole-Overseas distinction, just that we conflate all overseas department into one line. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well according to France TV, the veiled wife (whose veil triggered the whole thing), named Cassandra, is from Martinique. Her husband, Mickaël, is of Russo-Maghbean origins (what a world we live in! lol). Regarding the "conflate all overseas department into one line", the point is precisely to show the individual countries/territories. In this case, it's interesting to know that there are so many French Caribbeans in Greater Paris (as opposed to Réunionese or Mahorese or Polynesians). We wouldn't know which part of the world they come from if all of Overseas France was grouped in one line. It's also interesting to know that some of those French Caribbeans are so little integrated in Greater Paris that they convert to Islam and trigger riots just as if they were immigrants. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Video showing the mother of Cassandra, from Martinique, and convert to Islam like her daughter, who is not legally-speaking an immigrant in Paris: [17] Der Statistiker (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent immigrants tend to be more diverse in terms of qualification: more of them have no qualification at all and more or them have tertiary education." - doesn't make sense, can you reword?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I meant that compared to more ancient immigrants, who tended to have high-school education, more recent immigrants have more diverse educational level (more of them have very low education, and more of them have advanced degrees). But actually, I am not sure it is very important. --Superzoulou (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Superzoulou: in the immigration section, I have removed the bit about the number of foreigners, since this is a very misleading stat (many immigrants have acquired French citizenship over time and are not foreigners anymore, while some non-immigrants are foreign nationals). I have replaced it with the percentages of people born outside of Metropolitan France, which is a stable stat. I have reworded some sentences (the "one third" in the INSEE reference referred not to recent immigrants but to recently arrived people, both immigrants and French expats returning to France). A citation is needed for the bit about the 40% of children who have at least one immigrant parent. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Paris in... the Arts.

I've been reading between the English and French versions of the Paris article, and quite like the French article's angle on describing Paris ~in~ painting, cinema, etc - this allows, in addition to the present 'list-style' of museums and who lived here, etc., discussion about how Paris itself inspired creations even in other countries in the different art fields. THEPROMENADER 08:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be working in this direction - it'll probably be only the context that will change. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 05:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that can be interesting thanks. Just thinking aloud, as it seems sort of connected with "Paris as depicted in the arts". In case there has been quality studies on the topic, maybe we should have something about how foreigners see Paris, as it seems strongly connceted with sometimes clichésque ideas (like "cancan and libertinage" in the English Speaking World or "Romance" in China). --Superzoulou (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I quite like the French article's approach of first having an introduction explaining why it has been a pole of attraction/emanation for the arts in general over the centuries, than explains in more detail each art in subcategories. But damn, that 'Landmarks by District' section keeps distracting me... THEPROMENADER 06:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: the French article has exactly that in its 'Culture' subsection (!) - 'Paris, myth and reality'. That article is damn well written, btw. THEPROMENADER 06:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I was going over the structure of the French Paris article, liking the "Culture and Patrimony" angle while thinking about this article, and came up with this:

Local Culture and Patrimony

Intellectual importance

- brief description of when and why Paris began to attract 'lights'

Cityscape

- brief description of the city's general 'look' (architecture, etc)

Monuments and Tourist Attractions

Parks and gardens

Cemeteries

Cultural Patrimony

- brief description about Paris' accumulated physical cultural Patrimony

Museums

Libraries

Operas, Theatres and Cinemas

Cafés, Restaurants and Hotels

Paris in The Arts

- brief description of when and how Paris attracted/inspired works in all artistic fields

Paris in Literature

Paris in Painting and Sculpture

Paris in Music and Dance

Paris, Capital of Fashion and Luxury

Paris in Photography

Paris in Cinema

Paris in Other Medias (Comics, Video Games)

Paris, Myth and Reality

- explanation perhaps about 'cliché misconceptions' about the city and it would be interesting to explain the origin of a few

...after a lot of toying and coming back to it today, the above still seems to make better sense 'informative-structure'-wise. Thoughts? THEPROMENADER 07:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Perhaps a further word of explanation for the above schema: It would make a shorter article because certain elements (architecture, etc) would find their own subject, and Paris' monuments its own (these could be described by area (like St-Germain-des-Près, Louvre, Châtelet, etc), eliminating the need to describe the placement of each of Paris' arrondissements before describing the placement of the monuments within). By describing Paris in each art we can describe both the artist, his work and where he hung out (the American Hemingway, A Moveable Feast, Closerie de Lilas & the Deux Magots, etc) and treat artists actually from Paris in the same way; basically it describes first a) the general aspect of the city then b) the where and what of the more important elements within, then c) what people did there and how it influnces/influnces the city ~and~ the world. Hope I was clear, cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good. I am not convinced that organizing things by art form (painting, photography, cinema) make the most sense (as opposed to say, by artistic movement), but it is probably the way to go if we want to keep it easy to understand and relatively short. --Superzoulou (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The 'arty' section does seem a bit lengthy, doesn't it? But also true that a division between 'arts' would be shorter than a division between centuries of 'movements'. But then Erik Satie, Jean Cocteau and 'Les Six' comes to mind... THEPROMENADER 17:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Er. I seem to have forgotten my earlier comment about writing about other countries' influence/inspiration in/about Paris... that also helped form the 'art split' idea. THEPROMENADER 23:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment on sockpuppetry

The problem with sockpuppetry is that people generally use multiple accounts to hide who they are or to get around sanctions such as blocks or bans. Dr Blofeld has never been blocked (except for really short chunks of time), and I've never heard or seen evidence that he used Tibetan Prayer (or Himalayan Explorer) to get around the blocks. Moreover, he's never made a secret of the connection between those accounts, so he's not been using them deceptively either. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

'Parachute' revisionists.

As of 16:10, after User:Der Statistiker's first comment this morning (and the first comment here since over a week), there have been no less than five 'parachute' comments/votes in the 'change the picture' thread. At least two three four of these 'faux' commentors/voters are from the 'www.skyscrapercity.com' website (one other real contributing Wikipedian is active there as well, but I'm not counting him/her here), and all have hardly/never contributed to Wikipedia before posting here. Whoever put the 'call' out did so in an under-the-table way that is both disruptive and destructive to Wikipedia - not to mention making a misleading 'mega controversy' claim on the French 'Paris' article talk page - a few meeting opposition to weevling in a POV (to replace fact) is not 'controversy'. Ignoring reason to seek out non-wikipedians sharing the same POV to create a selective POV-sharing 'gang' to tip the vote is WP:GAME, WP:POINT, and WP:BATTLEGROUND, not to mention downright sneaky and disrespectful to readers and good-faith contributors alike. Thanks again. THEPROMENADER 14:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of using the word "revisionist". Since you live in France, you should know that this word carries legal consequences: [18]. And my comment (the cover page of the City of Paris's magazine) was made yesterday, not this morning. Get your facts right at least. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Since an admin has asked me to clarify my comment, I want to clarify that it wasn't a legal threat), but that I merely pointed out that the deliberate choice of the word "revisionist" by The Promenader to qualify a certain number of editors here who live in France is not neutral under French law (and many other European laws in fact). I ask The Promenader to withdraw this word. Thank you. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(rolling eyes) Ad hominem as usual. Take one isolated use of the term and threaten legal proceedings based on that… wow. And Paris still isn't any bigger. THEPROMENADER 17:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: "Scholars use the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists" - read before making such desperate yet grave accusations. THEPROMENADER 17:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

People who think that La Défense has all its place in the first picture of this article are not more "revisionists" than people who try to impose a view of Paris only made of monuments and the usual tourists stereotypes. This is weird to see how things that are not in accordance with the tourist clichés are systematically attacked here to reduce these as much as possible. Minato ku (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, what's being contested is a POV-drive to make readers think that 'Paris' is as big as the 'Paris urban unit' (or even the Île-de-France) and full of skyscrapers. Neither is true. Or do we think ourselves above the Government and the INSEE? THEPROMENADER 17:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is very difficult to separate a city of its urban area (except in multipolar metropolitan areas like Rhine-Ruhr what Paris is not), many facts about Paris solely exist because Paris is the center of a much larger urban area. You can't make a serious encyclopedic article about Paris if you hide these facts. Paris and its suburbs are maybe not integrated in administrative way but in functionality they are very integrated and form a single entity. Minato ku (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Paris' interaction with its suburbs is already well described in the article, it just uses referencable terms and doesn't call Paris' suburbs and dependancies 'Paris'. THEPROMENADER 19:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A direct link to the discussion on Skyscrapercity: [19]. Discussions on that forum are refined and elegant. Seudo (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Such elegance, indeed (and I'm not a 'rosbeef', btw, I'm Canadian). It's obvious that the people from that forum think it a game to impose their 'wishful reality' upon one of English Wikipedia's more important articles, and in fact even seek to use the article's popularity to make their dreams reality - to to the world's less knowledgeable readers, at least. I wonder how Wikipedia protocol views such hors-Wiki organised efforts at disinformation. THEPROMENADER 17:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry about some bad comments in this forum, as a moderator, I should have intervene faster but I wasn't on the forums when some members wrote these messages. I do not agree with any comments that personally insult people. Minato ku (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Accepted (and understood, no hard feelings), but it goes to show that people in that forum don't have a real understanding of what Wikipedia is trying to be: a referenced and serious collection of factual knowledge; they shouldn't have come in the first place. What also should have been nipped at the bud was the collective glee some there expressed at knowfully skewing the outcome of what was meant to be a fact-based decision in the interest of the reader, and transforming it into a 'we will win' crusade promoting one narrow agenda bent on ignoring and quelling any good-faith input into the matter. But thanks for the message, cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You force them to be in a 'we will win' crusade, because you are in a crusade of your own, admit it. Last time I checked, Bertrand Delanoë hadn't appointed you guardian of the City of Paris borders, so drop the volume a bit please. Your life won't be irremediably altered if La Défense appears behind the Eiffel Tower in the infobox of this article. And calling people "revisionists" is beyond bad taste. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you here for readers, or to fight other contributors who won't bow to your tireless aggressive promotion of wishful opinion as fact? I ~forced~ other people not even aware of this article from a 'skyscraper' forum I wasn't even aware of to come vote here? Give me a break. I'm not even in the question, only facts are, and, inspite of all your ad-hominem under-the-table gaming-the-system tactics, Paris ~still~ isn't any bigger yet. For the thousandth time, drop the schtick. THEPROMENADER 21:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Landmarks by district

I tried to fix the 'Landmarks by district' section, but it seems hopeless:

• it has too many mistakes;
• it often looks like a random selection of facts related to Paris (e.g. Buddhist temples are listed for the 12th district, but not the Parc de Vincennes, while English-speaking embassies and minor museums are selected in other districts...);
• it duplicates Landmarks in the City of Paris (including its deficiencies), List of tourist attractions in Paris and Paris districts (well-written, but limited to tourist landmarks) ;
• listing landmarks by administrative arrondissement does not make much sense.

In my opinion, this section should be erased (and maybe recreated by someone who is ready to do something else than collecting random facts from the Internet). Seudo (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's probably waaaay up there by now, but I proposed rewriting the section… just a sec… here. I proposed describing each quarter (St-Germain-des-Près, Faubourg St-Honoré, etc.) for not only its monuments, but also its character and ambiance (students, fashion, tourists, business, etc.). That way it would have a little more insight on how the city actually works, and it would have a little more life than just being a list of 'things to see'. THEPROMENADER 17:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Erase this section about the landmarks by districts but rewritte the Paris architecture section. This architecture section gives the impression that almost all the City of Paris is made of Haussmannian buildings, almost nothing is said about the numerous older and more recent architectural styles. There are complementary links to the Haussmann renovation of Paris and the tallest buildings articles in Paris metropolitan area but the majority of buildings in Paris are neither Haussmannian nor high-rises. Minato ku (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Seudo: you arrive late in the discussion. If you re-read everything since early July (it's in archives #10), you'll realize that:
1- this article was almost entirely rewritten by a singe editor, User:Dr. Blofeld, who also uses the account User:Tibetan Prayer (apparently the admins don't consider this to be a case of sock-puppetry, go figure)
2- Dr Blofeld is the one who turned this article into a tourist brochure (what you're seeing now is actually an improvement compared to the article as it stood in the end of July; we managed to reintroduce some important information deleted by Dr Blofeld, such as the Demographics section; article before Dr Blofeld's massive rewrite: [20], article in the end of July: [21], with some extremely important and current information such as the "demi-mondaines" and the "French can-can")
3- the "Landmarks by district" was written and introduced in the article by Dr Blofeld himself. It has been criticized by several editors. I am the one who created the article Landmarks in the City of Paris in order to move the content added by Dr Blofeld from Paris to Landmarks in the City of Paris, but I was reverted by SchroCat (note how SchroCat accused me of "massive disruption to the article", which is funny considering that it's Dr Blofeld who has massively rewritten this article). Since the beginning of these shenanigans, SchroCat (who has known Dr Blofeld for a long time from the DYK project) has unabashedly supported Dr Blofeld (to the point of reverting people who dare to edit Blofeld's edits), but never actually made positive proposals/contributions of his own.

DS, I'm going to call complete bollocks on this. You are so tied up in your own ridiculous bile and hatred you can't see the wood for the trees or see anyone straight on anything. For a start Dr B did not alert me to what weas happening on the Paris article and he did not ask me to become involved at all. Secondly I have never been anywhere near the DYK project, have never filed anything at DYK and have no DYK "credits" to my name at all. So before you start ranting and raving again, perhap you could actually make sure of the ground on which you stand? - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

4- so for nearly two months now, this has been Dr Blofeld, supported by SchroCat plus one or two other friends from DYK, dictating his will here (he even told one editor this: "Please draft a version of the demographics section in your sandbox and you might be surprised that I might be accepting of it if it isn't too long and doesn't have too many tables."). I am not the only editor who thinks this is a very bad case of WP:OWN.

Agaion, complete bollocks, I'm afraid. I am an independent editor and neither Dr B, or anyone else, dictates to me ever. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

5- you're welcome to try to unlock the deadlock. Another French editor, User:Superzoulou, tried but eventually gave up and left. The July and August holidays also didn't help, as most French editors were en vacances, blissfully away from it all. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think things have cooled down quite a bit since the massive rewrite, so let's not fan flames again (especially by naming specific editors). @Seudo: Don't worry about past conflicts (in fact, don't even go there) and edit away… but perhaps it would be polite to note any major rewrites beforehand on the talk page - but you're doing that already, aren't you? Business as usual then, whot whot ; ) THEPROMENADER 18:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said Promenader and grow up Der Statistiker. It isn't true at all that I entirely wrote it. Most of the information about the landmarks alreayd existed in a jumbled up bulleted section, I mostly but it in arrondisement order and filled in gaps with little more than saying xxx arrondissement contains theatres such as xxx; most of the landmarks are based on little but mentioning of the landmarks listed in the arrondissements by district categories so I'm not sure that I'm responsible for many errors within it, if I am then I they can be sorted out. I agree it needs improvement but I don't want to see the section blanked entirely, it still needs to have something decent written about it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I would have been surprised if you hadn't been opposed to the removal of your list of landmarks by arrondissement. But don't worry, your friend SchroCat is around and ready to press the "revert" button if Seudo dares to remove your list. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop being so petulently uncivil DS. Grow up and realise that other people are allowed to hold opinions contrary to your won: it does not mean that we are "wrong" and you are "right" or that the world is ganging up on you. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get that we're not still at war do you? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I had seen the history of the article and the discussion before I posted the message above, but since it had been archived I thought it was better to start a new one. Since the positions are still the same, I won't remove these paragraphs without a consensus... So it's going to remain as it is, although it's a little weird to see 4 articles or sections of articles which deal approximately with the same subject. Paris Quarters is, in my opinion, the only one with a potential (with List of tourist attractions in Paris, for those who enjoy lists). Seudo (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I just moved this unfortunately-named 'Paris Districts' article to a more suitable 'Paris Quarters' namespace - I worked on this ~years~ ago and it is badly in need of a rewrite (my English was quite wonky then for some reason or other), but perhaps it can give an idea of the 'Quarters' idea I was talking about. THEPROMENADER 19:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: FYI, I think my 'more than tourism' stance is quite clear there (I detect even a note of derision in my writing when describing 'touristy' quarters), and it was I who added the 'La Défense' section. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is quarters rather than quartiers? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Good question. No pages link to that article, so changing it again won't be a problem. THEPROMENADER 19:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer that on Talk:Paris Quarters. Seudo (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Boundaries of Paris

Much of the lengthy discussion about the image revolves around what should be considered Paris, the city proper or the metropolitan area. After a bit more thought, I think it makes more sense to focus on the city proper, though of course the metropolitan should be mentionned as well.

• it is clearer, as the city limits are well defined and rather well known, while there are several definitions of the metropolitan area, and it changes over time.
• the city limits have a real political meaning, with important consequences for taxes and building legislation.
• the metropolitan area sounds a more relevant scale for social science research, but it is not as well studied as the city proper (or the whole Île-de-France region, but the region has a separate article). It is a much more complex and technical subject than Paris in the administrative sense. Sure, Paris cannot be understood without a reference to the suburbs, but no city exists in isolation. Shenzhen cannot be understood without Hong Kong. Singapore cannot be understood without Malaysia, we just need to set some limits to article scopes.
• a new structure consisting of Paris and the inner suburbs may be created by 2016, but it will not abolish the current city of Paris.

Greater London has not abolished the City of London either, yet the article London clearly is about Greater London and not just the narrowly defined City of London. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The official definition of London is Greater London, while Neuilly is not part of Paris in any official way. --Superzoulou (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Neuilly-sur-Seine (and also Neuilly-sur-Marne and Neuilly-Plaisance) will be part of the Greater Paris Metropolis. So it's exactly the same as in London. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Will (~may!~) be != 'is'. THEPROMENADER 19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• this is the way it is done for other cities (say New York City). Yes, in the case of Paris, the city proper is particularly small, but I do not see how that makes any difference. --Superzoulou (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't compare Paris and its suburbs with Shenzhen/Hong Kong or Singapore/Malasia relation, that's a really a lack of understanding about Paris. While there is some connection between Singapore/Malasia and Shenzhen/Hong Kong, these cities are seperated by national border and are still working independantly. The number of people who commute between those place is small compared with the population of the area. The vast majority of the people working in Singapore live in Singapore, the development of Shenzhen is maybe a little due to the proximity Hong Kong but today Shenzhen works pretty much independantly of Hong Kong.

In Paris, this is really different, the city is clearly dependant of its suburbs and could not function properly without. A few facts are easy to see it, 60% of the people working in Paris live in suburbs, 55% of the people using the metro in Paris live in suburbs and etc. There are also a signifiant reverse commute 30% of the employed working force of Paris works in suburbs. Paris without its suburbs would not be the city that we know today. You speak of taxes but it is thanks to the huge number of commuter workers that the municipality of Paris is rich and can have low residential taxes. It is thanks to the suburbs that the city can function with a strict building code. People need to realize that Paris and its suburbs are not several cities independant next to each others, it is a single entity that could not work without each other. Minato ku (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not too different from most moderncities, where the metropolitan sprawl has in many cases consumed many of the suburbs (London is a prime example of that) but many of those suburbs are still separate entities, even though they are interconnected and mutually supportive of the centre. Yes, the relationships should certainly be highlighted, but this article is about Paris, not Paris and its environs, and as such it should reflect the legal and adminitrative boundries of the city itself. - SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"Only" 16% of the people working in London (Greater London) live in municipalities outside Greater London. There is a big difference between 60% and 16% isn't it? Having very little mention of the suburbs (municipalities outside GL) in the case of London doesn't change a lot of things in the understanding of London. In the case of Paris, this changes everything. You can't understand how Paris works without speaking of the suburbs. Wikipedia is an is an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide. Minato ku (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what Wikipedia is, thank you. As I have already said—and I stand by it—"Yes, the relationships should certainly be highlighted", so I am glad we are in agreement on that point. However, this article is about Paris and not the Paris environs. - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I know full well that Paris and Shenzhen do not work the same way, but that is not the point. Shenzhen would not exist at all without Hong Kong, yet an article about Shenzhen should not be much about Hong Kong. The amount of exchange with neighbouring area is an interesting indicator, but that is not in itself a valid reason for changing the scope of the article. Most people working (or shopping) in La Défense do not work there, but that does not mean that La Défense should be about places outside La Défense. --Superzoulou (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

An article about la Défense is an article about a district, not a city. When they access to the article about la Défense, they already know that La Défense is a business district of Paris.

This is very different of the article of Paris, when you write "Paris" in Google, this is this article that come first. This reality means that people who read this article should understand how Paris functions. This Paris article is not a sub article of a main and bigger "Paris metropolitan area" article, this is the main one. People who do not know anything about Paris arrives here. Minato ku (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, readers should understand how Paris works, and that means that we should explain the relationship between Paris and the suburbs. But that does not mean the core topic of the article should be about the whole urban area. In French it is handled by the still stubbish fr:Agglomération parisienne, not fr:Paris. In English, there is Paris aire urbaine - though its scope is arguably too narrow. In some respects, I think the urban area is a more important topic than the city proper, but for better or for worse the official definition of Paris is still the commune, not the urban area. --Superzoulou (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between the French and English languages audience, people who read French know that Paris is bigger than Paris, they have access to the French speaking Medias and etc. In France outside of Paris area, anybody who live in Ile de France is seen as a Parisian. This is diffent for the English version, most People who read this English version have fewer knowledge of the city. The English version of Wikipedia should not be a copy of the french version.

I don't want necessarily to transform this article into a broad article about the Paris metropolitan area but the relation Paris/suburbs should be highlighted, more than today in today version. People here seem focuced on La Défense, so I will take this district as an example. If Paris have few high-rises in its core, it is because La Défense exists. Without la Défense (and the numberous business park in suburbs), there would be more office high-rises in the CBD (Bourse, Opéra, Grand Boulevard, Champs Elysées area) and in Montparnasse or Paris would have become a second or third class economic city like Rome. Minato ku (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"most People who read this English version have fewer knowledge of the city" Then our mission should be to educate people to what is right, not what you think they may want to hear. This is an encyclopaedia, and we should aim to be precise about the terms we use, and if that menas we have to educate people about exactly what Paris is and isn't, then that can only be a good thing. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What Paris is and what Paris is not, is not based on administrative borders but on function. Having an article only restrained on the City limits will show a partial view of the city and it will not provide elements to understand how the city really works..

Take the example of myself (and there are millions like me), I live in suburbs but I work in the City in Paris, I do most of my shopping and leisure in the City in Paris. I greatly contributes to the economy and the functioning of the city, you can't exclude me of this article about Paris just because I live 2km outside the Périphérique or you will miss important elements about today Paris city life. Minato ku (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, for the third time, "Yes, the relationships should certainly be highlighted". I am in full agreement that within an article about Paris there should be information about how the city of Paris affects, and is affected by, its environs. - SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@Superzoulou: this is the border between Hong Kong and Shenzhen: [22], [23], [24]. And this is the border between the City of Paris and its "suburbs": [25], [26], [27]. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no denying the economic importance and contributions of Paris' suburbs (and this article already speaks of them), but if you're living even 10 metres outside the Periphérique in Montreuil, you're living in Montreuil. This is both fact and common usage for anyone living in this area; were I living in the suburbs (and I did for a few years), if I was asked 'where do you live?', the only people to who I could answer 'Paris' would be those who so little about the Paris area that they didn't know the location of my commune's name, and even then I would probably answer (and did answer) 'near Paris' and not 'in Paris'. THEPROMENADER 16:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. 10 meters outside the Périphérique in Montreuil you're still in Paris, as per: [28], [29], and [30]. Get your facts right please. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

When you're ten metres inside Montreuil, you're in Montreuil. Ignoring the rest of my response? THEPROMENADER 19:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I know. Apparently my comparison was confusing, but my point is that at some levels all cities are can only be understood by understanding the relations with the outside (Paris experiences a heavy two-way commuting, Shenzhen (was) developed because it borders Hong Kong, some city are dormitory towns etc.). But the fact is that in most contexts, cities are defined by their administrative boundaries, and it is the way things are done in all Wikipedia articles I could find. Yes Paris administrative boundaries are arguably irrational, and yes, they may become less and less important, but they still matter. The city of Paris has, to a large extent, the same powers as other French communes and départements, while other definitions of Paris have little to no legal existence. --Superzoulou (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

How would you define the administrative boundaries of Brussels? and Mexico City? and London? and Tokyo? There is no clear-cut definition of what a city is. Wishing to define a city narrowly and solely by its administrative boundaries (if it's possible at all to identify those boundaries, as per the examples I've given) is as POV as wishing to ignore its administrative boundaries. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparison != fact. 'Greater London' is officially known as 'London' (and even has a political entity dedicated to its management), so apples to oranges as far as Paris is concerned, and the same as far as Bruxelles and Shenzen. If not even today's government can define a 'Paris outside Paris', how can this article expect to? THEPROMENADER 16:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that the geograpgical scope of the article is a legitimate question. I have often see inconsistencies in article. For instance, most of the infobox of Mexico City seems to be about the Federal District, but the GDP figure seems to be about the whole metropolitan area. This kind of thing is less likely to happen if we adopt a clear definition of what Paris is. Using administrative boundaries has downsides, but at least it forces us to make a relatively consistent and rigorous analysis. --Superzoulou (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well then in that case it would lead us to adopt the boundaries of the Paris Region as the definition for this article, since most statistics are available only at the Paris Region level. For example there are no GDP figures at the City of Paris level, they exist only at the Paris Region level. Likewise, transport statistics are available only at the Paris Region level (Paris Métro statistics are for the Paris Region, not for the City of Paris proper, etc.). Der Statistiker (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Paris == Île-de-France? (recovering from a bout of mad chortling) @Superzoulou, generally speaking the boundries are where the statistics are - Economics is one of very few fields where one can't just stop at Paris' administrative limits, so this is why the article already talks about the 'Paris region' in its Economy section. This also explains why Paris == Île-de-France-pushers thump Economic articles when trying to argue their (cough) 'case'. THEPROMENADER 20:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What's the question

I'm afraid I fail to see what we should discuss here. The article already deals with aspects of the greater Paris area, such as mentioning the population of the entire area and it talks at great length about certain Paris suburbs, such as La Défense. That is all well. Needless to say, the article should not make up it's own distinction of what Paris is. Paris is the 20 arrondissements, and the article should reflect that, but of course also talk about relevant aspects of greater Paris. That is what the article already does. As per WP:NOTAFORUM, I'm not quite sure what the aim of this discussion is.Jeppiz (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself (probably for the hundredth time), but there are a few here who would like a) the unsuspecting to believe that Paris' suburbs are also called 'Paris' and b) who would like to tell the unsuspecting that 'Paris' is filled with skyscrapers. Any argument in that direction is hard to comprehend because, as soon as we begin to examine the facts, that argument evaporates. So, without 'reducing ourselves' to discussing such 'petty' and 'narrow' things like administrative limits, the same would like that this article called 'Paris' speak of the suburbs and towers as though they were in Paris, most probably in eliminating phrases such as 'Paris urban area' and 'Paris suburb' that the article already uses (quite correctly!) now. THEPROMENADER 16:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

For some sections, the definitions of Paris we adopt makes a difference. For instance, if we say that Paris = Paris 75, then we should replace the figures in the table about people by place of birth, as they are about Île-de-France, not Paris. --Superzoulou (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(added after my 20:22 comment) You're right, the 'place of birth' table totally ignores real and existing INSEE statistics concerning the Département (75) of Paris. This should be corrected. THEPROMENADER 20:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, let's ignore the immigrants living in the administrative suburbs of Paris and pretend they don't exist. We should also remove any reference to the 2005 Paris riots I suppose, because they took place only in the administrative suburbs, which absolutely do not belong to Paris of course. This is getting beyond ridiculous now. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: Removing any mention of the immigrants living in the suburbs would only confirm Minato Ku's earlier comment that this article intends to show only the "white" Paris. I thought his comment was a bit paranoid, but now I'm starting to wonder whether Minato Ku wasn't spot-on after all. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a bizarre thought. Paris is not much whiter than ile-de-France as a whole. --Superzoulou (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeated and seconded racist propos aside: since this is a Paris article, if there really is a difference between Paris and its suburbs, isn't that worthy of mention? And what are 'administrative suburbs' - that doesn't even make any sense. I can assume by your reply to this thread that the table in question is your work: why would one willfully seek out and publish Île-de-France statistics in a Paris article when Paris statistics are readily at hand? I can understand publishing both (to show any differences), but the Paris info was purposefully ignored. THEPROMENADER 22:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're doing this on purpose. There was already a discussion about that table and I shortened it because some people thought it was too long, but now you want to expand it by publishing both City of Paris and Paris Region stats by place of birth, which will double the table. What are you up to exactly? This will hardly help the tension go down. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're ignoring my questions. THEPROMENADER 23:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No other department than '75' is called just 'Paris'. Yes, like I mentioned above, Economy is one topic that cannot just stop at Paris' limits. For the rest (population), really? That's not so bad, as long as Paris has its own seperate section at the top of the table, like the demography table - if it's still there - as if there is a difference between Paris and its suburban population, outlining these differences could be helpful in describing the city itself. Yet, again as I mentioned above, and to get back to Jeppiz's original comment, a few 'Grand Paris is already here (and already called 'Paris'!)' dreamers take cases like economy and try to apply that 'borderless Economy' argument to every other topic in ignoring limits and statistics that are very real. The attempt at Paris == Île-de-France argument above is a good example. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"No other department than '75' is called just 'Paris'." --> Just for people who didn't know that Paris isn't just 105km². "Yes, like I mentioned above, Economy is one topic that cannot just stop at Paris' limits. For the rest (population), really?" --> Yes, really. The thing called "Paris" is actually more like the IDF than Intra-Muros, welcome to 21st century. "That's not so bad, as long as Paris has its own seperate section at the top of the table, like the demography table - if it's still there - as if there is a difference between Paris and its suburban population, outlining these differences could be helpful in describing the city itself. Yet, again as I mentioned above, and to get back to Jeppiz's original comment, a few 'Grand Paris is already here (and already called 'Paris'!)' dreamers take cases like economy and try to apply that 'borderless Economy' argument to every other topic in ignoring limits and statistics that are very real. The attempt at Paris == Île-de-France argument above is a good example." --> That is that I said. Grand Paris is not a "dream" as you would like. Sesto92 (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a dream if one pretends that a Grand Paris called simply 'Paris' is here already. Thanks for dropping by to voice your opinion. THEPROMENADER 23:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@Sesto92: I think everyone here knows that the Paris metropolitan area is much larger than Paris, and doubt that anyone is against the Grand Paris. Just have a look at the content of fr:Paris before fancying that only reactionary romantics and spiteful Englishmen can claim that Paris = Paris 75. --Superzoulou (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Images

I would propose to replace the first three images of the history section.

• The first features an Italian sculpture, and could be replaced by an image of the baths themselves. I'd also remove "quartier latin" from the description, as the name is due to the university, not the Roman city, making it a bit misleading in this context.
• The second is 19th century fantasy portrait of Clovis and does not seem really useful. I cannot find any relevant image for the Merovingian - Carolingian period. I think an image of Paris university makes sense.
• I am not sure about the third one. I think an image of a military building is relevant but Paris sounds better than Vincennes, and Philip August walls sort of mark the rise of the city. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• 
  The Gallo-Roman baths Thermes de Cluny at the Musée national du Moyen Âge, in Paris's Latin Quarter
• 
  Clovis I, the first king of the Merovingian dynasty
• 
  The Château de Vincennes, built between the 14th and 17th centuries

->

• 
  The frigidarium of the Gallo-Roman baths Thermes de Cluny
• 
  the Collège des Bernardins built in the 13th century, the best preserved college of the former University of Paris
• 
  A remnant of the Wall of Philip Augustus

Generally I'm not bothered about the images, although three images of stone buildings doesn't look as striking to look at and I think I'd prefer a balance of images, but if you're sure they're more important images I don't have a problem with them.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

All the relevant images I can find for Antiquity and Middle Ages are buildings, but actually the third image is aligned with the Middle Ages to 18th century and can thus depict more recent period, so if we want a something striking maybe --Superzoulou (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to sound defensive, but my photo of the Musee Cluny (with the sculpture) does give an good impression of the museum and the antiquity of Paris. It is currently in use by over a dozen versions of wikipedia. Mkooiman (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but given that the sculpture was in Italy until the 18th century, I do not see how to gives an accurate impression of the antiquity of Paris. --Superzoulou (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre by Huguenot painter François Dubois

Just a note: If any of you have any requests for photos of anything in particular, I'm equipped and I'm game. Contributors deciding about photos for an article even before they are taken - would that be a first? Sounds like fun ; ) Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, actually, I think File:Musee-Cluny-frigidarium 04.JPG could be reshot, if you happen to go there... --Superzoulou (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@Superzoulou - the length of the Phillipe-Auguste wall in your picture is ~much~ longer than what's shown... it's the longest length still standing today. There's another near where I live, but it's in a courtyard (and looks just like a 'normal' wall - unless you're on top of it ; P THEPROMENADER 22:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, this one ? Actually, there are quite a few pictures in commons:Category:Enceinte of Philippe-Auguste, but if you can take a good photo of the one in the courtyard, that may be interesting. --Superzoulou (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, rather than old stone walls, there is a (royalty-free) photo of a painting out there somewhere that is pretty representative of how the wall once looked as a whole. I'll see if I can dig it up. THEPROMENADER 18:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry - Octobre

Ah, here it is: it was in the 'days of the month' section of Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry. The Philippe-Auguste (-era) wall is in the background below the Louvre. There's more of the wall in the other months of the series. I like this image because it is figurative, informative, and un-touristy. It would give the reader a deeper feeling on just how old this city really is. THEPROMENADER 15:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That one looks very nice.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not the wall of Philip Augustus in that view. That's the wall of Charles V. More precisely, that section of the wall of Charles V known as the "les grands murs nouvellement faits selon la rivière" which went from the Tour qui fait le Coin (to the right) to the Tour de Bois (to the left, not visible in that view). The wall of Charles V was built between 1356 and 1420. The "grands murs nouvellement faits selon la rivière" were demolished when the Grande Gallerie of the Louvre was built between 1566 and 1607. The Grande Gallerie used the foundations of this wall as its own. The two towers, however, remained there in front of the Grande Gallerie, and were demolished only in the 1660s. In this view can be seen the odd contrast between the Medieval Tour de Bois and the Grande Gallerie, as engraver Israël Sylvestre saw them in 1652. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm doubly stupid because the Philippe-Auguste wall was an ~extention~ of the Louvre; it did not pass below it. Ouch. THEPROMENADER 06:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

pairs

hi my name is isabelle miller and im going a report on paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD0D:30C0:25CC:DC65:FF8E:F5C4 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Paris' or Paris's

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Paris' or Paris's. "Paris'" looks daft, and is not the style used by major news sources; is there any argument for using the "Paris'" form? If there is, please make it at the MoS discussion. --John (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that " Paris' " is not to your taste, but that form is a universally-accepted, so please don't turn this into a crusade. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Far from being universally accepted, the "Paris'" form as used here is deprecated by the BBC, the Guardian and the National Geographic, as I have demonstrated. You said there was a simple Google search you could do to prove me wrong; why don't you do that? --John (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus at the MoS discussion seems to be that "Paris's" should be used. Does anybody object if I enact this? --John (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I do, and 'it seems' there's doubt expressed in that rather short conversation, rather than any consensus - and there's no mention of British English there either (Strunk and National Geographic are not that, for starters). I'm sorry that you're so unwilling to accept such a widely-used and standardised rule, but your complaint is the first this article's ever seen on that subject since wiki's existence, so there's hardly any need to change the entire article over such a trifling question of taste. Thanks and Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh huh. Anybody else? --John (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

@John: No-one, it seems. I agree that "Paris's" is the gramatically correct form, as far as I am aware. - SchroCat (talk)