Talk:Paris/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Areas of Error and POV

Nota: the below is a clarified, re-edited version of this article's most obvious errors - please find the commented original here

The below are a few exerpts from a general "Paris is its aire urbaine" theme imposed throughout most of the article. This view is shared by almost no publication in existence, and certainly by no factual references. I have singled out errors below, and propose solutions where I can. THEPROMENADER 20:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is commenting bellow the boxes? Please sign your comments for clear attribution. Thanks. El_C 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Layout and comments are mine - not very clear, is it? Signing now. Thanks for the reminder. THEPROMENADER 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The city of Paris proper has 2.1 million inhabitants [1], but its centre of influence extends to cover a "Greater Paris" metropolitan area that has a population of about 11.1 million [2]...

To be factually correct, this should read:

The city of Paris proper has 2.1 million inhabitants [1], but its centre of influence extends to cover an "aire urbaine" (metropolitan area) that has a population of about 11.1 million [2]...

... and this...

...over one sixth of the French population. Paris is the third largest metropolitan area in Europe (after Moscow and London), and approximately the 22nd most populous metropolitan area in the world.

Factually correct should read:

...over one sixth of the French population. Paris' aire urbaine is the third largest metropolitan area in Europe (after Moscow and London), and approximately the 22nd most populous metropolitan area in the world.

... Paris has an aire urbaine, but it is not its aire urbaine. Though honesly I don't see the use of this vague and imprecise comparison for which there exists no factual sources, and the UN "world metropolitan area" publication uses the IDF as a boundry. I strongly disagree with the (after Europe and Moscow) - It has pompous connotations and is uninformative. THEPROMENADER 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

People

Inhabitants of the whole Paris metropolitan area are known officially as Franciliens, i.e., from Île-de-France.

... Non Sequitur. Paris' aire urbaine has nothing at all to do with the Franciliens apellation. This should read:

Inhabitants of the Île-de-France are known officially as Franciliens.

THEPROMENADER 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Demography

As a matter of fact, as of February 2004 estimates, the population of the city reached 2,142,800 inhabitants, increasing for the first time since 1954. As for the metropolitan area, it reached approximately 11.5 million inhabitants in 2004, growing twice as fast in the 2000s as it did in the 1990s. The metropolitan area of Paris has been in continuous expansion since the end of the French Wars of Religion at the end of the 16th century (with only brief setbacks during the French Revolution and World War II).

...the aire urbaine did not even exist in these periods. in fact it is only ten years old. What publication does this info come from? THEPROMENADER 20:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen from the figures, only 18.5% of the inhabitants of the metropolitan area of Paris live inside the city of Paris. Visitors to Paris, who mostly stay within the city, are rarely aware that 81.5% of "Parisians" actually live outside of the city itself, in its sprawling suburbs. A majority of Parisians also work outside of the city proper: at the 1999 census, there were 5,089,179 jobs in the metropolitan area of Paris, of which 67.5% were located outside the city. These peculiar facts are due to the conservativeness of French administrative limits (see Geography section above).

... the "fact" that everyone within Paris' aire urbaine is Parisian is only the author's POV. The French would find this concept laughable, and to my knowledge, no citable factual publication in existence shares this view. Paris' "sprawling suburbs" extend no further than its agglomeration ("unité urbaine"). See Administration section "île-de-France" map. THEPROMENADER 20:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The metropolitan area of Paris is one of the most multi-cultural in Europe, with 19.4% of the total population of the metropolitan area being born outside of metropolitan France[4]. As a comparison (...) As of 1999, 4.2% of the total population of the metropolitan area of Paris were recent migrants (i.e. people who were not living in France in 1990). The most recent immigrants to Paris come essentially from mainland China and from Africa.

... and what about the city of Paris? The population differences with its suburbs? Where do these immigration statistics come from - do they indeed cover the entire aire urbaine? Or the Île-de-France or Paris as the few immigration statistics I have seen do? THEPROMENADER 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Economy

Size

The metropolitan area of Paris is one of the engines of the global economy. In 2003 the GDP of the metropolitan area of Paris as calculated by INSEE was €448,933 million ^[1], or US$506.7 billion (at real exchange rates, not at PPP). If it were a country, the metropolitan area of Paris would be the 15th largest economy in the world (as of 2003), above Brazil (US$492.3 billion) and Russia (US$432.9 billion).

Year in, year out, the metropolitan area of Paris accounts for about 29% of the total GDP of metropolitan France, although its population is only 18.7% of the total population of metropolitan France (as of 2004). In 2002, according to Eurostat, the GDP of the metropolitan area of Paris accounted alone for 4.5% of the total GDP of the European Union (of 25 members), although its population is only 2.45% of the total population of the EU25.

Although in terms of population the Paris metropolitan area is only approximately the 20th largest metropolitan area in the world, its GDP can be estimated as the fifth or sixth largest in the world ^[2].

At the 1999 census there were 5,089,170 persons employed in the metropolitan area of Paris, 31.5% of whom worked inside the city of Paris proper and 16% in the Hauts-de-Seine (92) département, home of the new La Défense business district, to the west of the city proper, while the remaining 52.5% worked in the suburbs.

... there is no such thing as a "Paris metropolitan area GDP" and no such figures exist. Paris' economy is discussed in every English and French reference I know, to the limits of its Île-de-France. So this should read:

Size

Paris and its île-de-France région is one of the engines of the global economy. In 2003 the île-de-France GDP, as calculated by INSEE and Eurostat, was €448,933 million^[3], or US$506.7 billion (at real exchange rates, not at PPP). If it were a country, the Île-de-France would be the 15th largest economy in the world (as of 2003).

Year in, year out, the île-de-France accounts for about 29% of the total GDP of metropolitan France, although its population is only 18.7% of the same (as of 2004). In 2002, according to Eurostat, the Île-de-France GDP accounted alone for 4.5% of the total GDP of the European Union (of 25 members), although its population is only 2.45% of the total population of the EU25. In all, the île-de-France région GDP can be estimated as the fifth or sixth largest in the world ^[4].

At the 1999 census there were 5,089,170 persons employed in the Paris aire urbaine commuter belt (or metropolitan area), an area approximating that of the Île-de-France région. Citing statistics compiled the same year, 31.5% of of this number worked inside the city of Paris proper, 16% held employment in the Hauts-de-Seine (92) département to the west of the city, home of the new La Défense business district, while the remaining 52.5% worked throughout the remaining of the commuter belt suburbs.

THEPROMENADER 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Administration

There are currently plans to create a metropolitan structure that would cover the city of Paris and some of its suburbs in order to increase administrative efficiency. The current socialist municipality of Paris is pushing forward the idea of a loose "metropolitan conference" (conférence métropolitaine), while some in the right wing opposition propose the creation of a more integrated Grand Paris (i.e. "Greater Paris").

... the above but are a few proposals (not "plans") of many, and none cover a region greater than the Paris agglomeration. This is purely crystal ball speculation at present. THEPROMENADER 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read Promenader's suggest changes above, it is clear that whoever wrote the originals used the same language that might be used in writing a letter to friends or family. I completely agree with all of Promenader's suggestions because the language s/he (apologies I don't know your gender) uses is in line with the rigorous neutral, third person approach found in every respectable journal and encyclopedia (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica). Phrases like As a matter of fact and Actually express opinions which have no place in an encyclopedia. Have a good look through articles in respectable journals and you'll see clear concise facts but no personal opinions (unless they are backed up by irrefutable evidence). Wikipedia articles should avoid using amateurish language, because it will lead to ridicule by readers and peer reviewers. Bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum - there are plenty of scientific, artistic and cultural bodies which take a dim view of amateurish efforts. If any of you keeps up with the news, you'll remember what happened to South Korea's disgraced cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-suk when his peers tore through his research. Green Giant 10:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

All the figures provided are backed by official INSEE sources. This has already been explained many times. You say you want more scientific language, but look at the language of some of the proposed changes. For examples, ThePromenader proposes to replace "Paris, together with its suburbs and satellite cities, forms the Greater Paris metropolitan area (French: aire urbaine de Paris) [...]" with "The city of Paris proper has [...], but its centre of influence extends to cover an "aire urbain" (metropolitan area) that [...]". What exactly is a "center of influence"? I have read many books and papers about urban phenomenons and cities, but have never seen that term. As for the proposed edits for the economy section, it has already been discussed further up. Hardouin 10:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, I am very tired of this old and much-trodden upon "contesting the sources" biscuit. One cannot use statistics taken from one region and say they are those of another; for the the thousandth time, it is this that I contest, not the numbers themselves. This juggling is an act not only manipulative but factually wrong.

You again ignore the most obvious arguments to dive for obscure details in an effort to waylay any conclusive discussion. Change "centre" to "area" and case closed. Nothing has been discussed about the Economy section at all - you reverted seven times straight without providing a) argument or b) references. Is this what one could call a logical and factually correct conclusion? The section is plain wrong, and remains so. That's it. THEPROMENADER

Check what I wrote below, and read the GEMACA II study for your information. Hardouin 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Read below for a brief exposé on your 'study'. We don't publish 'studies' on Wiki, we cite references. THEPROMENADER 17:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

La Défense section

This insertion was a bit odd - it was placed (in various forms) through the English, French and German Wiki by what seems to be the same person, but not in so much detail as here. It was a promostional article in itself. I didn't at all think it adapted to the history section where it first appeared (?), nor to the "Economy" section, as La Défense is a district, not an Economy (although economy "happens" there). For this I added a La Défense description (taken for the most part from the article) and Link to the "Paris Districts" section, and moved the article to the "Paris Districts" page. Perhaps some of it could be added to the La Défense article itself as well.

THEPROMENADER 08:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a typical example of your page appropriation. A new Wikipedian comes to this article and adds info that wasn't in the article, but you remove it right away, labelling it "promotional article" (always making accusations!). If La Défense, the business district of Paris, is not appropriate in the economy section, then I don't know where it is! It's irritating to see you consider this article as your own. Hardouin 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it didn't sound promotional? Fine, I'll avoid saying things like that in the futre then. Changed it right away? No, I had a good think about it over a day - saw you were right there to move it though. Did the La Défense description, complete with its projection of future towers, really belong in the Economy section? Don't mix arguments such as these with personal misgivings. You, accusing me of page appropriation? LOL. THEPROMENADER 21:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Hardouin. Would you mind addressing the items in the section above? Could both of you sum up the dispute in broad strokes? Thank you in advance. Regards, El_C 15:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, are you the author the comments in the section above, just so I'm clear. I seem to have overlooked these. El_C 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. Which comments do you refer to? Hardouin 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Comparison of Areas

In the Area section, a comparison is made between the 'commune of Paris', Greater London and New York City. Two paragraphs down is a comparison between the commune and Inner London and Manhattan which is inappropriate because these levels of government are defined differently from the French system. Technically none of these comparisons is correct because the commune is more akin to the City of London, which has a unique status having it's own Lord Mayor and it's own police force. The Paris agglomeration would be better compared to Greater London or the New York Metropolitan Area. Green Giant 02:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Green Giant Please feel free to make corrections yourself. I do find this sort of "comparing areas" of anything outside agglomeratons a trial in ambiguity though. Perhaps you have thoughts on that. THEPROMENADER 08:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it is wise to compare such things as areas, because every country has different definitions of what is and is not an urban area. If you compare any two urban areas, where do you stop the comparisons? For example, at the heart of New York is Manhattan borough, above that New York city proper, New York Metropolitan Area and ultimately the BosWash megalopolis. It's a sort of playground boasting - "My dad is bigger than your dad", "Well my grandad is bigger than your grandad" etc. So I agree, its pointless to compare and I've removed the comparisons. Green Giant 14:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding about what the comparisons are used for. They are not here to say which city is "bigger" or "better", they are just here to give a sense of how large is the city of Paris to non French readers. I think it is interesting to note that the administrative limits of the city of Paris are not anywhere near the size of the administrative limits of New York City or the administrative limits of Greater London, and that the size of the administrative city of Paris is more like the size of Manhattan or Inner London. It's also interesting to explain the historical context behind this small administrative territory as opposed to other larger administrative cities like the Land of Berlin, the City of New York, or the Greater London Authority. This says nothing of urban areas. Hardouin 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on the comparison with Greater London because there is a City of London which also hasn't grown in the same sense as the article suggest. Greater London is just the agglomeration of boroughs which have grown up around the City. If you must compare areas, then perhaps compare the commune of Paris with the City of London, the borough of Manhattan (New York County) and the Berlin borough of Mitte. I especially do not agree with the line which reads:-

Thus, the Brooklyn, Greenwich, or Charlottenburg of Paris are still outside the city of Paris proper

This sentence is incorrect because each of the places named above is unique to it's metropolis. Greenwich is actually outside the City of London proper and Brooklyn is outside the county of New York proper. Does any of this make sense or am I just talking gibberish? :P Green Giant 02:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, what don't you revert? If you must explain here what the comparisons "are for" this means that their initial value is nil. Most people don't have an idea of the size of the city you are comparing to. Your explanations above point out quite clearly why you yourself "think it interesting" to compare, but your version of the article shows that you gave little thought to the knowledge of those reading. You and I have been through this hundreds of times before. I also agree to eliminate the "comparative content". For this I am re-instlaling the Green Giant's version. Let this article improve.

Green Giant - Not gibberish, but for sure explaining what "can't compare" in a simple language is a chore. Your changes were quite clear and an explanation in themselves. THEPROMENADER 09:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Green Giant, I think you are confusing several things. The City of London is not a city, administratively speaking. It is but a borough of Greater London. So is Manhattan, it is a borough of New York City. London as a city is represented by the Greater London Authority, with the Mayor of London (Ken Livingston) at its head. Check the London article for more information on City of London and Greater London. Paris is also divided in arrondissements, same as Greater London and New York City are divided in boroughs. What's particular about Paris is that the administrative limits have been left unchanged since 1860, due to local opposition to an elargement of Paris, and the unwillingness of the French central government to tackle local politicians. Compare this with London where administrative limits were mandatorily extended by the British government in 1965 to create Greater London, including areas like Richmond or Kingston-upon-Thames that were previously outside the limits of London. Compare this with New York City where the administrative limits were extended in 1898 to include Brooklin, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island. Compare also this with Berlin were the administrative limits were extended in 1920 to include Charlotenburg, Spandau, etc. In Paris no such thing happened, and so today the administrative city of Paris is much smaller than Greater London, New York City, or Berlin, and places like Boulogne-Billancourt or La Défense still lie outside of the administrative limits of Paris. Hardouin 12:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, YOU are confusing things. KIS. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 13:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I was talking to Green Giant, not to you. Thank you. When will you stop playing the Robin Hood of this article? I really had enough of your attitude. Hardouin 15:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You address topics here, you address people on their talk pages. Your 'answer' is unanswerable, and I'm quite sure you determined this in its formulation - don't forget that I'm a veteran of this tactic. I do apologise profoundly for striving for fact and reason; it is true that perhaps things would be much 'nicer' around here should I just give in. But this will not be so.

Incomparable area comparison incomprehensibilities aside, you have yet to answer to the exposed fallacies in your 'Paris (is its) metropolitan area' concept - If you do not provide factual references for this as well, this too will go. The edits proposed are almost as they will be, I have prepared references, and if you wish your text to remain, you must do better. You have been warned well in advance, and even on your personal talk page. Attitude, opinion, 'like and don't like' don't reign here: Facts do.

THEPROMENADER 20:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, please take the time to look through the website of the Greater London Authority, particularly the page [5] which describes it's relationship with the London boroughs and the City of London. The Greater London Authority under Ken Livingstone is effectively a regional tier of government, similar to the Ile de France, with strategic oversight of the Greater London area. The City of London has its own Lord Mayor (David Brewer), who performs separate but complementary role to Mayor Livingstone. It also has it's own government (Court of Aldermen and Court of Common Council) and its own police force (City of London Police Force) which are completely separate entities from the Greater London Assembly and the Metropolitan Police Force. The City's own website describes the services it provides [6]. The other London boroughs perform similar functions except that they have borough councils and a common police force (the Met). With the City of London possessing all these attributes, what is it that makes you say that it is not a city? The point of having an encyclopedia article is to provide a clear and concise reference. Readers do not need comparisons to be made with other areas because that is precisely what the area in square kilometres or square miles is for. Could you define for us exactly what is mean't by:

Thus, the Brooklyn, Greenwich, or Charlottenburg of Paris are still outside the city of Paris proper

Is there any part of Paris or the surrounding region which can be described as the Brooklyn of Paris, the Greenwich of Paris, or the Charlottenburg of Paris? If there is such a place, please provide clear evidence for this. If not then it is a vague and meaningless comparison and has no place in a clear and concise encyclopedia article.

Finally, please don't insult other editors if they wish to express opinions on this and other matters. Green Giant 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

ThePromenader has a record of making accusations, reverting edits that don't please him, tracking people's moves on their contribution history page, writing inflamatory messages, and other behaviors that you can check if you care to read the history of this talk page. His attitude would try even the most patient Wikipedian. You're new to this article, so I know it will take some time before you realize what I'm talking about.

About London, if what you say is correct, then can you explain why does the London article state that "London is the most populous city in the European Union, with an estimated population on 1 January 2005 of 7.5 million". If I follow you, Greater London is "effectively a regional tier of government", and not properly speaking a city, so the London article is simply misleading people when they write that. London is actually a small city of some 8,600 people (the population of the City of London). Is that really what you think?

About Brooklin, Charlotenburg, et al., these are districts that are integral parts of NYC, Berlin, or Greater London, although in the past they were not within the city limits. Until 1920 Charlotenburg was an independent city separate from Berlin for instance. You ask me if there are areas surrounding Paris that resemble these well known districts. Surrounding Paris you have Hauts-de-Seine and Seine-Saint-Denis which have approximately the same land area and same density as Queens or Bronx, and yet they are not part of the city of Paris, because they were never annexed (as opposed to Bronx and Queens annexed by NYC in 1898). Sceaux is a suburb of Paris built around a château and a park, like Charlotenburg, but it is still a separate city not part of the city of Paris. Vincennes is another suburb of Paris built around a park and a military institution, like Greenwich, but it is still an independent city.

I am particularly irritated when I read ThePromenader's constant accusations of POV because I always only reproduce information and concepts that are common in the academic litterature. Contrary to ThePromenader, my background is in economics, statistics, demographics, urban development, and the reason why I used the examples of Brooklin, Greenwich, or Charlotenburg is precisely because these examples are frequently found in the academic litterature, not because of my sudden whim! No later than 6 years ago, I was in Berlin and I still neatly remember city representatives taking the example of Charlotenburg to explain to us how Berlin enlarged after the Gründerzeit (foundation era), comparing it to Versailles or Sceaux, which are very similar to Charlotenburg, but are still separate cities from Paris proper. So it would be nice if ThePromenader would think twice before making accusations of POV and invented concepts. Hardouin 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to interject but those are some pretty baseless accusations there. I target (accuse) factual errors and opinionated phrases, not the people who make them. I've tracked your movements Hardouin; other contributors don't follow, revert and modify my contributions out of pure spite. I didn't know that there was any law against using this function, and I question your motives of mentioning this. I'm sorry but you are alone in trying to make me look 'bad' - I have even been commended for sticking it out here - for proof of this please do read my personal page, this talk page, and examine every contribution I have ever made. Please. Oh, and again you displace my accusations towards the facts themselves, when the obvious wrong is in the context and quality of their presentation. Wily perhaps to a 'newcomer' (grin) but that one's an old biscuit as far as I'm concerned. THEPROMENADER 03:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: and the above is absolutely no call for yet another wholesale revert. THEPROMENADER 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, it is not a matter of whether I think London is a city or not. The Greater London area is a region at the same level as counties of the UK. The Assembly and Mayor of London were intended to be the first step in a series of new regional assemblies across England (for example Yorkshire or the North East). I can understand the unfortunate naming of Ken Livingstone's office as Mayor can cause confusion but his position is more akin to a regional governor. The Wikipedia article on Greater London highlights the fact that in strict legal terms Greater London is not a city because it does not have official city status. On the other hand, Greater London does contain two cities - Westminster and the City of London and thirty-one other boroughs. Your remark London is actually a small city of some 8,600 people (the population of the City of London) is absolutely correct. I would point out to you that population is not a determining factor in official city status in the UK. In Wales, the city of St. Davids has a population of barely 2,000. Despite your claim about the London article, there is only one authoritative body that decides city status in the UK - the British monarch. I quote from the the official webpage on city status of the Department of Constitutional Affairs that City status is a rare mark of distinction granted by the Sovereign and conferred by Letters Patent. On the following webpage [7] the Department points out that City status is not, and never has been, a right which can be claimed by a town fulfilling certain conditions. Based on these two quotes you should be able to see that a city can have 2,000 people or a million people, but this does not stop a settlement from applying for city status.

Are you willing to accept that the official UK government website is the best source for city status in the UK? Green Giant 01:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I know full well the situation in London as I do live in London. We can play on words and cut hair in four, argue that legally strictly speaking Greater London is not a city, but geographers and urban planners recognize Greater London as the municipal level of London today. You quoted one sentence in the Greater London article, but you didn't quote that one: "However in practical terms Greater London is effectively a single city, and is commonly thought of as such." In any case this is not about London, this is about Paris and explaining to people how its administrative limits were not extended after 1860 when other major world cities did expand their administrative territory. Hardouin 03:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet another wholesale revert? Inexcusable. It is you who is splitting hairs in trying to 'explain' here what others have difficulty understanding in the article itself - yet you are unwilling to allow change to it. There is no excuse for such bad behaviour. THEPROMENADER 04:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You live in London, Hardouin? Then you should be fully aware of all the points I highlighted above. Whether or not Greater London is commonly thought of as a city is beside the point. What matters is that it does not possess the legal status of a city, whereas City of London and Westminster each have that status. The mistake you're making is to assume that a big population means a city, but if you read the Department of Constitutional Affairs page, city status is not decided on any particular attribute. The changes I made showed in clear and concise language that the administrative limits have not changed much in Paris since 1860. There's no need to make grand flourishes in the direction of other metropolitan areas, making wholly inappropriate comparisons between different levels of government in different countries.

Which part of the phrase City of London says it is not a city? The British government says it is a city and that should be good enough for everyone. You can't escape these facts by saying the point is not about London, its about Paris. If that is the case, then remove the references to London and New York and lets focus on Paris itself :P

P.S. You gave examples of how two suburbs of Paris have the same land area and density as two New York boroughs. According to recent census estimates,

the Bronx County has approximately 1,363,198 residents in an area of 108.9 km² (an additional 39.9 km² is water). This is a density of 12,518 people/km² on dry land (9,161 people/km² if you include the water).

the Queens County has approximately 2,229,379 residents in an area of 282.9 km² (an additional 178.8 km² is water). This is a density of 7,880 people/km² on dry land (4,828 people/km² if you include the water).

the Hauts-de-Seine département has 1,490,783 residents in an area of 176 km². This is a density of 8,470 people/km².

the Seine-Saint-Denis département has 1,413,293 residents in an area of 236 km². This is a density of 5,989 people/km².

How exactly are these land areas and densities similar? Green Giant 05:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Err, how exactly are they not similar? 236 km² (Seine Saint Denis) and 282.9 km² (Queens) is not similar enough? 1,363,198 (Bronx) and 1,413,293 (Seine Saint Denis) is not similar enough? Or do you require figures exactly the same down to the last digit? This is not physics. In demographics or statistics, you'll never find two numbers strictly the same (not to mention that there is also a margin of error, sometimes wide, even for land area figures). If statisticians and geographers were waiting for exact figures, they could never make analyses. For instance geographers would say Guatemala and Vietnam are two countries whose climate is subtropical. Yet if you look at the exact figures of climate for these two countries, they are probably not exactly the same down to the last digit. Hardouin 11:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Although this article is not about London, you might be interested in a cultural and linguistic nuance that may be undermining communication on this page. In the mid 20th century, and I dare say during all the preceding history of London, the main urban sprawl that people mean when they speak of "London" was always called "Town". My parents would speak of "going into Town" (my capitalisation but it was spoken as though the word had a capital letter); there was even a 1950s television programme called "In Town Tonight" (note that the Wikipedia article about this programme refers to it being about "central London" and that the programme would end with the words "Carry On London".) In short, London was a Town.

By contrast, if people were going to work in the city they said, "I'm going up to the City," meaning the City of London, where the financial centre of London Town was. It was a commonplace that if people wanted to be coy about what kind of work they did, they would say, "Something in the City."

However, the American usage of the word "city" is quite different. It seems to be used to mean any large urban area. So American visitors to London would naturally call it a city, while the natives would continue to call it "Town" (probably enjoying the implied British understatement of calling a large urban area by a name that elsewhere might imply it was a small urban area).

What has all this got to do with the present discussion, you may ask. Well, I'd suggest that the naming of the current administrative structures is still guided by this historical baggage. People may say they're going "into Town" less than they did but they still say they work "in the City" without any fear of misunderstanding. It is true that the American usage has gained ground over the last 50 years but in the context of London the residual awareness of what "Town" means (note absence of definite article) and what "the City" means lingers on. For this reason, since the English word "city" means different things to different people, I'd suggest that in this article avoiding comparisons of the sizes of cities is probably the best way to keep most people happy. Adrian Robson 11:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why I prefer to use the word "municipality" instead of the blurry words "city" or "town". If you check inside the article, nowhere is Greater London called "city". Hardouin 11:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What you say Adrian is correct, but Hardouin refuses to believe that the City of London is a city. Yes people refer to Greater London as a city, but it is not a blurry word. Within Greater London there are two cities, whether we like it or not. Hardouin insists on comparing the City of Paris with Greater London, which is not a city (despite having a Mayor).

In your rebuttal Hardouin you compared Seine-Saint-Denis' and Queens' area, then you compare Seine-Saint-Denis' population with the Bronx. That's very selective and it shows that you are only comparing whatever takes your fancy. Why don't you compare Queens' population with Seine-Saint-Denis and show us how 1,413,293 people is a similar figure to 2,229,379? Are you also going to argue that Hauts-de-Seine's 176 km² is similar to the Bronx's 108.9 km²? Just so we are clear on this, 236 km² and 282.9 km² are not similar figures but there is a difference of 46.9 km² which makes Seine-Saint-Denis 83% of the land area of Queens. The difference in their populations is 816,000 people, which makes Seine-Saint-Denis' population 63% of Queen's population. I could accept similarity if Seine-Saint-Denis was 93% of the area and 93% of the population of Queens. You'll be surprised to learn that statisticians and geographers actually work to great accuracy - don't insult these professions by suggesting they have an amateurish approach to their fields. Do you have any inkling of the lengths they go to in order that their analyses are as accurate as possible? Margins of error in statistics do not mean making comparisons between differences of 17% in areas and 37% in populations.

Where on Earth did you find out that Guatemala and Vietnam are subtropical? Take a quick peep at a map and note that the Tropic of Cancer runs just north of Vietnam and considerably north of Guatemala. These two countries are both Tropical (no if's or buts about it), not subtropical which refers to a region north and south of the two Tropics. This shows that you just pulled those country's names out of the air, without checking facts. Your whole approach is amateurish because you have so far presented several examples of comparison but none of these actually compares in the way you believe they do. Like the fact that Vincennes has a park and a military institution makes it similar to Greenwich? Does Vincennes also possess an observatory and is it the point of origin for a whole system for defining global time? You have the amaturish belief that a population of 8,600 means the City of London is not a city? At what population does a town become a city?

Do you really imagine that scientists, statisticans and geographers take your approach of making analyses between widely varying data? Do you think such people don't bother to find out how large Paris commune is down to several decimal places? Did they just guess that it's about 100 km² and not bother measuring it down to 105.398 km². Why not just change the area figure to 100km² because you don't want to bother with those extra figures? I want to believe that you can contribute but so far all you provided is the image of someone who thinks they know best but has no substance.

Doh, remind me to log in before writing stuff Green Giant 12:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "city" is blurry? This from one who forcibly imposes terms like "metropolitan area"? Here's the "Greater Paris" quote:

The City of Paris itself covers an area of 41 square miles (105 square kilometres); the Greater Paris conurbation, formed of suburbs and other built-up areas, extends around it in all directions to cover approximately 890 square miles.

"Paris."Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD . (Accessed January 23, 2006).

...as one can plainly see, "Greater Paris" describes an area no bigger than the Paris agglomeration. Here's a new source, and there goes another theory. THEPROMENADER 12:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a leaf out of Promenader's book. Use facts not personal opinions (save those for your own webpage and memoirs). Green Giant 12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Green Giant, I am the one who actually bothered to retrieve the exact land area of Paris, down to the third decimal. Before that, the article simply said the area was 105. I have also contributed a lot of work on Wikipedia to improve statistical references and precision. I have the uneasy impression that this is not a discussion (discussion page) between people trying to reach common ground, but this is more like a trial where people are judged a priori and no good faith is assummed. That's not what this page should be about. I happen to work in statistics, and the least you could do is assume good faith and not pass easy judgements such as "use facts not personal opinions". The comparison between the départements of petite couronne (Hauts de Seine, Seine Saint Denis, Val de Marne) and the boroughs of NYC is often made, I have heard and read it many times. This is in no case my personal opinion.

As for "Greater Paris", this phrase in English is commonly used in demographic/economic literature to refer to the Paris metropolitan area. You can check the authoritative GEMACA II study that was conducted in 2000-2001 by several research centers (including the London School of Economics and the Institute for Urban Planning and Development of the Paris Ile de France Region). [8] The study compared major metropolitan areas of North-Western Europe. In the study, Ile de France is indiferently refered to as "Greater Paris", the "metropolitan area of Paris", the "Paris area", and so forth. Check for instance here, p. 47: "The labour market in the Ile-de-France (greater Paris) region, [...]".

More fundamentally, ThePromenader says "Paris is not its metropolitan area", and wants to replace all mentions of the Paris metropolitan area in the article with "Ile de France région". However, the GEMACA study, as do all other serious papers and books I know, treat Ile de France as the metropolitan area of Paris, and make international comparisons based on that whole metropolitan area of Paris, not just the administrative city of Paris. Check that part of the GEMECA II study called "The Socio-Economic Profile of Paris and Dublin". What is compared is not the city of Paris with the city of Dublin, but the whole metropolitan area of Paris with the whole metropolitan area of Dublin. Check also here, map on p. 21: the large swath of territory that encompasses Ile de France and fringes beyond is simply called "Paris", not "Ile de France". Check also this, table on p. 76: Paris GDP figures there (395.2 billion euros) are actually figures for Ile-de-France, but they are listed as "Paris". If you read the section called "What statistics should we use?", the authors explain why they use regional figures (in fact NUTS figures) for the metropolitan areas, because in the case of GDP or labour statistics, they have only regional statistics. Exactly the same happened in the Wikipedia Paris article. So where is the alleged POV?

There are many other references. It would be nice if you guys assumed good faith and knowledgeability. Hardouin 13:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see these "many other references" as the one you have provided won't do. Without even opening the paper you cite, in its webpage introduction:

The overall aim of the project was twofold: on the one hand, to better understand the structure and dynamics of the economic development of a small number of major city regions; and, on the other hand, to act as the precursor of a future "economic observatory", whose role would be to produce comparable information on all major metropolitan areas in Europe. Indeed, the players charged with formulating territorial economic policies in Europe (government authorities at European, national, regional and local levels; economic agents in the private and public sectors; and inter-regional urban and rural planning specialists) sorely lack such information.

...or in other words, this is a study whose goal is making comparable the presently incomparable, authored by the Group for European Metropolitan Areas Comparative Analysis - not what one would call a unbiased and highly referenced group.

In opening the paper one finds that is largely theoretical in nature so takes liberties with 'creating' potential but non-existent regions of trade. What a waste of an hour.

Stop wasting our time please. THEPROMENADER 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Although your writ is long, it can be dissembled and discounted in a few broad strokes. First off, you are citing a unique study that is neither fact, actuality or citable reference. Second off, you are again manipiulating data (it contains) to your ends - the "Île-de-France" economy is quite often spoken of in reference works (as in the above one) as Paris' own, but nowhere, not even in your paper are there any "metropolitan area GDP" figures.

"Almost the same" is not a mature excuse for presenting original research as fact. Nor is presenting data collected from one source under the title of another. This WP:NPOVD section describes this article's POV to a tee. Ignoring common knowledge and references in favour of selective studies and opinions pretty well describes what you've done to this page.

The Paris article states that everything within the little-known 'Paris aire urbaine' is Paris itself; This is your personal POV, a POV shared by next to none. POV cannot be presented as common knowledge and fact, and any attempt to do so is neither "knowledgability" nor "good faith". Period. THEPROMENADER 14:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You ask for references, and then when references are cited you say this is a "unique" reference that is not "citable reference". I am dumbfounded. If the GEMACA II study is not citable reference, then what is? HalfMoonBay 14:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

A study is not a commonly-known and factual reference. Is this sock-puppetry I'm seeing? THEPROMENADER 14:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm still new to this. I'm a grad student in Urban Studies and the GEMACA II study is well known, at least among Urban Studies academics and students. I guess that explains my first reaction. HalfMoonBay 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is going on here? just left a message on Green Giant's talk page asking him if he was the user 81.64.90.173 who put the introduction back to the "fifth or sixth depending on the sources" version after 82.35.96.59's modifications as he did this morning - obviously not. The reverts made were exactly those Hardouin always makes, but now I notice that 81.64.90.173 has suddenly become HalfMoonBay who left the message above. This is extremely odd. THEPROMENADER 14:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: And would someone mind telling me the odds of the above happening in tandem with two users citing the same obscure study within one hour of each other on the same talk page where the study was cited not one hour before? The odds are beyond me. THEPROMENADER 15:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you call it obscure? I don't get it. I didn't register a user name until today, because I didn't (and still don't) want to get involved too much with Wikipedia. Sorry if this created confusion. HalfMoonBay 15:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(...) THEPROMENADER 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, this is not a trial but an attempt at positive criticism of incorrect comparisons being made in the article. You ask for good faith, which I am sorry to tell you is simply not possible in an encyclopedia. No contributor to any encyclopedia is entitled to ask for good faith because editors expect professional standards such as properly referenced sources. Whatever field you work in is not a reason to expect anybody else to assume good faith because we are almost all anonymous contributors. The example I gave above of the South Korean professor shows that even when you have a public reputation for being an expert, it does not insulate you from criticism by your peers.

On the issue of comparison of areas, it is incorrect to compare the City of Paris with Greater London, Inner London or Manhattan because these are not cities until and unless their respective governments (the British Government and the State of New York) say they are. The changes I made did not remove the fact that the city limits of Paris have barely changed since 1860.

On the issue of the Brooklyn, Greenwich and Charlottenburg of Paris, this is incorrect because each of these boroughs is unique to New York, London and Berlin. It's an insult to Paris to imply that any of it's suburbs bear any resemblance to those boroughs. The comparison you made between two Paris suburbs and two New York boroughs was on the basis of similar land areas and densities, which is also incorrect because none of those figures were even close. No statistician would say that a difference of 17% in area is small enough to deem the two area figures as similar.

Somewhere above, you say that you prefer the term 'municipality'. This is a problem, because you should not be deciding what terms apply to a particular city or town. The terms that should be used are the ones that are used officially by the relevant authorities. To do anything else is to express an opinion. Green Giant 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading ThePromenader last messages, I can only say that I am as speechless as HalfMoonBay. ThePromenader criticizes the GEMACA II study and calls it biased and a waste of time. These are grave accusations against serious institutions like the London School of Economics who participated in the project. Of course if everybody else is biased and only ThePromenader is not, then the debate is closed. My mates at LSE will appreciate. Hardouin 22:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, stop wasting our time, mine in particular. Stop ignoring arguments and efforts to reason. Stop blurring the lines in an effort to slip in your POV. Stop putting words in other people's mouths in an effort to discredit their criticism of your little-shared POV. You cannot cite a study whose goal is to make metropolitan areas comparable as irrefutable proof that these areas are already comparable, and insist that its worth overrides every factual reference in existence. Where the h*ll did I say that the paper was a load of crap and a waste of time? AGAIN: I criticise your misuse of other people's work, not the work itself.

And don't even bother trying to cover up the sock-puppet/manipulation game. You'll only make yourself look more foolish. THEPROMENADER 06:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The only grave accusation being made are the incorrect assertions being made here. Promenader correctly says that the paper is mostly theoretical, which means that it is not definite proof yet. It takes more than one study to prove a hypothesis. Just because the LSE participates, does not make the study unquestionable. Who are these mates at LSE?

By the way have you made any progress on proving that Greater London is a city? I understand the desire to compare things, but the comparisons were inappropriate and should not be in an encyclopedia. The limits of the city of Paris have only changed marginally since 1860, but the limits of the City of London have not changed since the Middle Ages.

HalfMoonBay, what subject(s) are you a grad student of and from which institution? Green Giant 11:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

After I read these messages, I understand better why accademic circles do not consider Wikipedia a reference encyclopedia. On the one hand there is "angel's gender" arguing that Greater London is not stricly legally speaking a city, despite the fact that demographers, urban planners in the world, and even the British government treat Greater London as the municipal level of administration in London. With the same narrow approach, you can also argue that strictly speaking Beijing is not a city, it is a direct-controlled municipality, or that Mexico City is not strictly speaking a city, but a federal distict. That's typical of what I often see on Wikipedia.

On the other hand, there is the also oft seen "if you don't like a reference, underplay it". So GEMACA II is just a study trying to "prove an hypothesis", it can in no way serve as a reference. That's facile. What about Encyclopedia Britannica? Is Encyclopedia Britannica good enough of a reference? I have with me the 2002 paper edition. In the Paris article, economy section, it says "As an industrial centre the Paris region is less domminant in France than it was in its heyday in the 1930s, [...]". Note the use of "Paris region". They didn't write "as an industrial centre the Île-de-France région is less dominant".

Did I ever say that the Île-de-France cannot be referred to as the "Paris region"? Not. The Île-de-France is not and cannot be referred to as the "Paris metropolitan area"'. Stop putting words in my mouth. THEPROMENADER 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Further down I read "As a financial centre Paris is the base for many large concerns in commerce and banking, [...]". Many of these banks and financial firms are based in the business district of La Défense, which lies outside of the administrative limits of the city of Paris, and many commerce firms are based in Rungis, Orly, or Roissy, also outside of the city limits, so here the name "Paris" appears to be used for the whole metropolitan area, not just the city proper. Indeed further down, Encyclopedia Britannica refers to La Défense as the "skyscraper quarter" of Paris. How can La Défense be a quarter of Paris if the name "Paris" applies only to the city proper? So now you have one more reference that calls the whole metropolitan area "Paris region", or just "Paris". Switching the burden of proof for a change: can ThePromenader provide a reference or a citation proving that Île-de-France cannot be refered to as the metropolitan area of Paris or the Paris region? Hardouin 13:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you stop this tiny trollop of an argument? Just because I oppose your very non-factual theory that Paris is as big as its aire urbaine doesn't mean that I say that I want to speak of nothing outside Paris' administrative limits. Stop putting words in my mouth. Read the comments above you so try so desperately to ignore and you will see the word "agglomeration" rampant throughout. THEPROMENADER 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, have you ever heard of the City of London? Somewhere above, I quoted the Department of Constitutional Affairs (which is part of the British government) website on city status. If you live in London, you'll be aware that the borough councils are the actual municipal level of administration, while the Greater London Authority has strategic oversight. You might well think of Greater London as a city, and millions may agree with you, but it does not change the fact that the only cities in Greater London are the City of London and the City of Westminster. Take the time to verify this fact and if you find evidence that those two are not cities, please present it. Green Giant 14:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You really like to treat people like idiots. Your condecending attitude unfortunately reveals that you are not interested in a genuine debate, and it is also quite unfriendly. Yes I know the City of London, I know Westminster has the honorific status of city, I know the borough councils, and in fact I know a fair deal about the administration of London and about city status in the UK. Greater London is divided in bouroughs same as Paris is divided in arrondissements or Berlin is divided in Bezirke. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about that. As far as I know, it was Greater London that was a candidate "city" for the Olympics Games, not the borough of Newham. Anyway, it's useless I continue arguing since you have your mind set and treat people disagreeing with you as idiots. Hardouin 18:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me - this is inacceptable. Especially coming from someone who holds fact and reference in lower esteem than his own opinion. Green Giant can give solid references in support of his reasoning. You can't. Who's taking who for an idiot here? THEPROMENADER 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Switching the burden of proof for a change: can ThePromenader provide a reference or a citation proving that Île-de-France cannot be refered to as the metropolitan area of Paris or the Paris region?

Hard to lighten oneself of a burden one has never borne. What exactly is the above - is this what one could call a 'reasonable and mature argument' ? What it does explain, though, is the length of some of my posts: it is no easy task to disprove something that doesn't exist. That is, in fact, exactly what I've been doing since half a year now. Instead of trying to make us go around in circles once again, read. I've lain it all out very nicely for you.THEPROMENADER 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Both of you (ThePromenader and Hardouin) should practice the art of writing more compact and structured. I've been trying to find why Ile-de-France can't be refered to as the metropolitan area of Paris, but the discussion here is to long to find it. Would someone like to explain it to me? /Nilzzon 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to ask ThePromenader. He's the one saying Ile de France can't be referred to as the metropolitan area of Paris. Check here what I wrote for exact figures on the matter. Hardouin 18:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the above: Only pay attention to the "aire urbaine" and "Île-de-France" population numbers - these are real. Everything below is Hardouin's own calculations - no reference in existence has ever juggled these numbers in this way to this end. I especially like the "what the figures show" that insinuates that the entirety of the argument is 'official'. This attempt at manipulation has already been debunked a few times but I guess old biscuits aren't old buiscuits until they're tasted : ) THEPROMENADER 19:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my wordiness. If you want a short answer to your question: it's because no references in existence use 'metropolitan area' to describe the île-de-France. Slightly longer version: in addition to the first reason, the Île-de-France resembles in no way the 'metropolitan area' North America knows - it is 45% farmland (and that's not counting forest). "Metropolitan area" is treated here as a direct translation of a very indirect 'commuter influence' statistical method unique to France, the 'aire urbaine,' and this compared to the densely-packed 'metropolitan area' most English speakers know is like one of those inflatable sumo costumes. In short, as a reference and without explanation, 'metropolitan area' is vague and misleading, and this is most probably why reference works never use it.

Now if you want the complete version (that's been cut up into managable bits), ignore this mess and look up here. There's also links to a couple references that explain things in a way better than any words here can do. THEPROMENADER 19:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel I'm being condescending and treating you like an idiot. That was not my intention at all. What made me ask that 'condescending' question was that you derided my points by asking me the condescending question - London is actually a small city of some 8,600 people (the population of the City of London). Is that really what you think?. That statement alone suggests that you don't regard the City of London as a genuine city. If you remember, the original point was that the article was comparing the City of Paris with Greater London to highlight the fact that the Paris city limits haven't changed in the same way as other major cities. This is incorrect because the limits of the City of London have not expanded either. What has expanded is the urban area around the City which is now called Greater London. You still haven't answered my questions about how two New York boroughs and two Paris suburbs have similar land area and populations, how Versailles is the Charlottenburg of Paris or how Vincennes is the Greenwich of Paris. The only evidence you've given is your own memory of hearing government representatives in Berlin 6 years ago claiming that Charlottenburg is similar to Versailles. Surely you can't expect us to rely on your memories or the opinions of Berlin representatives (city representatives will do anything to promote their city). Do the residents of Versailles regard their city as the Charlottenburg of Paris?

As for your question Nilzzon, Hardouin wants to use the INSEE's statistical term aire urbaine because it has similar figures to the Ile-de-France. Promenader opposes this because aire urbaine is a statistical term and is not used outside INSEE. The answer to this problem lies in who defines the metropolitan area. Many of the world's metropolises are members of the World Association of Major Metropolises whose website (in English) is found here [9]. If you explore the website it gives a list of members of which Paris is listed here [10]. The crucial information is that the member institution representing Paris is the Regional Council of Ile-de-France. Why should we regard any other definition as being correct when the Ile-de-France government and the World Association regard Ile-de-France as the metropolis of Paris. I agree that definitions of metropolitan areas vary greatly from country to country but we should stick by the official definition given by the relevant authority. Green Giant 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You say the World Association of Major Metropolises has the Regional Council of Ile de France as one of its members. Isn't it enough of a proof that Ile de France is regarded as the metropolitan area of Paris?! I don't know what more you need.

Also, as usual I see ThePromenader is misleading people. He says aire urbaine is unique to France, it is mostly farmland, while US metropolitan areas are "densely-packed". Ok, let's check exact figures (for the three most populous metropolitan areas in the US):

• aire urbaine of Paris: 770 inhabitants per sq. km. (1999 census)
• metropolitan area of New York: 714 inhabitants per sq. km. (2000 census)
• metropolitan area of Los Angeles: 199 inhabitants per sq. km. (2000 census)
• metropolitan area of Chicago: 752 inhabitants per sq. km. (2000 census)

It looks like it is the metropolitan area of Paris which is more dense than US metropolitan areas... There goes ThePromenader's theory. Hardouin 20:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, the methodology and inclusion criteria used in calculating the (aire urbaine) statistical area is unique to France.

Secondo, Your numbers. Where did you get them? None of them are the pages you linked to - in fact, I find this instead:

• NY: The five boroughs of New York City serve as the core area of the metropolitan area. The city has a population of 8,008,278 (2000 census) over an area of 303 square miles (785 square kilometers) (population density of 26,403 per square mile or 10,194 per square kilometer).

...but this is just the 'core' and not the outer counties - no info on this. Anyhow.

• Los Angeles: the extent of the region's suburban sprawl has been so thoroughly cultivated so as to result in an urbanized area with a relatively high density of 7,070 people per square mile (2,730/km²) according to the 2000 census.
• Chicago: Zilch.

The numbers that are there are enormously different. Even without seeing the original numbers I find it extremely hard to believe that the density of the half-countryside Île-de-France can compare with the skyscraper-packed NY area. I think this is another case of selectve numbers - but we won't know for sure until we see for ourselves, will we? Even then, the point is moot, as a) such areas are known to few, b) they are calculated differently from country to country and c) the result of any attempted comparison, in all its innaccurate and complicated ambiguity, most probably doesn't spark a fig of interest (or even comprehension) in 99% of the people reading this article. THEPROMENADER 10:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me remind you it's you who is making comparisons.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that comparisons can't be made. Apples to peaches to pears. THEPROMENADER 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who said aire urbaine cannot be called metropolitan area because US metropolitan areas have much higher densities than the French aires urbaines.

This is far from the only reason. THEPROMENADER 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So who is making comparisons?

You. THEPROMENADER 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the numbers, it's 1st grade math. Spelling it out for you, since you didn't get it the first time: the New York metropolitan area article states that the metropolitan area has 21,923,089 inhabitants in 2005, and that its land area is 30,684 sq. km. Just do the division. The Greater Los Angeles Area says that the population of the metropolitan area is 17,545,623, and the land area is 87,972 sq. km. Just do the math again. The Chicagoland gives the population of the metropolitan area of Chicago, but it doesn't give its land area. Here you'll have to check each of the 9 counties articles to find their land areas and add them up.

So why does the Los Angeles article explicitly say 2,730 people per km² ? This is nothing near your number. When I read an article I expect to be informed, not to do math. THEPROMENADER 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So I'm sorry, but the figures do not confirm your vision of US metropolitan areas as "densily- packed" areas.

The 'densly packed' area of NY is almost as wide as our Île-de-France. But this is far from the most important point of using 'metropolitan area' - it's your misuse of it.

You talk of the "skyscraper-packed NY area". Have you ever been to New York?

I ived in West Village for over a year before coming to Paris.

There are skyscrapers essentially in downtown Manhattan and in midtown Manhattan, and also a couple in Jersey City or Brooklin, but pretty much the rest of the metropolitan area is houses (lots of houses), rural areas, forests, and marshlands.

Nice exaggeration. You have to travel miles before seing any countryside. The size, housing density and physical transformation between city and countryside is nowhere near similar to the land around Paris. I even posted a link to an interesting article on the subject that you obviously didn't read.

The foothills of northern New Jersey or the areas to the north of Long Island are included in the metropolitan area of New York, yet they are essentially rural. Hardouin 19:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but you neglect to mention that these are much further from the city centre than the furthest limits of the Paris aire urbaine. The NY metropolitan area is in fact twice as big. Your Paris infobox, your NY metro link - no math needed. No comparison either. THEPROMENADER 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are averages, Hardouin. Does the Île-de-France resemble the land around NY? Not. Juggling numbers won't change this. I never had any theory - I live here and the picture you paint is untrue. Numbers do not make reality, especially selectively-chosen numbers.

Green Giant - Frankly, I am astounded. I will look into the website. Be careful to separate things that are from things that will be. THEPROMENADER 20:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so now "numbers do not make reality". I was lambasted above because the numbers of NYC boroughs did not match exactly those of the départements of petite couronne, but now numbers are not important anymore. I'm speechless. Hardouin 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm wrong. Numbers can transform forest and farmland into skyscrapers. THEPROMENADER 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I was all ready to give in. The association has nothing at all to do with the 'aire urbaine' that Hardoin insists on using - in fact Paris has been a member since 1984, a period before the 'aire urbaine' even existed. Only the title of the organisation - metropolis, again, pre-dating the concept - has any thing to do with the 'aire urbaine' that Hardouin insists on supplanting the Île-de-France with. All the data, even the most recent, is from Île-de-France and not 'aire urbaine' statistics. As you can see by the Paris profile the administrative boundries and politics are very present and very strong, and are in no way supplanted by the borders shown here. THEPROMENADER 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood my reference to the World Association Hardouin. The link you gave as a summary of your points on this issue shows that you regard the aire urbaine as being interchangeable with the metropolitan area. Promenader's view was that every country defines a metropolitan area differently. You cannot compare statistical areas between two countries using those countries own statistical terms because the definitions vary. Presenting the data above does not prove that the aire urbaine is the metropolitan area. You'll note on the website of the World Association there is no mention of the aire urbaine being a member institution.

Now that is cleared up, please provide answers to my questions from above. Green Giant 20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What did you expect? That the French INSEE would use the English term "metropolitan area"? Of course French people and French institutions use French words. It does not mean that you can't compare with foreign statistics. I mean, INSEE calculate "Produit Intérieur Brut" figures, does that mean we cannot compare it with US "Gross Domestic Product" figures just because the names are different and the exact definition slightly different (US include certain things in their GDP that the French do not include in their PIB). Why are international comparisons made by the World Bank and the OECD then if these figures are not comparable? To say and write that we cannot compare French "aires urbaines" and US "metropolitan areas" just because the names and exact definitions differ is a fallacy. I point out to you that INSEE created the concept of aire urbaine in the early 1990s with the clear intent to allow international comparisons, especially with the US and Canadian metropolitan areas. Prior to that, INSEE only had "unités urbaines" which were not comparable with North American metropolitan areas. Hardouin 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, can you explain why the Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, or Frankfurt articles use the word "metropolitan area" in their introduction. I don't believe the Spanish "áreas metropolitanas", the Italian "Città Regione", and the German "Europäische Metropolregion" are strictly comparable to US metropolitan areas. If I follow you, we should remove all mentions of "metropolitan area" in these articles as well. Why do you insist on making Paris such a unique case, when the rest of Europe is not? Hardouin 21:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The articles you cite state clearly that their respective metropolitan areas are their city suburbs. Here you do your best to say that Paris' aire urbaine is the city itself.

To say and write that we cannot compare French "aires urbaines" and US "metropolitan areas" just because the names and exact definitions differ is a fallacy.

I have to love it how you selectively mix arguments to garner confusion. I could care less about what we call things, it's (not) defining what they are that is the problem. You misuse one word of common English understanding to make Paris look as something it isn't. Not comparing two objects whose different definitions make them incomparable - or comparing apples to oranges - is not a fallacy - it's common sense. THEPROMENADER 21:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that Paris' aire urbaine was the city itself. I wrote exactly this (check the history of the article): "The city of Paris proper (2,144,700 inhabitants as of July 1, 2004 estimates), together with its suburbs and satellite cities, forms the Greater Paris metropolitan area (French: aire urbaine de Paris), with an estimated 11.6 million inhabitants in 2005." There was a clear distinction made between the city proper and the aire urbaine. However you deleted that sentence. Why? And now you accuse me of saying that Paris is its aire urbaine. That's insane! Hardouin 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

'Insane' indeed. So what, pray tell, is this?

As can be seen from the figures, only 18.5% of the inhabitants of the metropolitan area of Paris live inside the city of Paris. Visitors to Paris, who mostly stay within the city, are rarely aware that 81.5% of "Parisians" actually live outside of the city itself, in its sprawling suburbs. A majority of Parisians also work outside of the city proper: at the 1999 census, there were 5,089,179 jobs in the metropolitan area of Paris, of which 67.5% were located outside the city. These peculiar facts are due to the conservativeness of French administrative limits (see Geography section above).

... chip, chip, chip, driving the 'point' home bit by bit, all through the article, starting with the introduction - selective choice of vocablulary, making two elements one by speaking of them in the same breath - by the end your POV is very clear. Of course should one bit change it would all fall to pieces - it's not for nothing you stop at nothing to keep it as it is. You know full well what you do, I see full well what you do and have done, and no doubt so do others. Stop trying to pull the wool over my, our, and everyone's eyes. Wiki is not for theories or ideals, it is for: Facts. References. Knowledge. Nothing else.

THEPROMENADER 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever reference I bring you always underplay it and then you say "you have no references". All English encyclopedias or websites I have seen, including those I have refered you to, talk of a "Paris metropolitan area", or a "Paris region", or a "Greater Paris". Whether you like it or not it's a fact. It's not something I am inventing. Maybe for you a metropolitan area is something so inherently North American (you're Canadian after all) that you can't even imagine a metropolitan area in Europe, but then that's your subjective view, not reality. I can't believe we argue so much about something so self-evident to many.

Does it never occur to you that for two years this article talked of the Paris metropolitan area (the first time someone wrote "metropolitan area" in this article I wasn't even a Wikipedian yet; check here the state of the article in June 2004 before I made my first edit to this article) until suddenly you came and you alone decided that this could not stand. How can thousands of users who visited this article for two years thought it was perfectly appropriate to talk of a metropolitan area of Paris, and then suddenly you alone arrive in the fall of 2005 and decide it cannot stand and you must make a complete overhaul of the article. If anyone is "POV" (your favorite word), may I suggest it is you and not the thousands of people who came to this article for two years. Hardouin 23:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC

I'm tired of your selective manipulation of data and arguments and your selective memory you juggle to manipulate readers and contributors alike. Even when your flaship theory is debunked and your obvious imposition of it exposed for all to see, still you continue undaunted.

All English encyclopedias or websites I have seen, including those I have refered you to, talk of a "Paris metropolitan area"

As a whole this is simply untrue, and I love how with mixing 'metropolitan area' and 'encyclopedias' in the same phrase you try to 'slip it in there'. Your conceptual study, yes, encyclopedias, never. Encyclopedias and all existing references I have seen use 'Paris region' or 'Île-de-France,' and 'greater paris' when they speak of the Paris agglomeration. Websites 'talk of a metropolitan area' - yes, but none say Paris is this metropolitan area. In fact this term is only used when speaking vaguely of the land around Paris - when precision is required a more precise term must be used, and this is why references never use it. How many thousands of times do I have to repeat this?

You have not provided citable references founding your theories - for the data itself, yes, but this does not support your manipulation of it. No other even website makes the far-flung claims this one does about Paris. I am more than certain that you are fully aware of this but this glaring fact is probably to you just another 'detail' you prefer to blank out.

As for who did what when where of all this - it frankly doesn't matter, only the facts that remain count. FYI the "Greater Paris metropolitan area" phrase dates to early 2002 - but this doesn't make it correct. Nor complete. Nor then was there question then of 'metropolitan area' becoming a theme for the entire article - and Paris itself - as it is here today. Accusing me of POV when all I want to do is cite encyclopedias is - laughable at best.

Readers are not contributors. Readers who read bunk just shake their heads and walk away. IMHO I think you care less about what readers really think, otherwise you would take care to choose a theme at least close to reality and verifiable in other sources. In your failings in both areas, you are only contributing to Wikipedia's reputation of unreliability as a reference. THEPROMENADER 04:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke. There have been scores of people who edited this article since 2002.

I never said there wasn't. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it that none found fault with the mention of a Greater Paris metropolitan area but you?

Good question. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You say the "theme" (theme?) of this article is POV and not found in other encyclopedias. This is a joke again. I have checked and double-checked Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Universalis. Both encyclopedias discuss the Paris economy at the regional level.

I never said they didn't. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Both encyclopedias discuss demographics at the agglomeration level.

I even insist that we do the same. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

None limit themselves only to the administrative city of Paris proper. Only their description of neighbourhoods and quarters is limited to the city proper, which is understandable.

Yes, fine, nor do I. What exactly are you getting at? None of the above has anything to do with 'aire urbaine' or 'metropolitan area'. This is where your POV lays. But we know this already, don't we? THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You always accuse me of this and that,

Well, you most certainly have not been very well-behaved. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

...but let me tell you one thing: before, there used to be several Wikipedians who edited this article regularly. Since 4 months ago when you started to flood the talk page with lenghty hot blooded messages, they have all left.

What a desperate claim. Anyone can read this page's history - are you taking a calculated risk that they won't? You wrote/rewrote this page pretty quietly over a period of around six months. You have guarded it fiercly ever since. The talk page fun only began with your manipulation and reverting. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So who is the one caring more for his opinions than for others?

I care about facts that one can find in an encyclopedia. Where exaclty is my 'opinon' in all this? THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have always been willing to improve the article, rephrase sentences that could be ambiguous, add new information that is still missing, etc,

...yes, I can see all this page's awards. None have complained, either. True also that not an edit passes you by untouched or unreverted. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

but your approach is very different. You came to this article, decided that the "theme" of the article was wrong, and set about making a complete rewrite of the article, with total disregard for the scores of people who contributed to the article over the past 3 years.

What a manipulation of reality. I said this article needed restructuring. My sandbox page, open to all and linked here, was a restructuring proposition whose text was purely fodder written from rote. It did become a scratch-pad for edits. How naughty of me. The outright questioning of fact came later when my doubt became founded by research. Then the 'real' fun began. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the only reason why I have objected to you in these last 4 months.

So you revert out of pure predjudice? How factual. How Wiki. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So stop always portraying yourself as the good guy and me as the bad guy. Hardouin 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't portray myself as anything. My only effort here has been to present real information in an undertandable and presentable manner. No matter how you try to rewrite history, it comes down to the fact that you are at once the author of this page and the hinderance of all improvement to it. The arrogant 'bigger than' picture you have painted here is shared by no factual reference in existence, and your efforts over he past weeks, months even, has been to waylay attention from this glaring and obvious fact.

I must really admire how you manipulate to maintain your grip. But really, 'who did who what where' means nothing when at the end of the day an article remains a parody of of reality. You say it is reality? Then prove it. If you can't? Then improve it. That's it. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If it really interests anyone I can regroup the original text above - cutting it up was the quickest way I could find to answer to each accusation, especially those grouping two completely different arguments into one. One knows that something is wrong with the facts when a questions on fact are answered with attempts at denigration. I consider this a conclusion to this section. THEPROMENADER 07:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Son of Revert Bedlam Bis

Hardouin, you have gone far enough. You will start participating in pre-emptive discussion. You will not ignore the talk page yet pounce upon the article to revert any change to it. You will provide clear arguments in a clear language 'beforehand', and not fill the page with a 'fog of details' 'justification' for a wholesale revert. You will provide references for your edits and existing text. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 14:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: Imagine an encyclopedia using this language -

It is approximately the 20th-largest metropolitan area in the world, and the second or third-largest in Europe (behind Moscow, and above or below London, depending which data are used).

Some would describe this as 'scrabbling'. Enough already. THEPROMENADER 14:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

What's wrong with saying that the city of Paris has 2.1 million inhabitants and the metropolitan area has 11.6 million inhabitants? Why do you keep reverting that? This is the format adopted for most other large cities on Wikipedia (first, city population, then metropolitan area population). The long-winded sentence written by ThePromenader ("Its influence as a city extends well into its suburbs in a metropolitan area commuter belt whose population...") is both awkward and above all misleading. It is misleading because the influence of Paris is actually felt well beyond the metropolitan area, in fact it reaches most of northern France. Different geographers propose different extents to that zone of influence, but usually it goes from Lille (excluded) in the north to the Massif Central in the south, and from Strasbourg (exluded) in the east to Rennes (excluded) in the west. The INSEE calculate what they call "espace urbain", which reflects the area of influence of large cities. The "espace urbain" of Paris contains nearly 16 million inhabitants at the 1999 census, and it includes cities like Rouen, Reims, Orléans, Le Havre, Auxerre, and many more. So I don't think it is wise to talk of "influence". Let's keep things simple. Hardouin 18:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Measuring "influence" is the very reason the 'aire urbaine' was created. A city's "influence" is not the city itself. THEPROMENADER 19:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: in addition to your overall bad behaviour, disregard for consensus and incivility, you have yet to provide any references that speak of Paris in the terms and context that you try to impose here. This is the basis for criticism of your work. If your theories were reality you would simply have no opposition. THEPROMENADER 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to impose anything. It is you who is trying to impose your view of Paris as a small city amongst a largely rural Ile de France région. Maybe in 1900. But we are in 2006 now. Besides I have already given GEMACA II reference, plus Encyclopedia Britannica reference. And I have tried to explain (but do you even listen) that the word "influence" is misleading in that context. Hardouin 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are a proven reverter of all fact not your own opinion - of course you impose. A conceptual study is not an existing reality. You obviously do not read a single word not your own - read my answer to your "proof" - including the Encyclopedia Britannica comments - above. In selectively ignoring/choosing arguments and sources are purposely leading us in circles. Stop. THEPROMENADER 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The innaccuracies so far

I'm sorry to have to do this but Hardouin makes incorrect assertions, and when challenged on these assertions does not reply with supporting evidence. I feel that the only way to clear up this mess is to summarise in tabular form what Hardouins statements are and my answers to them.

Hardouins statements	My answers
Comparison made between the 'commune of Paris', Greater London and New York City to show that Paris City limits have not changed much since 1860. Two paragraphs down a comparison between the commune and Inner London and Manhattan	Inappropriate because Greater London, Inner London, and Manhattan are not cities. City of London has not extended limits since Middle Ages - the changes I made show clearly and concisely that the administrative limits have not changed much in Paris since 1860.
That the size of the administrative city of Paris is more like the size of Manhattan or Inner London.	These are not similar figures - Paris is about 105 km², Inner London is 320 km² and Manhattan is 85 km².
Thus, the Brooklyn, Greenwich, or Charlottenburg of Paris are still outside the city of Paris proper	Each of these places is unique to its metropolis. It is demeaning to Paris to suggest that it has versions of other cities suburbs.
The City of London is not a city, administratively speaking. It is but a borough of Greater London.	The City of London is officially a city and Greater London is a current region of England and was formerly a metropolitan county
Compare this with London where administrative limits were mandatorily extended by the British government in 1965 to create Greater London, including areas like Richmond or Kingston-upon-Thames that were previously outside the limits of London.	In 1965 the county of Greater London was created by merging the former counties of London and Middlesex, the City of London (which was separate from London County) and parts of Kent, Hertfordshire, Surrey and Essex
London is actually a small city of some 8,600 people (the population of the City of London). Is that what you really think?	Absolutely, because the British government says it is a city
Surrounding Paris you have Hauts-de-Seine and Seine-Saint-Denis which have approximately the same land area and same density as Queens or Bronx, and yet they are not part of the city of Paris	According to recent census estimates, Bronx County has 1,363,198 residents in 108.9 km² (plus 39.9 km² water) - density 12,518 people/km² on land (9,161 people/km² including water) Queens County has 2,229,379 residents in 282.9 km² (plus 178.8 km² water) - density 7,880 people/km² on land (4,828 people/km² including water) Hauts-de-Seine département has 1,490,783 residents in 176 km² - density 8,470 people/km² Seine-Saint-Denis département has 1,413,293 residents in 236 km² - density 5,989 people/km². These are not similar figures at all.
Err, how exactly are they not similar? 236 km² (Seine Saint Denis) and 282.9 km² (Queens) is not similar enough? 1,363,198 (Bronx) and 1,413,293 (Seine Saint Denis) is not similar enough?	236 km² and 282.9 km² are not similar - a difference of 46.9 km² makes Seine-Saint-Denis 83% of land area of Queens. Difference in populations is 816,000 people - Seine-Saint-Denis' population is 63% of Queen's population. Comparing Seine-Saint-Denis' and Queens' area, then comparing Seine-Saint-Denis' and Bronx population is inconsistent. Compare Queens' population with Seine-Saint-Denis - 1,413,293 is not similar to 2,229,379. What about Hauts-de-Seine's 176 km² compared to Bronx's 108.9 km²?
No later than 6 years ago, I was in Berlin and I still neatly remember city representatives taking the example of Charlotenburg to explain to us how Berlin enlarged after the Gründerzeit (foundation era), comparing it to Versailles or Sceaux, which are very similar to Charlotenburg, but are still separate cities from Paris proper.	You cannot base an article on your memories of an event alone. We need to see some proof from Berlin city representatives that they believe this.
For instance geographers would say Guatemala and Vietnam are two countries whose climate is subtropical.	This one made me laugh because both Vietnam and Guatemala are tropical not subtropical - again an incorrect comparison being made.
As for "Greater Paris", this phrase in English is commonly used in demographic/economic literature to refer to the Paris metropolitan area. You can check the authoritative GEMACA II study that was conducted in 2000-2001 by several research centers (including the London School of Economics and the Institute for Urban Planning and Development of the Paris Ile de France Region). The study compared major metropolitan areas of North-Western Europe. In the study, Ile de France is indifferently referred to as "Greater Paris", the "metropolitan area of Paris", the "Paris area", and so forth.	The Regional Council of Ile-de-France is a member of the World Association of Major Metropolises. There is no mention of a representative from Greater Paris, the metropolitan area of Paris, the Paris area or the aire urbaine. It doesn’t matter what GEMACA II or any other study regards as the metropolitan area of Paris, as long as the Ile-de-France is the representative at the World Association.
At [[11]] - What the figures show, is that the aire urbaine/metropolitan area of Paris and the Île-de-France région are almost identical. When economists and demographers do not possess data for the aire urbaine of Paris, they use data for Île-de-France instead, because both areas cover each other almost perfectly (more than 97% the same)	Here you are comparing two concepts that are similar but are not interchangeable because only the Ile-de-France region is the metropolitan area. Aire urbaine is a statistical term and should be used in the correct context.
More fundamentally, ThePromenader says "Paris is not its metropolitan area", and wants to replace all mentions of the Paris metropolitan area in the article with "Ile de France région".	See above for Ile-de-France. Note it is not Ile-de-Paris or Region-de-Paris or anything else.
On the one hand there is "angel's gender" arguing that Greater London is not stricly legally speaking a city, despite the fact that demographers, urban planners in the world, and even the British government treat Greater London as the municipal level of administration in London	Greater London is the metropolitan area and the municipal level of administration is the City of London, the City of Westminster and the 31 other boroughs.
Also, as usual I see ThePromenader is misleading people. He says aire urbaine is unique to France, it is mostly farmland, while US metropolitan areas are "densely-packed". Followed by a comparison of densities of aire urbaine of Paris and three US metropolitan areas.	Promenader is correct – look at the official website of the Ile-de-France [12]. Click on the left side link for Territoire / Tourisme, and then click on the link for La Region and then in the middle near the top click on Departements and you should see a list of departements followed by some text which reads – Forte de 11 millions d'habitants, soit 1/5 de la population française, l'Ile-de-France s'étend sur 12,072 km², (2,2 % du territoire national) dont 9700 km² d'espaces naturels, agricoles ou forestiers. Roughly (and forgive my translation) I translate it as saying that – 11 million inhabitants strong, 1/5 of the French population, Ile-de-France extends to 12,072 km², (2.2% of the national territory) including 9700 km² of natural spaces (I'm unsure how to translate that bit but I think it means open countryside?), agriculture or forest. I make it that about 80% of the area is natural spaces, agriculture and forests.

A lot of incorrect information Hardouin, but with very little substance. My apologies if anyone got bored reading the table but it seems the only way to present information concisely. Green Giant 01:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Apellation Consensus, corrections.

In light of our agreement about the errors and lack of references supporting the present version, I have begun, with the Economy section, to correct the article's different "region" apellations to those found in references and official (English version) websites. I found some other errors as well, and eliminated some repetition. THEPROMENADER 09:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)