This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Archives

Talk:Paris/structure discussion

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

It has been brought to my attention that there is a certain level of unrest here. I think that we should work together to resolve it (I believe there is also some mediation underway, and I am not involved with that). May I ask that everyone here (and none of thise is based on claims or comments) remains WP:CIVIL, and if you fear that something could upset someone that you try and make your comment another way. Also, everyone needs to be prepared to comprimise. I also think it would help if when making a claim that we try and cite a relevent source. Remember that everyone here is trying to just improve the articles, and that we should not stand to prevent development. If you are thinking of reverting an edit/making an addition, I think it may help to give a full breakdown here on why each of items were modified, as well as citing sources on the article.

There seems to currently be rather a few areas needing discussion, so please do make comments here. If items have been previously reverted, I think that discussing here will help to make progress. Please however do not just revert edits without involving in discussion.

It may also be helpful to read the french version of this page (if you can read french!) for guidence to clarifing a point if no relevent sources are available. Also remember you can cite a french source if you need to, but it is probably best to try and clarify it or find an english alternative I hope this helps in some way. Ian¹³ /t 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

About the Nighttime view of Rue de Rivoli, It's not the rue de Rivoli, but the Place Colette on the rue Saint-Honoré. If you change the title you should change the picture too...

The current photo accompanying the introduction is interesting, but I don't think it's the most appropriate for the top of the page. It creates a false impression that the Eiffel Tower is surrounded by skyscrapers and moreover, that it is dwarfed by the Tour Montparnasse. A photo of the Eiffel Tower alone, or of the Arc de Triomphe, would be preferable in my opinion. Funnyhat 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more... the photo also shows La Défense which is not even a part of la "Ville de Paris". ( → Netscott) 23:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ach, Netscott... (grin). Let's put the "old standard" back again. THEPROMENADER 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nota: in our past discussions, I did find it amusing to note the length of the lens used for images "proving" that La Défense is "in Paris" - this one has to be at least a 500mm lens : ) THEPROMENADER 13:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why User:Grcampbell wants to subjugate the image you've added ThePromenander for the infobox...but the infobox sure looks pretty ugly as a lead image. For a pleasing esthetic I tried to stack the Eiffel tower image up against it but I was reverted.... got another idea on how to "pretty up" the article? ( → Netscott) 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like the photo up top as well for esthetic reasons, but do see the informative value of having the infobox first. Depends on what you want - to the point, or pretty. Let's leave the infobox first for now. I would really like to find a TOC solution though. THEPROMENADER 21:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes in general go at the top of the articles and is more informative this way. The way that Netscott stacked them ended up with the image being side-by-side with the infobox which was just overkill and looked bad. -- Bob 23:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You must be seeing something I'm not - the photo lined up nicely underneath. I assume that you're using IE Windows as a browser? Anyow it's nothing jjjanyone could fix, short of adding an extra styled <div> around what is supposed to be clearing right... THEPROMENADER 09:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo deleted by ThePromenader shows more of the city and urban area than a photo of the single Eiffel Tower, a very dark one at that, which gives the impression that somehow there's nothing standing out in the city except the Eiffel Tower. Clichés should be avoided here. Next thing someone will propose a photo of the Moulin Rouge as the photo to put in the lead. If Funnyhat thinks the current photo is not good enough because of the size of the Montparnasse Tower, perhaps he could find a better one. I have sent an email to the person who took the picture, and asked him if he could take another picture in which the Montparnasse Tower wouldn't look so tall compared to the Eiffel Tower. He said he would do his best. I'm waiting to hear from him again. Hardouin 13:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Best not to exaggerate your POV. There are many other photos throughout the article showing La Defense and other parts of the Paris agglomeration. Nothing symbolises Paris any better than the Eiffel tower - that's the only reason it's there - recognition - in addition to the photo's obvious aesthetic value. THEPROMENADER 14:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: We'd best put the Eiffel photo back until you get an answer from User:Thbz. Thanks for your understanding. THEPROMENADER 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My only understanding is that you've been doing your best for months now to hide the reality of a modern world metropolis with more than 11 million inhabitants in the metro area, and instead present a cliché image of small Paris, the touristic central city with only 2 million inhabitants within the Périphérique beltway. You've been aided in this by the occasional "allies" such as User:Netscott or User:Captain scarlet. Each time User:Metropolitan or I have tried to present the reality of a modern metropolis with 11 million people and one of the largest economies in the world, you've branded us as "propagandists", "people with an agenda", or, last but not least, " a couple suburban kids doctoring a few low-traffic high-ignorance pages with the goal of making a city seem big enough so they can pretend they live there" ( [1]). Here you're using false pretenses to remove an image of modern Paris showing skyscrapers and dynamism, and replace it with a cliché image of the Eiffel Tower. The goal of Wikipedia is not to propagate quaint clichés, but to enlighten people and present realities that they may not be familiar with. Hardouin 15:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy, FairAndBalanced. Your agenda, on the other hand, is very clear. The image is of poor quality, as you have yourself complained on Thbz' talk page - that's it. The fact that it represents your particular POV wasn't even in the question, so leave it be until a better is found. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see the photo changed. Hardouin, I understand your point, but when you're talking about the FIRST image that people will see when they article, I think it only makes sense to have an image of its most famous landmark. Naturally, there is room for other photos below. Funnyhat 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

After leaving the article for more than two months, I'd like to head for a final clean-up, another peer review, and finally recommend this article for Featured Article status. Please help! If anyone has any improvement ideas, please add these to the "to do" list. THEPROMENADER 11:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are further historical articles about Paris at the following URL: http://www.oldandsold.com/articles35/paris-1.shtml

These could be useful references. Smithville 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Either the information for Paris is wrong, or the information displayed currently for New York City on the tourism section is wrong. The NYC page suggests they have 40 million tourists, whereas Paris claims only 30 million. I don't have time to find out which is accurate but I suggest this is removed or the NYC page is clarified. ny156uk 23:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Have 'been bold' and removed the bit I mentioned above, feel free to re-add but we should make sure that this and the NYC articles are not giving out conflicting information. For now left showing annual tourism amount but no longer the claim of 'most viisted'. ny156uk

Paris actually receives 75 million visitors annually.

Correct - Paris receives some 70 million plus visitors - of which 30 million are foreign, that I believe is the distinction. I have no doubt that New York receives 40M but how many are foreign? Would someone be "bold" enough to reinstate that fact? 90.242.28.201 03:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

PARIS NEEDS TO PUT MORE INFO ON THE INTERNET......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.139.141 ( talk) 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I've read two articles on the BBC News website on a phenomenon amongst Japanese tourists called "Paris Syndrome" (found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6205403.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6197921.stm. I think this might be worthy of mention in the article and possibly a mention of the Parisian attitude to tourists, which I'm sure many people will have experienced! -- Mouse Nightshirt 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could be a first-hand witness to that phenomenon - my wife's Japanese - but I think your subject proposition, in this rather generalistic article at least, deserves a passing mention at best. As for tourism and Paris' dependance on (and attitude towards) the same, I do agree that a more elaborate mention could be made therein. THEPROMENADER 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I read that as well, but on MSNBC. How worthy for an article on Paris? Don't know. Take people from any culture far removed from that of Paris and place them there for a couple of weeks, bound to have an impact on them... -- Bob 07:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

...I've removed another one today that was to a site concerning the city of Paris, but wasn't a reference to any precise additional information. It's hard to draw the line on what is or isn't acceptable for inclusion here - "Paris" is so full of commercial-oriented touristic cruft that once we let one non-information-oriented site come, they all will. So for now the rule is strict strict strict. Yet perhaps there could be some discussion here about what should or shouldnt' be included as an external link. I would think it safest to remain strict. THEPROMENADER 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

...after giving the www.metropoleparis.com website a good looking over (I do know it well, but not completely since its early beginnings), it does indeed have tons of information about Paris - but it is not really "reference-style". All the same, I am replacing it for the time being - but am considering dividing the existing into "official" category and "Other English-speaking sites dealing extensively with Paris". The line has to be drawn somewhere (inclusion criteria?) or the article will be literally swamped with linkspam from every tourist-grabbing endeavour selling (something in) the city. THEPROMENADER 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

...I would like to add www.bonjourparis.com but am sensitive to your concerns about opening the flood gate. However, after looking at the metropoleparis site it seems BonjourParis.com would be equaly as appropriate. Bonjourparis.com has significant amounts of original content on Paris that would not be available anywhere else. I would be interested in what you think. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miles202 ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

If you do plan on adding other English-speaking sites, would you like to consider listing parislogue.com [2]? I try to vary the posts to touch on a wide range of subjects ranging from historical to current events, fashion and tourism. (I'm new to the Wikipedia boards so I wouldn't be so brazen as to edit in a site link without your go-ahead for its appropriateness.) ( Paris Loguer 22:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

I find it hard to believe that nothing happened in Paris between Roman occupation and the 19th century. If there are any experts on Medieval Paris, please pitch in a hand. Just H 18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - someone removed the entire "middle ages" section! It's back now. THEPROMENADER 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the introduction's middle passages, and rearranged the rest, because it was repetitive and redundant. If you have any further improvements to add to mine, please go ahead, but wholesale reverting to the former version without comment is unwarrented. There is little excuse for such "attachment". Thank you. THEPROMENADER 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ckoicedelire, your attachment to "a" former version is very reminiscent of another contributor under another name. Please refrain from further uncivil editing habits - thank you. THEPROMENADER 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the text can be improved upon, but this does not warrant reinstating a former over-elaborate version and simply cancelling the work of another. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 22:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the reversion, as the new version is far superior. However, I am also rewriting this again and adding references. Please do not wholesale revert back to an inferior version just to push a POV. Doing so is vandalism, especially as this has happened 6 times in less than eight hours. -- Bob 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you did: reverting of that sort only makes Wiki a stagnating "draw-the-line" hell. Let's target the problems, solve those, then improve the quality of the result. That, at least, is progressive.

I do like your changes, but something should be said about Paris being only the centre of an agglomeration - even if this agglomeration isn't called Paris, Paris is its origin and centre, and it is something as a whole. Something like "the city is X size; it is the centre of an (urban area) of X size. This takes the city's overflowing of the French commune system into account (its immobility) , and gives a real idea of the size of the settlement as a whole. This need only brief mention, and the rest of the article can dwell on Paris itself, as the city is quite different - in origin, shape and history - from the rest. THEPROMENADER 09:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, but at the same time, I think we mustn't dwell too much on this point and become bogged down and cluttered. -- Bob 17:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - which is why my mention of the subject, although to the start of the introduction, wasn't even one line. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Metropolitan, re-(re-re-re-re-) inserting extensive info on a city's suburban region into a city article is most certainly not "objectivity". The introduction now contians more info on the city's suburbs - and even its damn commuter belt - than on the city itself. Thinking objectively - especially in regard with most other "real" generalistic articles on the city subject - Isn't this just a tad ridiculous? THEPROMENADER 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please save the speeches about the "importance of the urban area as a whole" - this article is not on the "Paris urban area", as the article on Chicago is not based on the Chicago urban area as a whole, nor is any other city article themed like that for that matter. We've been through this hundreds of times before, so to both you and Hardouin, who no doubt called your attention to this: enough already please. THEPROMENADER 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Rather than the usual cut n' paste revert war editing (typical to a very few here), how about editing with the article and readership in mind, instead of the staking of one's own territory (in the article)? Contrary to this, triving to make the article comprehensible to a (possibly) ignorant reader is what one can call "objective". Thank you. THEPROMENADER 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary to AGAIN reverts by Metropolitan : If I wanted to, I could cherrypick hundreds of reasons why a city's commuter belt need no mention in the introduction - aside from the obvious, that is. Paris is much more than an 18th-century settlement - just for starters - so the importance of Paris is both older and other than the comparisons you make in your revert commentary. Feel free to discuss this instead of simply wholesale reverting to a former version of your own personal preference. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 16:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Your edits were sloppy (with redlinks) with namely provocation in mind. You even removed info about the very subject of the article. Apologies, but this cannot stand. Feel free to comment the revised version. THEPROMENADER 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PPS: What's more, Metropolitan's former version had "biggest city in the EU", "biggest urban area in the EU" and "biggest aire urbaine in the EU" statements in the same paragraph - although information on the former was later replaced with the latter: Isn't that a tad odd and repetitive? We can do better than that. THEPROMENADER 16:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The figure of 11,5 million for the metroarea is acceptable and relevant though, I won't reverse the edit a 3rd time but this should be brought before wikipedia's administration for moderation. Each countries have different administrative subdivision, so the exact term for the 2,1 million figure should be "municipality" (commune in French) and not "city", I'm changing this to reflet it is only applied to the Paris commune (here it is not the political regime but the wider term) as this last point is undebatable. Matthieu 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong in mentioning Paris metropolitan area population figure? This data, obviously crucial to understand the real weight and the significance of a city, can be found in the introductions of the London, Madrid, LA, Tokyo, etc. pages. And it's perfectly normal. Insisting on the fact that Paris is merely a 2 million inhabitants city is just going to induce an erroneous understanding of Paris importance in the world and Europe. I dont see how a "2 million inhabitants city" can be considered as one of the 4 global cities in the world, the 6th world city regarding GDP and the 2nd business center in Europe. It doesn't make sense if you dont provide information about the demographic weight of the metropolitan area. And if this information is given for other world cities in the introduction, why should Paris be an exception? I dont understand the rationale for fighting so much against mentioning this figure, or maybe I understand it too well. Fluffy12 19:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What "other articles are doing" is hardly relevant, especially in the light that there exists no world equivalent for the French "aire urbaine". If we were to take the US "metropolitan area" standard and apply it to the French system, we would have a limit defined by a solidly-built area extended to the nearest administrative limit - In the US case, county; in the French case, commune - which would give, in the French version, a definition closer to the French "unité urbaine" than the "aire urbaine". The INSEE prefers the term "area" (aka "Paris area) to the term "metropolitan area" (existing nowhere in the INSEE website or documentation) to describe the same regions. Thus the application of the term "metropoltan area" to the French "aire urbaine" is purely fictional. May I point you to, for example, MSN Encarta that defines the "unité urbaine de Paris" as the "Paris metropolitan area". Thus you can only apply relevant terms to relevant figures connected to terms, especially here, readers can understand and reference elsewhere. Go figure. THEPROMENADER 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But I digress. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the girth of the Paris agglomeration later in the article; unfortunately, for the introduction, the girth of the city (the subject of this article) has not yet grown to match this, so it cannot be qualified as the same. The same for the Chicago urban area, and the same for the New York City urban area. Paris will just have to catch up. Until then, if you would like to speak of the whole of the Paris agglomeration as one, best start an article called "Paris urban area" or "Paris agglomeration". Unfortunately "Paris" alone as a name cannot be qualified as the same as its agglomeration or aire urbaine - even insinuatively so - for this or any other reference. THEPROMENADER 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you made a lot of logical mistakes in your reasoning and thus your entire argumentation is relevant, let me explain you why:

First, you can use the US metropolitan area standart and apply it to the French system: in the French case, the nearest administrative limit would be the "region" and not the "commune" (as in the US you use the "county" and not the "municipality". So no problem to use an American standard for the Paris case. We will find again the 11,5 million figure.

Secondly, even if you don't want to use the American "metropolitan area" for Paris in the way I explained to you, why do you refuse to use the French concept "aire urbaine" to describe a French city? The fact that there is no world equivalent is not relevant, after all, as a Frenchman, I read articles about New York or LA using the "metropolitan area" standard which doesn't exist in France, and doesn't exist in a lot of European countries either. But I think it's normal to descrive an American city with an American concept. If I need more information about it, I can look for a definition myself, or a link may be provided. The same could be done for Paris and the French concept "aire urbaine". There is nothing wrong in it, since it's done for American cities.

Thirdly, you say that we must not mention the Paris agglomeration size in an article about the city of Paris only. Then, why articles about Madrid, London, LA, Tokyo, Milan, etc do bother mentioning (and sometimes in avery heavy way) the size of the agglomeration, in the very introduction? Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedy, I think "what other articles are doing" is essential for the sake of homogeneity, seriousness and impartiality of Wikipedia. Or otherwise, I wont hesitate to eliminate any mention of the agglomeration size in all the cities articles mentionned above. Fluffy12 07:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems you missed or misunderstood a few points. " Metropolitan area ≠ aire urbaine" - this translation is the sole invention of a single Wiki contributor. I understand that Americans understand the term, but actually that is the problem - what they're thinking of when they read that term has little to do with reality. The INSEE does not use the term "metropolitan area" to translate "aire urbaine" for the simple reason that it is not the same.

No it is not a wikipedian invention. I'm an administrator on skyscrapercity (a site on urbanism) and the term "metropolitan area" is very commonly used there. Not just in the French forum section but everywhere, it's just a sort of international standard. Matthieu 09:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it can be used as a vague general term to describe the growth around a city/outside of city limits, but the sparse éparpillement of Paris' couronne péri-urbaine is not this. In fact, some publications (MSN Encarta, for example) would say that Paris' unité urbaine (urban area) is its "Metropolitan area". When mainstream references start using "metropolitan area" as a translation for "aire urbaine", Wiki can too. THEPROMENADER 10:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For the information of outside readers: A "metropolitan area" in the US is the limits of an urban area extended to its county border. The French " unité urbaine" is the limits of a built-up area extended to the limits of its commune. The French aire urbaine is created by linking any commune having more than 40% of its population commuting to a unité urbaine. So, as you can see, they are not at all the same.

I don't see how I can have anything against making mention of "aire urbaine" where the need be (and this term is preferable to "metropoltian area"), but keep in mind that an "aire urbaine" describes an "aire urbaine". An "aire urbaine" is not a city.

You misread me somewhere, as I'm actually for the mention of the agglomeration size - it's important to show the real demographic attraction that has Paris. But this has to be done in context as this agglomeration is much bigger than the city itself: Paris is backwards, but Paris is Paris, and this is an article on Paris, not the "Paris agglomeration". THEPROMENADER 10:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A "metropolitan area" in the US is the limits of an urban area extended to its county border. This sentence is not true. Check the article United States metropolitan area which says that: The counties containing the core urbanized area are known as the central counties of the MSA. Additional surrounding counties (known as outlying counties) can be included in the MSA if these counties have strong social and economic ties to the central counties as measured by commuting and employment. Usually the US Census Bureau uses a threshold of 25% commuters to include outlying counties in the metropolitan area. In the French case, INSEE is much more conservative because it uses a threshold of 40% to include communes in the metropolitan area. I agree with Matthieu and Fluffy here, the majority of city articles I have read include metropolitan area figures in their introduction, so I think this figure is legitimate in the Paris introduction. There seem to be more people who would like to have that figure in the introduction than to have it removed, so I will re-add it to the introduction. If some people disagree with that figure, they should ask the administrators for some sort of mediation as Matthieu suggested. Gwennaël 12:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardouin, you neglected to mention that the definition of Metropolitan area differs from one part of the US to another. But even this point is moot as, as you have so stated yourself, an aire urbaine does not share the same definition as a metropolitan area, thus cannot be presented (or "translated") as such. No institution in existence does this, nor any reference - so neither can anyone here.

You'll also note that the US does not make a large use of the "urban area" statistic. European cities do, and, in a detail that is not negligable, the "urban area" at the moment is the only UN-sponsored world standard. Also, the urban area is important because it denotes the real physical size of a city, whereas the definition of what is a "commuter belt" can be pretty well anything, and differs greatly from country to country. So which is more precise and practical? Go figure.

Let's write an article that informs, not one that apes other practices elsewhere, or uses other practices as a vague excuse to include our own place of residence in the article as if it was the city itself. THEPROMENADER 13:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left the " aire urbaine" info in the introduction, but modified it to reflect the differences in "real-world" translations and definitions. Also, Paris is the #2 urban area in Europe - even the reference by the statement shows Essone (D) is #1 - so stop reverting this please. THEPROMENADER 14:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's pretty &#$%^ maddening when, after leaving the article alone for months in order to give others a go at it (and having the disinterest for this article confirmed), that even the first attempts at shortening and improving the article since months are opposed by a frantic flurry of sock-puppet reverts to a phrasing written by a single Wikipedian months before. This is behaviour both disruptive and uncivil, and should it continue, it will get the attention it deserves. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Metropolitan area = aire urbaine (in French)

Urban Area = agglomération (in French)

So:

Paris urban area estimation for 2007 is 10.1 million inh. (so it is UE's largest)

Paris metropolitan area for 2007 is 12 million inh. (so it is UE's second largest after London)

END OF THE STORY PLEASE!!

This link provides the latest "comparitive source": http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/chifcle_fiche.asp?ref_id=CMPTEF01103&tab_id=18

...unless one can find 2007 estimates for Essen (presently #1 in the EU) included in a similar already published comparitive list compiled by a respected demographics organisation, the above is the only reference to date. Wiki contributors shouldn't compile "comparitive essays" of their own - this is Original Research. End of story indeed. THEPROMENADER 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I do live in Paris. The clubbing "ad" is pretty inaccurate and dated. First, highly selective means nothing. Second, there are many other places, like Milliardaire, VIP Room (close to the Queen and usually celebs) but more importantly, it always change and depends on the party more the club itself. I'm not a regular wikipedia user, so someone speaking English can rephrase this info better than me. Please see some French sites like www.parisbouge.com also.

"enough on this already" is a funny way to talk about a subject on a democratic, open basis , but any way... i agree with you, but i notice that you keep on ignoring my suggestion (to the point that it looks you are doing it on purpose): go look at the price waterhouse coopers study. that study compares the big cities , using U.N. Figures (the same you seem to apreciate, just like me), on the only real basis that counts (i agree with you too): the whole city, not just the city center is relevant to talk about the very important cities in this world.

it clearly says paris has the biggest population in the EU, and the biggest gdp. why not say it in the introduction. Beyond the schoolyard "who's got the biggest *** " debate you despise just like me , it is really worth pointing out, since years of disinformation have induced everybody in believing the opposite. it is a fact worth mentionning, and it is a UN figure, echoed by a north american study group (what can be nore neutral ?)

i would kindly add that your digression on the name game does not resist the most basic investigation. if we keep going in you logic, in order to talk about that 2.3 millon inhabitants , capital of France, we should say exactly "Ville de Paris" , the official name of this entity whose mayor is m. Delanoe. On the other hand, "Paris" allows to talk either about the ville de paris or greater paris. if you talk about the center of paris, you have to say Ville de Paris, and not just Paris. if you do so, you are misleading people.

now, if we are to compare "Ville de Paris" and "City of london", well the City is this tiny part of London, and it would be ridiculous to do so. The problem is, that's exactly what you are doing at the bigger scale. Leave London (alone) and Paris (alone), they both refer to the greater extensions of the city. cheers Esteban

---

Hello ! i just don't agree with the way wikipedia works, it's a clear anglo saxon propaganda on the english speaking pages. the cities ranking is a mess. first the population: on the london page, the people mention freely whatever extension they want. and for the paris page, we should limit ourselves to the administrative limits ? if you take a close look, you see that Paris has more population than London as far as the first 10 km around the city center is concerned. it's jsut more dense (case number 1) then, in the next urban layer (10-20 km) London is more dense. at this stage of the population count, London has more population (case 2) then at the third stage, that of the urban area (20-40 km) the two cities are just equal (case 3) it is no mystery why you guys decide to consider the case Number 2 for your population counts: you want london to look bigger than paris..

so if you were objective, you would say that both cities are equally big (ie 12 million people), and explain that due to the diference of configuration and the difference of techniques, the results wouldn't jkust mean anything scientifically. i challenge you to do that ! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.83.21.72 ( talk • contribs)

i would add that the TGV system makes the paris urban area bigger, since people who live in the area of Lille and Brussels(1.4 M + 1M) are just one hour from their office in Paris, and as they sleep i nLille or brussels (cheaper), they work in Paris. this is not the case of london, and the rapid transportation factor, makes paris even bigger. why don't you guys put a section on this interesting issues that mixes demography and transportation issues? Lyon and Strasbourg, 2 hours these TGV lines look like metro lines at peak hours, people are standing reading their paper , drinking ocfee and making calls.

as far as the GDP ranking is concerned, it is important to look athis document on global cities that is given as a link . if you are not london propagandists you have to admit the truth: Paris's GDP is superior to that of London, it's written balck on white, UN statistics. this document on global cities not only shows that paris has more people, but its GDP is bigger (funny to note that this document being english, there is no written comment on that reality that seems to hurt, it's like silenced, and the authors put a 2050 projection in which, of course, London tops paris !) ! Paris is number 5 (Tok, NY, LA, CHic) and not number 6 !

please put this info in the introduction. or if it hurts you, remove any information in the london page saying that "bla bla london is the number one here, the number one there, blabla"

what do you think about this objectivity proposal ?

The Editing Talk: Paris is such an an important part of the wikipedia process - I am riveted by the conversation engendered by the discussion of Paris Metropolitan area population - so much so that I've linked Editing Talk to parislogue.com. It seems like the wikipedia editing talk will go down in history - along the lines of Diderot. ( Paris Loguer 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

in the absence of any reaction from you, i modified the page. let's debate, but as a parisian i think i ( and others) can shed some light on your estimations....too bad the London site is not that open to changes and foreign opinions. should we ask the same treatment for "our" city?

Hello! I see the point in your propositions, but unfortunately they lack definition. "Paris" is only a flexible entity with flexible borders to those who don't know it - as is every city for the same. Paris is a real entity with definable limits - and it is this that is compared to other major cities. We cannot take an ignorant 'interpretation' of 'what <city> should be or "may be"' and compare it to another... we must deal in precise definitions, as the goal of an encyclopedia is not to cater to ignorance. It is for that very reason and purpose that the government even, when speaking of the economy centred on Paris, speaks of the "Paris region" or "Île de France" when making precisions. That is exactly what this article does at present. THEPROMENADER 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, but why is it something we have to accept without discussion about London (some jokers talk about a city that has 14 million inhabitants, can you tell me this is based on clear definitions ???) and not about paris ? the Lodon page is not subject to such doubts, why is it the case for paris i would add this is ridiculous, to let a city that is objectively bigger (UN figures in the price waterhouse coopers report) look smaller by putting fake figures (ile de france is 11.7 and not 9.93, go check it) or using the downtown paris figures (from 19th century). and on the other hand, letting people talk about london's commutter belt and its 14 million people, not letting us modify it

i feel free to talk about paris' commutter belt too !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.83.21.72 ( talk • contribs)

What 'They' are doing 'over there' is of no interest to this artcle - the goal of Wikipedia is to provide clear, factual information to its readers with as little nuance and 'interpretation' as possible. If 'others' would like to use a selective (and perhaps misused) vocabulary and selective statistics to make 'their' article subject seem as big as possible, that's their problem. I realise that this is is a trend in many 'city' articles, but it is not one with the goal of providing objective information; it is one more akin to little boys comparing their *** in schoolyards - but let us not digress.

London is an exception in the 'name game' (as mentioned many times before) because its " Greater London" is known both commonly and officially as " London". Paris unfortunately does not share this exception: go beyond Paris' administrative limits and you are no longer in "Paris". If you want to speak accurately of the growth centred on Paris, then you have to use an accurate term such as "Paris agglomeration" or "Paris urban area". The information here must comply with real, widespread and referenced usage.

In my opinion, the "border debate" is just pure silliness. A city should be defined not by its name or where its government decides to draw borders: it is its real growth as an agglomeration - and it is only on this criteria that there can ever be any reasonable comparison between cities. The UN is presently in the process of doing exactly that - drawing a world demographic map based on a common and unique definition of "agglomeration" (urban area).

This article has seen a prodigal amount of silliness because of this impossible debate. London city can officially say that all its suburban buroughs and counties are its own under its own namesake - no matter how populated (or not) they are - and because Paris cannot do the same, one contributor tried to 'translate' a little known (to the French) statistic that includes not only the urban growth, but its (very!) sparse (local definition of a) commuter belt into an area called "the Paris Metropolitan area" that was (in his opinion) simply "Paris" - a wrangling of fact only the conributor's own, as no reference in existence does this. Now how can one ever expect to engage in a real debate on terms such as those? It is for that both articles were subject to an ongoing (not-so-) anon editing war.

Conclusion: if you want to speak in a clear language about a city's 'real size', use the internationally-acclaimed and accepted " urban area". To state:"The Paris urban area is larger than the London urban area" is a clear fact understandable to all. To say "London is bigger than Paris" is both vague and misleading, as the definition of each term being compared differs with the knowledge and opinion of those debating, and even these are based on administrative lines having little to do with any real demographical growth. So enough on this already!

Thanks for the debate : ) BTW, best to sign your comments.

Cheers! THEPROMENADER 09:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Original version - quite a cut! Please let's revise this. THEPROMENADER 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Paris is the capital city of France. It is situated on the River Seine, in northern France, at the heart of the Île-de-France region ("Région parisienne"). The city of Paris has an estimated population of 2,153,600 within city limit (2005 est.). ^[1] The Paris urban area has a population of 9.93 million ^[2] and a commuter belt around the same completes the Paris " aire urbaine" (roughly: " metropolitan area") that, with its population of 11.5 million, ^[3] is one of the most populated areas of its kind in Europe. ^[4]

Paris' location at a crossroads between land and river trade routes in lands of abundant agriculture had made it one of France's principal cities by the 10th century, rich with royal palaces, wealthy abbeys and a cathedral; by the 12th century Paris had become one of Europe's foremost centres of learning and the arts. Today, Paris is a major influence in politics, fashion, business, arts and science. The city serves as an important hub of intercontinental transportation and is home to universities, sport events, opera companies and museums of international renown, ^{[5] [6]} making it an attraction for over 30 million foreign visitors per year. ^[7]

The Paris region ( Île-de-France) is France's foremost centre of economic activity. With €478.7 billion (US$595.3 billion), it produced more than a quarter of the gross domestic product (GDP) of France in 2005. With La Défense, the largest purpose-built business district in Europe, it hosts the head offices of almost half of the major French companies, as well as the headquarters of ten of the world's 100 largest companies. ^[8] Paris also hosts many international organizations such as UNESCO, the OECD, the ICC, or the informal Paris Club. It is regarded as one of the world's 4 major global cities. ^[9]

Due to increased ip vandalism, I have made a request to semi-protect this page. STTW (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good move. This page should be in the top half of the "Wiki's most vandalised articles" list. Thanks should go to users such as Atlant for always keeping an eye open... thanks! THEPROMENADER 12:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, after months of contribution to this page, I made a point of leaving it to let others have a go at it. Almost all that's changed since is a quite regular many-times-daily vandalism. Is there any reasonable means to counter this? THEPROMENADER 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You could try requesting semi-protection again at WP:RFPP. I'm not an administrator, but after a cursory look at the page history, there's probably enough vandalism to justify it. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of revert-warring over this, how about a bit of discussion?

I can very well see reason for a hidden TOC, and this is nothing to do with nonexistent 'Wiki standards'. Yet I don't like the idea of having no TOC at all, either. Would it be possible to make a 'reduced TOC' having the 'main subtopics' ( '==Whatever==') only?

I'm divided on this - but would prefer to have a hidden TOC rather than an overly-long one, at least until a better solution is found. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the hidden TOC until a better solution is found - please continue discussion here. I will be alerting concerned parties about this. THEPROMENADER 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There's been quite a bit of support for the TOChidden on a number of articles. Editors find that the massive amount of blank space in the lead is distracting and not very esthetically pleasing. People are used to using such a user interface across the web as far as "hidden" content is concerned so I don't really see a problem having the TOC be one click away (no utility is lost at all whatsoever). ( → Netscott) 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that support, and see sense in it - and do find the present TOC system to be rather half-assed in the bargain. I also see that the 'hidden' TOC is still visible to people using non-javascript non-graphic browsers. But what of making a 'first-level heading only' TOC? This could be even more useful IMHO. Can we look into this, perhaps somewhere else? THEPROMENADER 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am new here, and I am not sure I am writing at the right place. But anyway, I have been surprised by the climate data about Paris that seem pretty inaccurate, especially for the winter temperatures. I suggest to replace it with informations from http://www.worldweather.org/062/c00194.htm, like the one used at the page about London, which seem a lot more accurate and precise. Thank you, and sorry for disturbance. User:Biskui 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This section was subject to a lot of vandalism (people changing numbers) so most probably needs some cleaning up. Thanks for the link. What disturbance? You're just as at home here as anywhere in Wikipedia : ) THEPROMENADER 07:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"It is regarded as one of the world's 4 major global cities." is inaccurate. Paris was listed in the top 4 of 10 "alpha global cities" by the GaWC in 1999. Furthermore, even if the GaWC had the authority to designate the global city, the GaWC has since introduced a completely different categorization system that negates its prior rankings. Neitherday 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't at all see how the entire passage was "inaccurate" enough to merit a complete removal. Before we even get to discussing the intricacies fo the GAWC (that still have, for all matters, Paris listed and discussed as one of the world's most dominant World Cities), even the most uninformed of readers will probably know that Paris is one of the world's major "global cities".

If it is the GAWC's definition (now that I look, listed but as a citation without additional context, yet still actual - GaWC has yet to replace this list) you don't like, or you think that "one of the world's 4 major global cities" (as if it only has four) it too precise, then it would have been a better idea to edit it ("one of the world's major global cities"?) rather than remove it outright. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The article says: "French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers > 1 km² (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries.". The sign ">" means "larger than". So this means that the land register data excludes big lakes. This is not very likely. It is more likely that they exclude small lakes. -- Ysangkok 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's actually pretty funny : ) Consider it fixed. Thanks! THEPROMENADER 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we both are wrong - land register data does discount lakes and glaciers larger than a certain size - for the simple reason that neither are land. Luckily someone saw this error and set it straight. THEPROMENADER 07:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that the Metro population is higher than the estimated population. I wasn't quite sure whether the Metro population was the amount of people who lived in the Metro area, or how many people used it. This may just be a mistake on my count, but the fact that the Metro population is 6 times larger than the estimated population confused me. Can anyone explain this to me? XP105 08:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Paris metropolitan area" (a very unofficial term here) is of course much larger than the city of Paris - it stretches well beyond Paris' adminitrative limits (only anything within is called 'Paris' here), well beyond its urban area of natural growth (covering an area roughly eight times Paris) and covers a vast sparsely-inhabited commuter belt ( aire urbaine) covering an area almost the size of the Île-de-France région that itself is over eighty times larger than Paris. Hope that explains things. THEPROMENADER 05:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On the matter of population density, I think it's a bit presumptious to say that Paris has the highest density in the Western world. (Especially since there is no source for this) Manhattan's population density is 66,940 people per square mile (25,846/km²). This is clearly higher than Paris. Freddyzdead 12:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Paris' population density is 24,783/km² so not so much lower than Manhattan's (which is only part of The city of New York). Some copy editing needs to be done so that Paris can at least reassert itself as a 'good article

I see no reason for the exclusion of the land area of the Bois de Boulogne and the Bois de Vincennes from that of Paris in the factbox's city statistics. They are part of the commune, which has a total area of 105.4 km². Are we to arbitrarily exclude legal parts from other communes also? Backspace 08:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the "with and without 'les bois'" information part of the footnote of the aforementioned factbox? Its authors (myself included) did find the "inhabited space" info more relevent... but of course a modification should/could be made. THEPROMENADER 12:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

With her recent jail sentence Paris Hilton has become more famous than the city of Paris, France. I propose that people searching wikipedia for "Paris" should be sent to Paris Hilton's page instead of this one. Who's with me? Ogeez 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny :) Paris probably has only two more years in the spotlight then she's history. Sort of a "where is she now" episode 10 years from now.

I think this article lacks a -small but important- section on prépas (in Education). (Randomblue)

Then by all means, please add something about it - ! THEPROMENADER 09:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Started the editing (will improve later). Please help me with the English and wikifying as I'm not a native English speaker and this is one of my first edits. (Randomblue) it doesn't only americans care about their stupids celebrities, who in Africa, Asian or South America knows about Paris Hilton. Americans thinks everythings evolve around them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.86.4 ( talk) 23:47, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed on this article that Paris' and Paris's is inconsistently being used, and I'm rather bothered by it. I have had discussions on which form to use (Paris' or Paris's) with another editor and We have not agreed. I think if anything the form NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT. Use one form (Paris' or Paris's) and stick with that. To not do so is sloppy.

Now I vote that Paris's be use as according to The Elements of Style by Strunk and White the proper usage for possesive nouns that end in s is 's (i.e. Charles's) with exception of ancient possessive nouns that end in es or is which should use the apostrophe only, such as Isis' or Moses'. Paris is an old city, but it is not ancient, so it does not quaify for this exception, therefore it's proper usage would be Paris's. Here is a link to passage from The Elements of Style by Strunk and White and here's a quote

Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.
Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,

Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witch's malice

This is the usage of the United States Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University Press.
Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as Achilles' heel, Moses' laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced by

the heel of Achilles
the laws of Moses
the temple of Isis

The pronominal possessives hers, its, theirs, yours, and oneself have no apostrophe.

I think I've made the arguement for Paris's rather well. Can we please have a consensus?

Thanks!

AngielaJ 15:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(Grin) I'll go with whatever's dominant (in this article) for the time being - to be fair. Both Paris' and Paris's are common usage, and Angielaj, you have presented proof to but a single point of view (yours). I have provided a few links to other usages through someone else's attempt to reason through the subject in a balanced manner - links that you can find here.

If "Paris's" is already an inconsistant dominant in an article, by all means go ahead and change the rest to that - or vice versa - unless a very narrow tie, you don't need to seek consensus for that. THEPROMENADER 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have a long-standing "thing" about misuse of apostrophes, and "Paris's" just looks wrong. I was always taught that essentially any word ending in "s" should be possessified (!) by just appending an apostrophe. I have no idea how authoritative 'The Elements of Style by Strunk and White' is, but I'd like to see more corroboration from other sources before I'd consider accepting Paris's over Paris'. Freddyzdead 07:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are two links relating to Paris travel, written by IHT reporters living in Paris.

http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/travel/globespotters/?cat=4

http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/travel/globespotters/?p=2 Chrisvnicholson 14:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to spell the word center as "centre". Although this is the way it is spelled in France, this article is written in English. Therefore, the language in which you're communicating dictates the spelling of the word. In other words, if America was being written about in French, it would be spelled as "centre". So, to keep it consistent, when writing about France in English, we would use "center". You cannot use "centre" when writing in French and English. That's not consistent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.192.176.30 ( talk) 02:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Centre is BrE, center is AmE. The article should be consistent, either BrE all along or AmE. Squash Racket 09:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is written in British English - most European articles are written in BrE (as their contributors are often European), as American English is common more to the U.S. than anywhere else. If there is any inconsistency, it should be corrected for sure. THEPROMENADER 09:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a typically Amerocentric comment, where it is seen as "just wrong" to use "centre" or to put a "u" in colour. If Wikipedia is deemed to be an American-only enterprise, then one supposes that American English (AmE) should be used throughout. If it's actually an international effort, then it would be more appropriate to use the spellings that are common in the majority of English-speaking countries. In any case, Americans should "get over it". And put the missing "i" back in "Aluminium" while they're at it. Freddyzdead 07:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

True that the original comment was misguided (not to mention ignorant - "centre" is also U.K. English), but no need for the vitriol. The general trend for Wikipedia seems to be using the form of English "closest to" the article subject - for example: American for American subjects, Canadian English for Canadian subjects, and English for things more European - but all that depends on the consensus created by the article contributors. It is of course essential that a single article be consistant in its use of one language. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Very old merge tag on List of visitor attractions in Paris that doesn't appear to have been discussed here (yes, I looked through lots of old talk pages). No opinion on the merge itself, but if it is not done then the list article needs to be cleaned up and criteria for inclusion created. A rename might be in order also, converting it from a straight list to a prose-style article. Pairadox 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that list has never been discussed here, but I'm sure you found lots of quabbling on other matters : )

The problem is that this article is already too long as it is - we need to remove content, not add it. What would you think about transforming the List of visitor attractions in Paris into a Visitor attractions in Paris article - not only would it be more informative, but this way we can move much of the detail about "visitor attractions" from here to there - or at least refer that section to the new article. Possible? THEPROMENADER 10:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ThePromenader, it has been listed as needing to be merged since October. Something needs to be done Paulytlws 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll see what I can do to transform the List of visitor attractions in Paris into a real article, then see about moving some of the content from here to there. I hope this pleases everyone. THEPROMENADER 23:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that works very well, and have no doubt the Paris-related articles would benefit from it. If you haven't already, you should read Wikipedia:Summary style for some pointers on how to relate the two. Pairadox 23:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm removing the "merge" tag from the top of the article. I will have a look at the List of visitor attractions in Paris article and see what I can do; I do have one worry though: that the resulting article will resemble Paris districts - but perhaps not. I will pursue discussion about this on the relevent talk page. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I came across "list of attractions" just today for the first time... then followed the merge proposal over to here. I volunteer to help with ThePromender's proposal. Shall we start a discussion over at that talk page? We should be able to come up with a plan and perhaps divide the work. Hult041956 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's take it over there. Thanks for your interest and help! THEPROMENADER 06:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In the "Partner Cities" section Montreal is represented by the flag of Quebec, a province of Canada, while all the other partner cities are denoted by national flags.

Any particular reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.200.188 ( talk) 18:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I have changed the flag to the Canadian one. Green Giant 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Same for Quebec City. done. Mariokempes 04:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This user seems to be on a one-(wo)man mission to change the Paris article to his/her preferences. On October 4th and 5th, there were eighteen edits made to this article after Thum Fel had made this . Then on October 6th, Thum Fel carried out a blind revert, undoing eighteen edits and restoring various spelling mistakes, unnecessary reference-fields, and in particular several images which had replaced perfectly valid earlier images. How do I know this was a blind revert? Compare the two revisions and you will see there is absolutely no difference between them. Normally, I would never object to useful edits made by anyone but all of these edits were made without Thum Fel making a single comment on any talk page or offering even one edit summary. This is despite messages on his/her talkpage explaining how to use edit summaries and asking him/her to utilize the talkpage here. My reason for highlighting this is to ensure nobody misinterprets my action in this edit which basically undid the blind revert. Green Giant 20:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record - blind revert number 2 took place here at 21:51, October 7, 2007. The obvious point is that it seems to be an act of vandalism because Thum Fel is simply ignoring the requests on his/her talkpage. Green Giant 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the vandalism of this guy is not limited to the Paris article. Check his/her contributions, you'll see he/she's also botched the Monaco, Nice, Sao Paulo, Barcelona, and couple other articles. This should be notified to the admins some way or another. Keizuko 23:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thum Fel has been reported now. We'll have to wait to wait for an admin now. Green Giant 23:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok dokie. Keizuko 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was at first glad to finally see some "new blood" editing the article, but in my morning checks over the past few days, the oddness has been accumulatingly apparent. Whoever it is is a seasoned Wikipedian - and one wily enough to try to "hide" a blind revert in spreading it through several submissions. Thanks Green Giant for making this all clear for everyone. THEPROMENADER 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please leave any Peer review comments here. This information didnt help meh at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.4.20 ( talk) 20:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of citations: Rather than go through the article and make a bit of a mess of it, what I've done is detail where I believe the FA crowd will expect to see citations in this sandbox: User:Zleitzen/Paris sandbox. My flags have not been an exact science - but it should give an idea of what is required. It may look daunting, but sections like the history section could be covered by only 2-3 main sources, preferably reputable historical book sources, with other points patched together with web citations. Some of the flags may seem so obvious as to not need citations, and much of it I knew to be easily verifiable. However, they'll still need to be visibly cited to escape the FA hawks. It's an exceptionally well written article by wikipedia's standards - I added strike-throughs to only 2-3 sentences, these I believed were a touch too personal and bordering on original research. However, I do think the article is too long to pass FA at its current length. The education section in particular could be farmed out to a sub article leaving a paragraph or so remaining.-- Zleitzen ^(talk) 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Paris a cidade com maior densidade de boiolas do universo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.0.104 ( talk) 06:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The French page gives the official name of Paris as Paris. I've removed an (in any case) inaccurate "Vill de Paris" from the city box. If the official name actually is "City of Paris" rather than "Paris," it would be Ville de Paris. - LlywelynII ( talk) 02:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of September 19, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R.

• Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.

Regards, Epbr123 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be a good opportunity to initiate some discussion as to the direction being taken by the article's editors. I propose we forget good-article status and work towards featured article status. Green Giant 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Another editor was kind enough to indicate all the phrases that he thought needed sources - I'll see if I can find that somewhere. FA ho! THEPROMENADER 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I finally managed to dig up the "citations needed" sandbox version of the Paris article generously concocted by User:Zleitzen; all highlighted phrases need sources - many, unfortunately. You can find it here. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks to be the sort of thing this article needs. A lack of sources for potentially controversial statements is the first hurdle that many FA candidates fall down on. Green Giant 11:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In looking at the past week's edits, I see that User:Thum Fel's reverts are very similar to those made by two anon IP's, and both of these involve the reappearance of overly-detailed texts that were phased out of the article even a year ago. Can anyone confirm what I'm seeing? THEPROMENADER 06:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Thum Fel obviously wants things to look good on "his" monitor. On mine (1680 x1050px) the photos are miniscule. Compromise on this at least? THEPROMENADER 18:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The compromise I think is what User:Med has done by removing the pixel field from the images. The problem is Thum Fel has only one response to any attempt to talk with her/him --> "You is crazy you wants to help or to make vandalism? you change the article of the city of Paris the all minute its article this exquisite the page is also with many photos!". Anyway, irrespective of Thum Fel's numerous small edits, I have managed to fix the references so they all display the author and there are no {{en icon}}'s as well as correcting some spelling errors. Green Giant 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think, at its origins, this article was written in British English, also to reflect its European origins... and, by what I can see, a large part of it still is. Can we stick to this format please for sake of consistency? THEPROMENADER 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I had the impression that the article waz more American-spellingamatized than British-spellingismed. However, there iz no particularly good reazon that American spelling shud be uzed in this article. I have therefore reverted myzelf and reztored the editz by Uzer:Swedish Fuzilier. Green Giant 15:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ssomeone wass making a great effort to "Paris's(s)" this article (instead of Paris'), but asside from that I didn't ssee much movement in the language department. Thankss all the ssame for bringing back all those essess and uus : ) THEPROMENADER 18:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should use British English e.g. colour, pavement, metre, of which many of the origins come from old french languages or more french languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.200.23 ( talk) 16:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Internal consistancy is good, but apart from articles about various members of the Commonwealth, there is seldom any good reason to use British variant spellings. Apart from petty nationalism, if the posters above were genuine in their rationale, American English is actually much closer to middle English, which was the English heavily influenced by Norman French. - LlywelynII ( talk) 02:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In your *humble* opinion of course? ~ Brother William ( talk) 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Although it uglifies the article, I've added begun to add "citation needed" tags to all the phrases needing at least some sort of references - the selection/targeting of phrases needing citations was generously provided by User:Zleitzen, and you can find the original page on his talk page here. Cheers. Although ugly I hope that integratrating these tags will make improving this article easier, and provide a motivation to do so - it would be nice that, after all this time, that an article of this importance get closer to its much-deserved FA status. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardouin, I made a point of asking User:Tony Sidaway for some clarification as to his reasons for removing the article's demographic "similar to" statements, but you just went and blanket reverted once again. I'll have you know that there was no consensus for or against their removal, so this comment of yours was quite inventive and inappropriate. Thanks for ceasing to "edit" in this way, as it kills all possibilities for civil reasoning and discussion, and perhaps you should think about finding other more productive ways of contributing than just policing "your" articles and pet phrases. Many of this article's challengable claims lacking sources are yours, so there would be a perfect place to start. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy of the message I left on Tony Sidaway's talk page:

Note that it has long been proposed to simply use the English terms urban area and metropolitan area, since this is after all the English language Wikipedia, but ThePromenader has always refused this. This would be in line with the anglicisation of France related articles that was carried out by several editors (of which I was not part), turning département into "department", région into "region", and so on. At the time ThePromenader opposed this anglicisation (see discussion here), but he was overruled by the majority. Here in the Paris article ThePromenader has refused this anglicisation too, thus making the translation in parenthesis necessary for those readers who don't understand French (and there are lots of them). It's interesting to compare with the Stockholm article where they talk of a "Stockholm urban area" (not a "Stockholm tätort"), the Madrid article where they talk of a "Madrid metropolitan area" (not a "Madrid área metropolitana"), or the Berlin article where they talk of a "Berlin-Brandenburg metropolitan area" (not a "Berlin-Brandenburg Metropolregion"). Hardouin 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What do I have to do with any of this? Either the term is widely understood and referenced, or it hasn't much value to the common reader. I really don't see what role the "other events" mentioned have to do with the worth of comparing to North American terms in this article. Those sources though - anytime soon? THEPROMENADER 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this isn't a question of "English" - and anyhow, the varying definitions of "metropolitan area" (even within the US for lord's sake) make the term a false (and muddling) translation for the French "aire urbaine", a very precise statistical area/term created by France's official governmental statistics institution - whose official translation for the term, by the way, is " urban area." Or shall we assume that we know better than they? Keep it simple please - the added explanation may help a few, but only the original French term has its own unique and referencable definition.

In addition, we don't choose second-rate "foreign study" references only because they use terms we would like to impose on the article. All demographical statistics in this article come from the INSEE: the INSEE has never used the term "metropolitan area" in describing anything France in any of their English-language publications - not once - and their official translation is there right in front of you. I'm not complaining about how the article is, but as for your obsession with North America, see some sense please. Enough about this already. THEPROMENADER 23:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The only "obsession" I see here is in insisting on using French terms as if all the readers of this English language encyclopedia were fluent in French. Wikipedia is not meant for an elitist few, otherwise you might as well simply write the entire article in French and ask people to buy a French dictionary, since you're at it. Hardouin 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As Tony Sidaway so rightly mentioned, a misuse of foreign terminology is not a question of "language".

"Aire urbaine" is a precisely defined entity - where "metropolitan area" is a much-varied not - and it has an official translation so it should be used before anything else. The article in its present state is only because of a compromise with your insistant reverting to your narrow "we're like them" point of view - and I do agree that it diminishes the quality of the article - but your pet term is there, so stop your disruptive reverting and widespread whining please. THEPROMENADER 07:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it that fr:aire urbaine links to en:metropolitan area if this is a "misuse of foreign terminology"? I also note that the official English translation of département by INSEE is "département" ( [3]), so why is it that all the France related articles were anglicised and "département" was turned into "department"? Surely if we follow your personal logic that INSEE translations trump all established usage in the English language, then User:Grcampbell must un-anglicise all the articles he has anglicised and restore the French term "département". This discussion won't move forward until you finally accept that not everybody is like you able to read French. For the average anglophone reader, reading "Paris unité urbaine" is as puzzling as it would be for you to read "Stockholm tätort", whereas editors at the Stockholm article have wisely chosen to simply write "Stockholm urban area", which is immediately accessible to the average anglophone reader. Hardouin 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We can assume that most readers will not understand what an undefined urban area is, let alone an aire urbaine. Either you provide a "comparitive" explanation after the phrase (understandable by all? Not.), provide a complete explanation ("built-up area"; "commuter belt surrounding built-up area"), or you link the phrase to its proper article that will provide a precise explanation. In either case, finding a precise and complete explanation amounts to the same - no matter the phrase. THEPROMENADER 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So by this we must assume that you know better than the very and unique governmental institution that created the "aire urbaine" - and its official translation? As for the others - shall we all jump off bridges? Precise and referencable definition is not exchangable with muddled envy. Please. THEPROMENADER 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(in a kinder tone) Listen, if the terminology used in those "other articles" is an official translation of their proper demographic terms, than they are correct. If a country's demographic makeup is imprecise, or there is no official translation for the same, then "borrowing" another country's as-widely-known-as-possible term as a description - and not as an appearlingly proper translation - would be barely "encyclopaediacally" acceptable. If no official or precise translation exists, the best and most verifiable practice would be to accompany the first appearance of an untranslated term with a common-language description. If, on the other hand, "other articles" have chosen another country's terminology and translations over their official own, then they are making the same mistake that you insist upon making in this article. Comparison does not make truth. THEPROMENADER 10:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

== Grand Paris ==laylah olivia lahnert was here I see that there is nothing about the project of Grand Paris, the fucion of Paris and the inner suburbs in one city. It is really important every PM in Paris region speak of this project even the french president. Minato ku ( talk) 16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is not only a question of a fusion into one City in that debate, also a unique management of certain services through several. If you want to add something about it, Hardouin, go ahead, but don't make anything up. THEPROMENADER 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not Hardouin. Minato ku ( talk) 05:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, too many timely coincidences indicate that the contrary is true. THEPROMENADER 07:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Minato Ku isn't Hardouin. Minato is a respectable member of skyscrapercity.com. Please don't throw off irresponsible accusations especially when they are wrong. Matthieu ( talk) 09:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To add even more circumstance to contrary your statement, MinatoKu appeared soon after Hardouin was invited (here) to join that same board. In any case, the bias remains the same: they both aim to pretend that the Paris' future exists already - and this is my only differend with them, even if the two contributors are not the same, as even insinuation to this end is anything but factual. THEPROMENADER 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about how much circumstances you can add. Minato Ku is a respected member of our forum and isn't Hardouin, end of discussion. Matthieu ( talk) 16:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't ask me to care about one or the other's 'status' in your forum - or to care about your forum, for that matter. It's what's written here that counts and says all for everyone concerned - a fact so basic that it's not even worthy of discussion. THEPROMENADER 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but what I see here is you tossed accusations against someone, regarless of his origins, without having any proof of that. That's what is writen here. Instead of apologising or being sorry for that you insist. In all cases, Minato is NOT Hardouin and it's something I know for sure, feel free to insist he is if you want, there are people who keep claiming evolution does not exist either. Matthieu ( talk) 20:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that once it has been proven that one contributor has resorted to sockpuppetry to push a certain anti-factual agenda, all future attempts of the same sort can be attributed to the same, especially when constructive edits to this article are so few; the fact that both belong to a forum called 'Paris skyscrapers' (a rather contradictary title in itself, at least for the time being) explains a lot though. In any case, I'll hold back on any futre accusations of the kind and concentrate on the article. In that light, I think it would be more informative to readers that the article make some further mention of the actual geographical/political state of Paris (eg: the still-pending 'Grand Paris' project), rather than trying to insinuatively project the idea that Paris is already bigger than it really is. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: The French version of the Paris article does this very well - and clearly! THEPROMENADER 09:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The statues of liberty cited in the monuments and landmarks section points to the wrong artical. The statues that are being referenced are found in the Ile des Cygnes, and Jardin du Luxembro. I wasn't sure where it should link to, maybe the artical Replicas of the Statue of Liberty, the replica section of the statue of liberty page, or the ile des cygnes park. TwistedWeasel ( talk) 23:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Green Giant ( talk) 03:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I LIKe IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.91.150.109 ( talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a nice photograph of coins of the Parisii. Could someone introduce it in the article in the first paragraph on History? Thank you. PHG ( talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does it not include subsections? How'd that happen? -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 15:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The table of contents with subsections is far too long - so we cut it short using a template. Much better this way - trust me! Cheers, THEPROMENADER 06:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The previous precipitation data from MSN was not accurate. I replaced it with the information from this Paris-Paris-Paris.com tourist site. Certainly, there are probably better choices for information, but I could not find many other sources that did a month by month background and felt the figures were accurate, so it works. If someone can find a better source, please use that, but realize that news sources are not always accurate. The precipitation figures given by MSN showed that Paris receives less precipitation than Phoenix, Arizona, a pretty doubtful claim. Vertigo700 ( talk) 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC) the eiffel tower was also struck by lighting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.232.86 ( talk) 12:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Two SISTER CITIES of Paris, as defined by Sister Cities International, are: 1) Chicago, Illinois 2) Washington, District of Columbia

http://www.sister-cities.org/icrc/directory/Europe/France/index

Eddiecougar182 ( talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Another comment - London is in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, rather than England. If you want to use states for countries then you will have to change all of the others in the list. Perhaps it's easier to simply change the London entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tissifur ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The website you point to shows world cities' affiliations with US cities only. In the case of Paris, they listed the two US cities that are actually "partners" (not sister cities per se). I'm not sure there is any real difference other than a symbolic gesture, but Rome is Paris' only "sister" city and vice-versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.177.23 ( talk) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, here we go again. Hardouin, stop it with your incivil 'reverting for the sake of reverting' attacks that follow my most every edit by only a few hours. You're making any editing at all here a real headache. All the same, let me once again make this clear to you and all:

"The city of Paris, within its administrative limits, covers an area much smaller than the urban area of which it is the core."

...suggests that the City of Paris is bigger than its administrative limits. It isn't. Not to mention the grammar is downright clunky.

"The city of Paris covers an area much smaller than the urban area of which it is the core."

...how isn't this clearer? No more vague allusions to an unmentioned "something more". What's more, Paris' demography is quite clearly described in even the sentence following:

"At present, Paris' real urbanisation, defined by the pôle urbain (urban area) statistical area, covers 2,723 km² (1,051.4 sq mi),[31], or an area about 26 times larger than the city itself."

...making redundant the phrase removed. My edit was simple, but once again the same revert-bully is back to blow all out of proportion. For the principle, it would seem. The target of your reverting makes your agenda quite clear - Grow up.

THEPROMENADER 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You just don't fucking care, do you? If you're not going to edit seriously, find another occupation; you're wasting everyone's time. Get real. THEPROMENADER 05:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, after being summoned by Hardouin to the article, I read through the lead and immediately thought of a better, more neutral wording which totally avoids this vexed issue of what "the population of 'Paris'" is. Why don't you two see if you can find it, too? There are middle grounds. There are phrasings that would be acceptable to both of you. Clearly the term "Paris" is ambiguous, but each of you is heavily biased towards a different interpretation. It's really not that hard to resolve the ambiguity - why don't you give it a try instead of edit warring? Stevage 06:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the concerned section is the demography sub-section. "Paris" alone may be ambiguous to the uninformed foreigner, but "City of Paris" is a precise and well-defined entity, as would be "Paris agglomeration" or "Paris urban area". The whole point here is to avoid any ambiguity or 'interpretation' - there's no need to use vague or suggestive terms where they are not needed, especially when they remain unexplained, or are rendered redundant in later explanations as is the case here. Again, much ado about a much ado about nothing situation - brought about by the same party. You don't see a pattern here? THEPROMENADER 09:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "city" in English is polysemous. I added the bit "within its administrative limits" to clarify the sentence, but Promenader insists on deleting this, yet he pretends (above) that he wants to avoid ambiguity. This is self-contradicting. Don't you have better things to do than remove the edits of fellow editors, Monsieur Promenader? Hardouin ( talk) 13:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, can it with the bullshit premises; we're not buying it. The "City of Paris" is an entity with a very clear definition and limits - and it was actually you, dear Hardouin, who inisisted on the capitalisation of "City" for this very reason. The bit of text removed serves absolutely no informational purpose - instead, it even clouds the real demographical makeup of the region, as it instills doubt about the real extent of Paris' limits. For the time being, any territory we can call 'Paris' extends no further than its administrative limits, so can it with the suggestive rhetoric targeted to the ignorant. THEPROMENADER 06:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The coodinates given for the link at the top right of the page (50°N 2°W) are not the coordinates for Paris. I would suggest making them consistent with the coordinates given further down the right column under the map (48°52′N 2°20′E). The coordinates page that the link brings up should reflect the change as well. I would make the change myself but can't see how to do it - if someone can tell me how I'll take care of it.

Thank you, F2q100 ( talk) 01:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed last night that another inventive and dubious claim snuck its way back into the article (disguised under a 'Updated figure (2008 list)' commentary):

The Paris Region ( Île-de-France) is Europe's biggest city economy, and is fifth in the World's list of cities by GDP. With €500.8 billion (US$628.9 billion), it produced more than a quarter of the gross domestic product (GDP) of France in 2006. ^[1]

became:

The Paris urban area is Europe's biggest city economy, and is fifth in the world's list of cities by GDP. The Paris Region, with €500.8 billion (US$628.9 billion), produced more than a quarter of the gross domestic product (GDP) of France in 2006. ^[2]

Already the phrase in its original form was dubious (an uncited claim), but this switch of 'Paris Region ( Île-de-France)' for 'Paris urban area' makes this phrase an inventive claim impossible to cite by any valid sources. Again, all French INSEE economic data is taken and amassed within France's administrative districts, namely between its départements and régions. No economic data has ever been calculated for any pôle urbain (urban area) in France, and the above institution is the only one collecting data of this kind. Therefore this phrase is impossible to cite - change it please, and provide a proper reference.

Furthermore, not only is the "urban area economy" claim invalid: it is used for a quite useless "greater than thou" game whose rules are themselves quite questionable - different countries define urban areas in different ways, and if France doesn't collect economical data in urban areas, then I have doubts about other countries as well. I think if you looked to the root of the source (which took a while to find - the list of cities by GDP article itself cites no real sources, linking only to a website based on 'estimates' made by the often speculative PricewaterhouseCoopers group (whose estimation methods are not available in any detail to the public)), you would find that the organisation in question used INSEE economic data - based on 'régions' - as well. This dubious sort of borderline Original Research game should not exist on Wikipedia.

I explain the above for the benefit of other contributors, as the author of this passage is already aware of its fallibilities. Fix the phrase with proper citations, or remove it entirely. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 08:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Still not good enough. The cited report is not only an 'estimation' study by a single entity not at all the author of citable statistics (as is the INSEE), but it excludes all mention of its method of estimation of per-capita GDP for France. But even this is besides the point, as the report itself mentions other studies with drastically different results - whether this particular study is 'better' or not, it only goes to show how highly speculative and inexact this sort of study can be. This report can be used, with other sources, as a citation for a phrase such as "the Paris area is one of the world's richest GDP's", but to apply an exact rank in a single speculative study (in using authoritarian wording that suggests that study is the "world list") over other very real and readily available statistical data is really going too far. Eschewing fact for speculation to play the pompous "greater than thou" game - get real.

That aside, there is still no justification, source or citation for "The Paris urban area is Europe's biggest city economy" - are we going to ignore readily present data to select obscure studies that most match the claim, here, too? THEPROMENADER 15:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another reason to dislike the "greater than thou" game between wiki articles: the London article claims "London has the 4th largest city economy in the world after Tokyo, New York City and Los Angeles. ". Their source will probably be an obscure one most fitting their claim as well, should it appear... really, this schoolyard game of kiki-comparison must end. If no unanimously-world-accepted source exists for comparing cities, make more generalistic and less pompous claims. THEPROMENADER 15:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Were I to change or remove the purely speculative pompous rhetoric in question, it would be reverted in seconds - instead, yet another period of antisocial no-discussion silence. If this silence will continue, I will be using the reference stated to make the claim "It has been estimated that the Paris urban area is one of Europe's biggest city economies, and that it is at least in the top ten of the world's richest city GDP's." This explains in a NPOV way the "source" for the estimation study it is, and takes into account other studies mentioned in the paper itself. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 05:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a minor mistake made in the economy section of the article. Paris, we are told, has Europe's largest GDP figures. However, the figures given, while actually correct, are considerably lower than London's figures. This would mean that London ranks higher than Paris.

I have already corrected this mistake, and kindly request that no-one attempts to alter it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.22.220 ( talk) 16:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not the only mistake there. All the same, this 'bigger than' tit for tat between London and Paris has been going on for years now, all because there is to date no feasable means to make an effective comparison between the two: each have differing (in both size and definition) jurisdictional limits within each government collects/presents their respective socio-economic data. Although many private organisations have tried to compare the two cities, each has their own method of 'estimation' (only 'interpreted' from the same differing government methods) - thus any 'city economy' can be proclaimed "first" depending on the sources 'chosen'. This game is childish and should stop. THEPROMENADER 18:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is very poorly written and is insultingly written from an ANGLOCENTRIC point of view and URGENTLY requires cleanup! The insulting and backwards spelling and phases of this article need to be re-written in CORRECT standard, clear American English (the international language + this is an American web site!) Rednath ( talk) 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

While you're correct about the need for American spellings (see above,) phrasing it this way is counterproductive at best and makes you sound like a British troll at worst. Please let's do try to be more civil with our friends across the Pond. I'd imagine they do go to Paris more often than we do, and there's no Britlish Wikipedia for them to use yet. - LlywelynII ( talk) 02:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the language of this European article needs cleaning, but save the 'American' rhetoric - this is an international English website, not an American one. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And for my part, I fail to see how this French article stands in any relation to British dialect English (by which presumably you mean the RP part, which is rapidly losing its native ground to Estuary.) International web English is American. Have a nice day. - LlywelynII ( talk) 12:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bull. If *International English* is American then why are there so many variants listed even on computer installation software? Australian English, Canadian English, New Zealand English, etc. etc. Even US English doesn't have a consistent dialect. There is no standard International version of English that everyone agrees on. As for your spurious claim that American English is closer to Middle English and then somehow makes the leap to Norman French as some sort of justification for it being the preferred spelling of choice, care to cite some references for any of these claims? And what the hell is a British dialect? I think at last count there was around 20 varieties of *English* dialect, which of course doesn't include Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland - all of which are part of Britain. ~ Brother William ( talk) 15:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Keeping it simple, any claim that 'international English' "is" anything remains just that - a bullying claim. Also, just because a majority of any given web pages use one language or another doesn't mean we all have to change. Trying to impose this on British English is just as silly as trying to get Indian-language web-pages to switch to English just because English is the majority. Get real! THEPROMENADER 09:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"insulting and backwards spelling"? Boy, some people are easily offended indeed. Rama ( talk) 07:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

i knao yeak bow flex fdjsgfsdgfsgfsfdhgadshfgsadh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.177.228 ( talk) 23:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Can't we just let this be? Please use common sense. If you think (almost) all people from the "other side" will understand your sentences, then it's fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necmon ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The figure for city proper population under statistics appears as 3.2 million inhabitants. That contradicts what the intro states and to my knowledge Paris city-proper has had ~ 2 million for a while now. The figure in the intro must match the statistics section and it seems to me that the 2.2 million figure in the intro is closer to the reality than the 3.2 figure in the statistics section. If someone more knowledgable in this issue does not fix it within 2 weeks I will lower the fiture to match the more realistic intro. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb1052 ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

About El Greco cancellation : I responded to the to-do-list “Better, better placed photos”, and actually, I think this article deserves better illustrations. Maybe it’s not perfect, but it takes time to collect good, appropriate and authorized photographs. So if there is a problem with these - or some of these -, can you argue, we'll find a compromise. Thank you. Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 23:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You added too many pictures. This is not a tourist guide. I'm removing those that aren't needed. _{El Greco}^{( talk)} 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The opening line of the second paragraph of this section - "Other authors consider that the name..." - is ambiguous in that no prior mention of authors suggesting the first etymology has been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason McConnell-Leech ( talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Paris is the home of shopping —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.67.160 ( talk) 01:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

IS SO COOL :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.255.162 ( talk) 23:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this page cannot be edited, I would like to ask the Wikipedia managers if they could change the land area of Paris from 87 km² to 105 km². This is because the Bois de Boulogne and the Bois de Vincennes have been part of the city since the 1930s !! Ages ! The land area of the purely urban area + the two Bois make it 105 km² instead of 87. These 2 Bois ("Woods") are part of Paris, just like Hyde Park in London, or Central Park in NYC, and so should be counted in.

(Believe me, I am French, I know what I'm talking about)

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.159.59 ( talk) 20:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

''Italic text

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.93.112 ( talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

-- Apmab1 ( talk) 09:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC) The picture of the children in the primary school is not representative of the general French population (<4% non-European). I suggest it should be removed from the because it is misleading, this is the homeland of the French and we should not make it out to be otherwise.

Only 4% are you crazy, according immigration data, 5% of France inhabitants are non european immigrant. I said immigrant because a non white children born in France is not an immigrant. So these 5% don't include the 2nd, 3rd generation, nor it include the people form overseas departement. I am myself non white and I am not include in France immigrant, this is aslo the case of my parent because we are born in France Most people conclude that the non white represent over 10% of French population. The ratio of non white is higher in kids, If we imagine that france is like U.K (according most info, France would have an higher ratio of "non-European" than U.K), you can conclude least 20% of french kids are not white.

Secondly, Paris is the biggest and the most multicultural city of France, you can easely imagine that the ration of non white is much larger in Paris than in the average France.

Minato ku ( talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nobody sane is likely to objectively arrive at 20% non-white births in France. For one thing, North Africans, Arabs and Turks are often counted as white in the chromatic scheme of human complexions. In any case, unless you back them up with solid sources ( INSEE, for instance), you should refrain from airing such claims on Wikipedia. Your editing habits [4] certainly appear to show a militant agenda (I got a good laugh out of your SkyscraperCity page [5], the nature of your bias is pretty transparent) , so you should be extra careful to follow WP:NPOV and WP:NOR while working on high profile pages such as Paris. -- 66.130.156.84 ( talk) 05:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never writing anything about this in Wikipedia main articles (here we are in talk section), without real source we can't conclude something, I am not stupid. Secondly there is also many black african, black caribbean and many asian in France. Thirdly the comment say "non european" and north african are not european, the notion of white can aslo change depending the country many latino american are white but not counted as white in USA statist when arab are non white in british stat. And living in France I can say without doubt that nobody see north african as white. Minato ku ( talk) 12:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

many latino american are white but not counted as white in USA statist : Latinos who declare 'white' as their race certainly are counted as white. Half of them do.

You wrote "you can conclude least 20% of french kids are not white". Zinédine Zidane, Rachida Dati, Kad Merad may be of non-european origin, their skin color looks pretty pale to me. I'd argue that notwithstanding the "Black, Blanc, Beur" categorization, most North Africans have skin color traditionally termed 'white'. In any case, as long as the French Republic forbids the gathering of ethnic statistics, the true numbers regarding non-white births in France are virtually unknowable. However, I think most would judge your figure (20%) a very high estimate. -- 66.130.156.84 ( talk) 04:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Or the oposite, Of course they are white but they are not see as white in France and in every other european country, the difference can change depending the country (exemple the hispanic are not view as white in USA, but many are white), mixed race kid would be see as white in African and as black or metisse in France. The inhabitants of Eastern Asia have mainly a white skin but they are not view as white. The idea of white is cultural. So it is not really the subjet of this talk page. The sujet was someone that see a picture with a multi racial group of kids in a picture and was shocked because it did not know that Paris and France was multi racial, especially the kids. [6] Minato ku ( talk) 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Must agree with the previous comment. As someone who has lived in France for over 30 years "whiteness" is not seen as a matter of skin colour but rather ethnic origin. I know many people who insist they are not racist but term those of Arab origin as "greys" Williamgeorgefraser ( talk) 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

SECURITY ISSUE: A very subtle change was made to the Paris article on March 28, 2008 (10ish) by User Kaustubhnm, who has no UserPage or TalkPage. How was a non established registered user able to make this change on a supposedly semi-protected article? How were they able to make the change without any substantiating evidence for it? "City of Lights" was changed to "City of Light." The former, and original, "of Lights" refered to the city's early adoption of street lights - historically verifyable. So how was the change to "of Light" made without any verification. Toroloco ( talk) 09:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize, Paris is no longer the home of the Franks- the ancient Frankish people with predominantly Y-Haplogroup R and Rb1 DNA of mtDNA-Haplogroup N group ancestry- it is now the residence of a large group of Arab, Asian, African and Indian people. The picture is therefore perfectly representative of the capital of the nation. Could somebody please state this on the website itself? I was under the impression the major cities of France were not Oriental. My apologies. Apmab1 ( talk) 09:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The location on the map is bad, Paris is too in the West on the map. Compare with the good location on French Wikipédia. GabrieL ( talk) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

After having seen once on a CNN map the French city of *Toulouse* located in Poland... ce n'est pas très grave! At least, it is shown on the Seine River, not on the Loire. Frania W. ( talk) 12:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a section on the etymology of the word "paris", which was removed by an IP with this edit in an apparent attempt to revert vandalism of section. I have not reinserted the section because the article is already very long. I wanted to know if anyone thought it would be a good readdition to the article. - Twinkie eater91 ( talk) 16:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And as a matter of principle, I see no reason not to reinsert something removed because a stupid vandal messed up an article.

Discussion on the length of the article is another matter.

In the case of Paris, the etymology of the word is important, a story in itself, and, since it is the title name of the article, doubly important to be kept.

If some parts of the section turn out not to be necessary, they can be edited.

Cordialement, Frania de... Lutèce

Frania W. ( talk) 02:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The coordinates that were on the page had Paris in the Eastern Pyrenees, which obviously it isn't. I'm removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.75.175 ( talk) 01:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone thinks that in the list displayed on the website linked to reference 4, Paris is not the largest metro area in the Eurozone. If you're trying to make the point that London is bigger, bare in mind Britain isn't in the Eurozone (meaning the countries that use the Euro). Please change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.240.223 ( talk) 03:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Paris is bigger than London since 10 years, with the birth growth of france which is the biggest in all europe, Paris is defenetly gonna be really bigger than London, and even Moscow in some years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.51.234 ( talk) 19:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Paris (pronounced /ˈpærɪs/ or /ˈpɛrəs/ in English; [paʁi] (help·info) in French) is the capital of France and the country's largest city" => Paris is not the largest city in France : it is Arles.

When we speak of largest it is population wise.

Infact it geographic size Arles is not even the largest commune of France, it is Maripasoula.

Minato ku ( talk) 09:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A simple change of ambiguous "largest" to "most populated" removes all room for confusion. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Demographic Data. If there are no sources of ethno/demographic data on the question of religion in France them where do we get 375,000 people of the Jewish faith living in Greater Paris? We can all make up numbers.

What about the other major groups who make up the mosiac of the City. Are they less important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.109.5 ( talk) 22:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In regards to Paris’ cultural history, Paris’ role in the emergence of haute couture and continuing influence in the fashion industry should not be overlooked. Paris has consistently been one of the cities at the forefront of the industry, and boasts a long list of elite, successful, and renowned fashion houses that continue to dominate the industry. Paris’ role in the fashion industry is further demonstrated by fashion week and the highly anticipated events surrounding it. The French fashion houses that are showcased during this time, raise the creative bar for the upcoming season and also set trends that are mirrored in the designs of less prestigious fashion houses. While Paris’ fashion industry may not be the top source of commerce in Paris, it is still a very important presence in Parisian society, culture, economy, and history. The continued popularity and success of fashion houses such as Hermes, Chanel, Lanvin, Louis Vuitton, and Christian Dior provide a strong indicator that the fashion industry is a subject that should not be neglected from Paris’ Wikipedia entry. (knr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader789 ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

List of songs about Paris
Thanks. Civic Cat ( talk) 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_chansons_sur_Paris_par_th%C3%A8me

Frania W. ( talk) 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Civic Cat ( talk) 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article, it says that paris covers 35 square miles, but citation is needed. There are numerous websites corroborating that claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V97 ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is simple to measure it using google maps.. 89.88.54.84 ( talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement "the Paris urban agglomeration ... is fifth in the world's list of cities by GDP" is not backed up by the link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP) which appears to show it as sixth. Before I change the text, is anyone aware of an appropriate alternative source showing fifth to be correct?

Tim211010 ( talk) 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(Holding head in hands) This is only the hundredth time this has come up. The text you are citing is based on a "study" by PricewaterHouseCoopers chosen for its "comparison" of world agglomorations, possibly even because it is favourable to Paris over other studies. I quotated "study" not only because it is a study and not a source, but because the document in question does not cite its sources, and does not contain any mention of how it came up with its numbers: Economical data in France is collected along its administrative boundries - communes, departements and regions - so I don't see how one can pull economic numbers from an "urban area" that is only a demographic statistic (that changes every year) in France. But make any changes you like. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I just visited your link and noticed that the entire article has been rewritten around the PriceWaterhouseCoopers study in question - this is misleading if it is not mentioned in the title. But that is a problem for there, not for here. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

not my link! Looking at this more carefully, the linked page shows Paris sixth but the citation (ie the PWC study) as fifth. Clearly ephemeral data and likely to change regularly, but presumably a sufficient source. If so, the answer would seem to me to remove the link to the relevant page, but leave the text and citation as is. Does that make sense? Tim211010 ( talk) 20:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a nice image of the International Space Station flying over the city lights of Paris, if you guys fancy using it. :-) File:ISS over Paris.jpg Colds7ream ( talk) 11:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Too much importance is given to the 19th, 20th and 21rst centuries compared to the previous times... seems like all the interesting stuff only happened then... how can the 21rst century section be as long as the 20th, and longer than the "middle ages to 19th century" section? It just seems strange. Also, according to the article, nothing happened from 500 to 1348... True that other towns were chosen as capitals during that time, I guess not much happened, but off the top of my head I can think of the viking siege of Paris in the 9th century. Munin75 ( talk) 07:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Most articles have the opposite problem. Too much is said about the current events & not enough about the past. Paristowhere ( talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what Munin75 said, a lot about Paris since the 19th century (recent history as far as Paris is concerned), but very little about its rich old history, i.e. there is a void between the 6th & 14th centuries. -- Frania W. ( talk) 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a section missing! I did a lot in that section around a year ago, I'll see if I can find it. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a section (revised) gleaned from an earlier version. Hope that helps. THEPROMENADER 09:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no references to the merriment and frivolity of "Gay Paree," similar to the Gay Nineties, in reference to the period of the 1890's (with no other implied connotations)? This is culturally significant to history and should be included in the main article, with links to related articles. See Happiness ( redirect from Gaiety (mood))
Christopher, Salem, OR ( talk) 07:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• during the Roman occupation of the 1st- to 6th-century for me it sounds like the Romans occupied Paris for 7 centuries. Can this be right? -- Stone ( talk) 14:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

More like five centuries and a half, from Bataille de Lutèce in 52 BC, to end of 5th century:

• High Empire from 52 BC to end of 3rd century,
• Low Empire from end of 3rd to end of 5th.

-- Frania W. ( talk) 17:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

there are an estimated 3 million north african arabs,400,000 chinese, 100,000 east asian indians and 50,000 blacks in the paris region of ile de france. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.233.228 ( talk) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC) How does the "North African Arab" differ from the "African" blacks - besides possible language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.179.161 ( talk) 07:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Pet peeve: Recently, the image in the infobox of this article was changed from a single panoramic view to a "collage" [7] consisting of eight photographs, with a combined height of 450px. This has been a recent trend on many city articles, and no doubt many people feel that since so many other articles now do it this way, it must be a good thing. IMnotsoHO, it isn't. It's a fad, but it's not good. It's a waste of space. These collage pictures are so big they push the actual content of the infobox below the screen on many displays.

The purpose of an infobox is to offer concrete information quickly. But in this case, the first actual, non-trivial piece of information offered by the infobox (i.e. the locator map) is hidden some 940px from the top of the page, i.e. well out of sight on a smallish laptop screen.

At the same time, the individual pictures in the collage are each so small their own information value is seriously diminished, and they cannot even be enlarged individually to full size by clicking on each. Moreover, the value of each picture is debatable (while most of the ones chosen here are certainly important landmarks, what is the information value of the sports stadium? It looks like every other sports stadium in the world, to me.) While this collage is still among the better ones I've seen, in many cases, they have the esthetics of a cheap touristy picture postcard.

Therefore: please, please, please get rid of this recent fad. Return to the old format with a single, modestly sized panorama photo or a single landmark. The one we had here was just fine. If you want an infobox, do an infobox, with information where it belongs, on top. If you want an image gallery, do an image gallery, with full-size images. Cramming an image gallery into an infobox gives us the worst of both, and serves the purpose of neither. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Count me in, please; see Talk:Belgrade#Picture. I feel like starting a RFC about the issue, if I just had enough time. If you start one do let me know. No such user ( talk) 11:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning on making a montage. Recent fad or not, it appears on practically every city article. Any suggestions for what images to use?-- Dolphin Jedi ( talk) 22:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is no freedom of panorama in France (see: [8]). So most of these collages violate copyright policies. Only general views of the city where the monuments are accessory compared to the main represented subject do not violate copyright policies. 90.35.46.60 ( talk) 01:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed to using a montage for the infobox, but nor do I see 'others are doing it' as a valid argument to do so. I also agree that it is the 'information value' of an infobox image that should count the most; IMHO, if the image is going to be the head of the infobox (thus the top of the page) it should be as small as possible (infobox size) and represent only a general view of the city (also for the reason that the 'monument choice' content of such montages will always be a point of contest). Wiki articles are supposed to be factual, not selective embellishments. Lastly, concerning the 'right to panorama', there's no need for 'copyright paranoia' - only living architects and the SNTE have ever tried to apply copyright law to images of their works, and no case against any image that doesn't have the claimant's creation front and centre within has had any success. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a question of 'copyright paranoia', it is a question of doing what is 'right'. Photographs of Pei's Pyramid at the Louvre cannot be published without permission of Pei himself. Prior to taking pictures of monuments in France, a photographer must always get the authorisation to photograph from the 'owner' of the monument, in the case of historic monuments, in many cases the authorisation is got at the Centre des monuments nationaux, former Caisse nationale des monuments historiques et des sites, or from the Conservateur of the monument: Versailles, Mont Saint Michel, Châteaux etc. Also, some monuments which can be photographed in the daytime because a part of the landscape but not the landscape itself, cannot be photographed at night without authorisation, together with the payment of a fee, because of the lighting, which is somebody's œuvre d'art. So, unless Wikimedia Commons has got the authorisation for the use by Wikipedia of photographs such as Pei's Pyramid in front of the Louvre, which has special lighting at night, not only Pei's copyrights are not respected, but also those of the guy who created the light decoration of the Louvre at night. Same for the night photograph of the Hôtel de Ville, also in Dolphin Jedi's montage: in that case, the photographer cannot use the argument that it is part of the landscape & could not be avoided in the take as it is the landscape, it takes the whole height & width of the photograph.

-- Frania W. ( talk) 04:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What nonsense. We shouldn't encourage this fantastic overreach of copyright claims by complying. In fact, I'm for disobeying as often as possible! This isn't some kind of French April's Fools joke, is it?-- Paul ( talk) 16:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul: No April's Fools joke, as the comment was written in October. Also, I imagine you to be neither a writer nor a professional photographer, as "disobeying", as you put it, RE copyrights infrigement, could cost you a lot in penalty.

-- Frania W. ( talk) 17:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What I call 'copyright paranoia' is taking the laws applied to the 'living architects' I mentioned in my earlier comment and applying it to all French monuments. Any French monument - except those built by architects still living - can be taken in broad daylight - even the Eiffel tower - without any risk of copyright infringement at all. Night photography of certain 'artistically lit' monuments, on the other hand... It is perfectly permissible to publish night panorama/scenery images including even lit architecture without permission, if that architecture is not a centrepiece/prominent feature of a such image. Actually, it is the vagueness of the 'night light' French copyright law that causes so much buzz: The SNTE was one of the first major organisations to forward such a lighting copyright claim, but few others have followed suit since.

So, in a nutshell, to be completely 'copyright safe' for 'monument only' pictures, it is best to publish daylight images of monuments built by deceased architects. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, if you photograph the whole of Paris at night, with all monuments artistically lit, from the top of the Eiffel Tower you can publish, but if the Eiffel Tower lit in an artistic manner is the only object of your shot, then you cannot publish without authorisation. That's why I added in my above comment that the argument on the image of Pei's Pyramid possibly touches that of the Hôtel de Ville at night.

On the other hand, if Wikimedia Commons has obtained the right to publish these photographs, then it is fine to use them. But when I see the name of Wikipedia contributors as authors of some photographs, I am asking myself if the laws on copyright are being respected.

Hundreds of thousands of photographs in Wikipedia probably should not be there & the only reason they are is because of their sheer volume. While the Centre des monuments nationaux & Conservateurs de musées etc. can detect "illicit" photographs illustrating articles in magazines, they do not have a gendarme behind every article published in Wikipedia; but then, it is up to Wikipedia - the publisher - to act properly for the simple reason that most of its contributors are not aware of the laws governing copyright, which (may) differ from one country to another (see French copyright law).

-- Frania W. ( talk) 14:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the HDV picture. Now, can we please stop edit warring over this?-- Dolphin Jedi ( talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the original single picture of the Eiffel Tower is better; it's clearer, for one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's can it with the 'montage obsession' - I'm not really for it either; a simple photo will suffice largely. In fact, I could even argue that the infobox photo serves little useful purpose, as it rarely shows the city as a city - the best image for this I can think of is a skyline - rather, I think this could even be more usefully replaced with a map. Anyhow, a city is more than a collection of tourist attractions, so let's keep it general please. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

An important section missing is Crime. Where are the no-go areas? Where should a Tourist not go during night-time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.53.44 ( talk) 17:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I can find no references about this 'bi-anual' rainstorm. Can someone cite references? Else I'll remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmind ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, I don't think it's very important for the main article, anyhow. THEPROMENADER 11:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Paris#Climate says "cold waves brought repeated heavy snowfall (15 in 2010)". 15 what? 15 times? 15 days? 15 centimeters? Art LaPella ( talk) 00:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

15 cm (in fact 15 cm in the field area around Paris and 5 to 10 cm in Paris)--IP 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.157.69.138 ( talk)

The Paris article, toward the top of the page, clearly states it is the most popular tourist destination in the world. However, the London article states that London is the most visited city in the world, again at the top of the page.

This needs to be changed - Paris can't be the most popular destination, if London is the most visited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.255.246 ( talk) 20:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A tale of two cities, once again... one of Wiki's largest failures is its contributors' largesse in their selection of sources - London and Paris have been pretty well neck-and-neck in everything concerning tourism and economics since decades now, and who's 'first' depends on the source chosen. Best reflect this in the article writ: if a majority of sources cite one city "first", state that, but if sources are divided, state that as well. Both the London and Paris articles have had the bad habit of finding a source that places them 'first', and citing only that. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

English:

• " Enrolling in primary school." - Refers to information in English, French, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, Chinese, and Arabic
• " Protecting mother and child." - Refers to information in English, French, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, Chinese, and Arabic

Multi:

• " Directory of early childhood programs." - Has info in French, English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and Turkish

WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This section reads more like a political opinion than an presentation of facts. It needs neutral wording, at least one more independent reference, and some statistical data to back up the statements. It's an important topic in recent events. Thalassicus01 ( talk) 12:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh? After reading the section, I don't understand. Long-undiscussed topic, but I would like to know more about what's wrong with it. Particular sentences that are bad, that sort of thing. i kan reed ( talk) 02:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The comparison between Paris and Orlando is absurd. You cannot seriously compare those two cities. Just have a look at passengers in airports. 34M passengers for Orlando, nearly 90M for CDG and Orly. And people from France, London and Benelux take the train !

This ranking seems more adapted : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism#Most_visited_cities_by_international_tourist_arrivals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrithène ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the tourism statistics for Orlando (46,5M visitors) may seem surprising but not unrealistic : the city have the most visited resort in the world (Magic Kingdom, 17 million visits in 2007) and have a lot of other theme parks among the most visited ; the city enjoys a big business tourism too. For the airport, half of the Orlando visitors comes from Florida : they don't come by plane. Moreover, Paris is a major hub : a lot of passengers just pass through the city, and above all, the statistics include all the Parisians which are numerous and not tourists (whereas Orlando is six times less populated). Anyway, the figures are official, I think we have to presume their good-faith.

I know the ranking you quote : I contributed to it. It concerns only international visitors : actually, Orlando welcomes "only" 3,3M international visitors, and considering that, I can understand why you think Orlando and Paris are not comparable (moreover, the visitors of Orlando don't come for the city but mainly for the parks). But still, if Paris is the most visited city in the world by international visitors, it's because the city is in Europe and surrounded by a lot of potential "foreign" visitors ; that's not the case of Orlando and New York. They welcome mainly domestic visitors, but still visitors. I think the two categories (total and international visitors) have to be quoted.

The last doubt comes from methodology : normally, a tourist is an overnight visitor, and in theory, Orlando and NYC don't have to count same-day visitors in their statistics but they don't explicitly talk about it. For Paris, I found two different figures from the same source : the first figure is 42 million, the second is 61.1 million. Since it comes from the same source I deduced that the first concerns overnight visitors, the second same-day visitors. Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I do not say that the figure is wrong. I say that there is not relevant comparison to be made. You are comparing a city visited by people from Florida to see parks (which are not really in the city anyway) with a world class city which should be compared to New York, London, Rome, Beijing or Tokyo. It is like comparing the number of visitors of the Yosemite National Park with those of Notre Dame.

Your interpretation of figures can be discussed. Contrary to the US, France has a top rail network and people do not often take the plane to come from other cities. It takes 3 hours by TGV to come from Marseilles, 2 hours from London or 1h from Bruxelles, 3h from Frankfurt... I think Europeans take the plane far less than Americans.

Anyway, 42M is not a good figure because it only concerns tourists (so it should be compared to 34M for Orlando). You say we should rely on official source, the CCIP says “Paris Region ranks as the world’s no. 1 region in terms of overnights”.

Magic Kingdom is 17 million visits, Disneyland Paris is 15 millions. Paris has no major park, but Notre-Dame has 14M visitors, Sacré Coeur 10M, Louvre 9M, Eiffel Tower 7M... -- Acrithène ( talk) 13:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, correction done, but nor for the same reasons : the statistics for North American cities count same-day visitors, not just tourists (= overnight visitors), and actually Orlando is visited by less than 25 million overnight visitors... So the CCIP sentence seems right. For the term "tourist", don't confuse : it includes leisure AND business overnight visitors. Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 10:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:Par Arr.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests March 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:Stade de France 2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I`d like to add the line

|population_demonym = Parisian

in the infobox, but it doesn`t show up in the preview. Can anybody help me with that? -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 13:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologize, I didn't see your source (USA Today) for the 70 million visitors. This statistics seemed disproportionate according to official and detailed statistics, indeed : the article is not very clear but this number concerns only Paris attractions visitors (museums, monuments...) as we can see here : http://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/70-4-millions-de-visiteurs-13-08-2008-141338.php. Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 11:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence With about 42 million tourists per year (28 intra-muros of which 17 million are foreign visitors), Paris is the most visited city in the world. is a contradiction.

42 million tourists per year or 28 million tourists per year ?

Paris and Paris intra-muros are the same city.

-- Nnemo ( talk) 08:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The administrative area constitutes a small part (2 million people) of the urban area (10 million people) and "Paris" often designates the megalopolis, like we could see in every international studies on global cities. When a businessman stays at a hotel in the district of La Défense, we generally say that he came in Paris, not in Nanterre. But to be precise and avoid any ambiguity, the term "intra-muros" (or previously "in city proper") is enough clear and specific to make the difference. If you still disagree, you could just change the syntax and avoid the contradiction tag, cause there's no contradiction here. Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 15:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nnemo's comment makes it evident that the article's wording is not clear - and, again, the word 'Paris' alone does not designate the entire Paris urban/metropolitan area, even in the studies you mention. "Paris metropolitan area" would be a much clearer choice of phrasing when speaking of things extending beyond Paris' limits, and it would help readers understand exactly what is or isn't 'Paris'. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The new definition of Nnemo is faithful to the administrative definition, that's factual, so I'm OK with it. But to explain my point of view, if "Paris" and "Paris intra-muros" are the same thing, then the term "intra-muros" shouldn't exist. I thought the word - constantly used in the city - appropriate and absolutly not equivocal, we have to be precise, and that was the point of this formulation ; When we speak about economy or tourism statistics Paris-global-city is more relevant that Paris-administrative-city, half of the Parisian hotels are outside the administrative limits. There's no question of it with other major big cities where administrative area and urban area are quite the same (and, yes, "Paris" designates the entire urban area in all international studies on global cities : PwC, GaWC, Knight Frank, Global Power City Index...). Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 22:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

For brevity's sake, a study can use "Paris" to describe the entire metropolitan area only after it has been made clear to the reader that the study is indeed on the entire metropolitan area, and that is exactly what the studies you cite do. "Paris intra-muros" is used in the same way, when it is clear that the subject being discussed is the area in and around Paris. This article is not at all in either context. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

105 sq km or 1050 sq km ?????? I think its 1050 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.163.202.37 ( talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the 'École Alsacienne' to the list of 'primary and secondary education' establishments, as it is one of the best known schools in Paris, and widely recognized as one of the best. Not mentioning it would be a great injustice to the city of Paris.

Elagomago ( talk) 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 04:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't heard that Paris being described as the largest city in Western Europe, or the largest for 1000 years, a quick search seems to indicate that it isn't so clear cut.

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201e.htm

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201f.htm

Halbared ( talk) 22:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"the largest city in the Western world for about 1,000 years, prior to the 19th century, and the largest in the entire world between the 16th and 19th centuries.".

There's no contradiction with your source which starts with the 19th century (the 19th century is excluded, that's clear in the first part, that's logic in the second). This quote is well documented from three different books (although I didn't checked the sources by myself). If you're not convinced, maybe other books could give other estimations for precedent centuries (9th - 18th) and bring a contradiction. Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 00:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The claim made is not properly sourced. Three secondary American sources that have not even been quoted or copied onto the internet, is insufficient for such an outlandish, preposterous and original claim. If the claim is correct why is not shown in the French Wikipedia article on Paris? It is of course well attested that Paris was the largest city in Western Europe from the mid-sixteenth to late eighteenth centuries, but the rest of the claim is original nonsense, and because the supposed sources are not verifiable, and the poster himself admits that he "didn't checked the sources by myself," I have reverted back to the version which is correct, accurate and abundantly verifiable. cordialement ... Paulalexdij ( talk) 20:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are YOUR sources ? Since when Wikipedia uses only online sources ? This isn't mentioned on the French Wikipedia, and so what ? You can buy by yourself these three "secondary American" (??) books on Amazon and check by yourself cause I won't (cause unlike you say I'm not the author of this information). I don't have any preconceived idea about this, but please presume good faith and modify them when you have checked the informations or when you have other reliable sources to bring an objective contradiction. :Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 23:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

One does not need a source to say that it is not true that "Paris was the largest city in the Western world for about 1,000 years, prior to the 19th century"; on the contrary, one must have a verifiable source to warrant making such a monumental claim. The rest of the sentence, that Paris was "the largest in the entire world between the 16th and 19th centuries" is very easily refuted at http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201a.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_throughout_history and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes Paulalexdij ( talk) 06:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"One does not need a source to say that it is not true that "Paris was the largest city in the Western world for about 1,000 years, prior to the 19th century"; on the contrary, one must have a verifiable source to warrant making such a monumental claim." Very serious. Firstly in your sources Paris is the largest city in the western world from at least 1250 (no information before in this table) to late 18th century !... Secondly, yes, there is three verifiable sources, if you think the author was of bad faith, consult these three books in a library or buy them on the Internet, they're all available and you even have the pages concerned in the references.

About the second sentence, it seems there is actually a doubt, since in these sources Beijing is largest than Paris for these three centuries except maybe in the 17th century in the Chandler & Fox study. Maybe the authors disagree about that, specially in this kind of research. It doesn't deny the other sources but it relativize them. "Paris may have been the largest city in the entire world between the 16th and 19th centuries" is certainly more accurate.

Lastly, please stop editing a well established information from your own premonitions or worse, with sources which confirm the current information, specially when other users disagree.

Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 09:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I will address your comments about the verifiable sources I have provided so far, although I note that you yourself have still not provided any: you even admit not having seen the references yourself, so where exactly did you get them? You accuse me of thinking the author has bad faith but I don't even know who the author is, as you have neglected to say. You cannot just cite references here if you have not seen them yourself. Can you give us a reference for your references?

With regard to the evidence provided at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_throughout_history all the contributors agree that Istanbul had a population of 700,000 in 1650. Chandler (1987) then notes an increase to 750,000 in 1675. Then again for 1690, both Chandler's earlier work (1974) and his later work with Fox (1987) agree on a population of 700-800,000. Chandler (1974) does note a population for Paris of 540,000 in 1684; we would have to read his book to see where he got that one from. So we could say that "Paris might have been the largest city in the world between 1650 and 1690 although the author who made that claim later changed his mind, and other sources agree that Beijing was larger than both Istanbul and Paris at that time (Morris 2010; Modelski 2003)".

Your comments on http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201e.htm say that it proves your point but it does not. According to this one secondary source, Paris was the largest city in Western Europe in 1500 with a population of 185,000 and was not the largest city in 1800. It does not say anything about a thousand years before 1800 nor anything about the period between 1500 and 1800. To imply that it does is clearly a misuse of statistics.

I note that you did not comment on any of the evidence provided at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes which shows Cordoba having a population of 160,000 (Chandler 1987) in 800, 175,000 (Morris 2010) or 200,000 (Chandler 1987) in 900, and 200,000 (Morris 2010) or 450,000 (Chandler 1987) in 1000; and Florence with a population of 110,000 in 1250; Genoa with 80,000 in 1000, 100,000 in 1250, 80,000 in 1400 and 150,000 in 1500; Granada with 165,000 in 1450; London with 5-10,000 in 1000, 10-20,000 in 1100, 50-100,000 in 1500, 150-200,000 in 1600, 350-410,000 in 1650, 550-600,000 in 1700; and 676-700,000 in 1750; Milan with 150,000 in 1250, 125,000 in 1400, 80,000 in 1500; and 150,000 in 1600; Naples with 209,000 in 1550, 215,000 in 1575, 224,000 in 1600, and about 400,000 in 1650 before the big plague of 1656; Paris with 80,000-160,000 in 1250; 228,000 in 1300; 215,000 in 1350, 275-280,000 in 1400, 150,000 in 1450, 185,000 in 1500, 210,000 in 1550; 220,000 in 1575; 245,000 in 1600, 455,000 in 1650, 530,000 in 1700; 556,000 in 1750 and 547,000 in 1800; and Palermo with 150,000 in 1200.

Clearly, thus, any claim to Paris being the largest city before 1250 is unsubstantiated. Even in 1250 such a status is doubtful. One source for Paris says 80,000 while another says 160,000. Milan had 150,000 at this time, Florence 110,000, and Genoa had 100,000, while Palermo had 150,000 in 1200. According to these statistics Parisian dominance might be postulated for 1300, but http://historymedren.about.com/od/theblackdeath/a/greatmortality_2.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death say that Paris' population fell from 100,000 to 50,000 in 1348. In view thereof the earlier figures for 1300,1350 and 1400 seem implausibly high, although the 1450 figure of 150,000 is commensurate. Granada of course had 165,000 in 1450.

The period when Paris was unquestionably the largest thus dates from 1500. Naples almost caught up in 1650 with 400,000 to the 455,000 given for Paris. The period ends in 1700 when London had 550-600,000 compared to the 530,000 for Paris.

So the unsubstantiated personal opinion that Paris was the largest city in the Western Europe for about a thousand years until the 19th century, has already been shown to be not “a well established information” (sic). I would add that my scientific doubt was always sourced in forty years of study, and a commitment to reason and logic, rather than “premonitions or worse” (sic) and would appreciate not having my good faith impuned in this way. I do not question your good faith in having made your claims.

Since there are still no sources confirming the current version of the article and not more than one person has shown agreement with the current version, I am going to change it to say that “Paris was the largest city in Western Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” as attested. Paulalexdij ( talk) 06:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

For the second time I am not the person who quoted this information on Wikipedia. If you want to talk to him, you can search him in the revision history. I didn't check the references and I don’t have to, cause I’m not the person who deny them and cause we presume good faith here. If “one does not need a source to say that it is not true that Paris was the largest city in the Western world for about 1,000 years”, which seems to be the results of these searchers, you have to check the books cause they’re all available and the user have been enough generous to bring you the pages so you can check the informations easier.

Then, that’s very impressive to furnish a ton of figures but they absolutely not confirm your point, so if it’s ok for you, let’s be serious with this source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes), which is by the way one source among others. There’s no figures for Paris before 1250 in this table so I don’t see what you try to prove with your comparisons before that date and from that date Paris have already more inhabitants than any other western city until the 18th century, except maybe temporarily Granada in 1450 because of the plague (165,000 vs. 150,000). You claiming that it refutes the current information but it does exactly the contrary : it confirms it. So what's the point ?? Where the information is “easily refuted” ?? Then, in this table, for the last period, in 1700, there’s 550,000-600,000 inhabitants in London and there’s 530,000-600,000 in Paris so things are not so clear and searchers may disagree, besides other sources propose 500,000-700,000 for Paris at that period (Paris, Jean Favier, Fayard ed., p.41). At last, maybe some Italian or Spanish cities were bigger than Paris between 800 and 1250, but you must have to find sources to advance it and again, it would just relativize the other sources (the books above). Again, I've no preconceived ideas about that but the fact that “you've never seen this” is not enough to deny three reliable sources.

At last, for the second part of the sentence, I didn’t say that http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201e.htm was confirming anything, I said that it didn’t deny the information cause it concerns 1800 and that’s the period when the sentence specifies that Paris was not the largest city anymore, and again, it's a source among others. I clearly admit that before 1800 there’s a doubt about Chinese cities (specifically Beijing) but authors seems to have different opinions about that. And your own premonitions are not enough. So unless there's a clear methodological problem, the neutral way is not your opinion or mine, but a synthesis of different specialists opinions and the sentence (Paris may have been...) seems neutral to me.

Now I don’t want to spend my time talking about that so I propose to neutral users to examine the problem and to come to a decision. Till then, thank you to stop editing insistently the article. You want to modify an information well sourced and established for a long time, so please wait for a decision.

Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 13:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

So why are you so are ardently defending the good faith of someone else who quoted references from someone else. If you have not checked the references yourself then you have no good faith to defend. In any case if you had in good faith even tried to verify the claims you are defending it would become obvious that Paris did not have more than 150,000 people in 1200. According to this source http://www.paris.fr/politiques/paris-d-hier-a-aujourd-hui/demographie/historique-et-evolution/rub_5427_stand_8716_port_11661 there were 50,000 people in Paris in 1223. And this source http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9mographie_de_Paris#cite_note-3 says that Paris had 25,000 in 1180, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Middle_Ages says that Paris had 20,000 in 1000. As for the figures for 1700 you will note that in the link provided it clearly says that a reference is required for the 600,000 so it is not appropriate to use that figure.

I cannot believe that you are forcing me to do so much work when you are so clearly wrong and you could not be bothered doing any work yourself. As this squabble has now become farcical and I am in danger of losing my temper, I am going to request mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulalexdij ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please go and sign the request for mediation or I will be compelled to make further unilateral corrections. Paulalexdij ( talk) 14:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You cannot believe that I'm forcing you to do so much work, but I could say exactly the same. About the references, we can't presume bad faith. Maybe the user was actually of bad faith and these three books don't furnish those informations or come from a clear methodological flaw, I don't know, but you can't come here and brush what seems to be a well sourced information aside claiming that "it is well known that it's false" or "that's not even mention on the French Wikipedia" cause except for the second part where you brought a well-sourced contradiction (about Beijing and Istanbul, and the sentence has been modified), the table you showed confirms a part of the information and doesn't deny the other part : so what can I tell you ? How can we be sure that the three references are false when your own sources don't deny them ? In this context it is not my role to check these references but yours. Unlike you I have no idea about the first period of 800-1250, maybe some Italian or Spanish cities were larger, I don't know, but you have to prove it or to prove the falseness of the quoted books. In the book I quoted just above the author says (I translate) : "We have not certain basis to estimate the population of Paris before 1328" but "we know quite well the end of the 12th century Paris : it is already the largest city in the Western world." (p.37 of the aforementioned book.) So things are not so clear.

Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 15:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, the three books were not quoted. They were cited. Anyway I am loathe to discuss this with you any further because your level of both English and of logic are far too inadequate for you to be making edits on Wikipedia in English; you have obviously misread my comments, and the figures, because you keep quoting them as if they confirm your opinion when in fact the opposite is true. For the umpteenth time it is not okay to say Paris was the largest city in Europe when there is no quoted evidence to support this unique claim. You cannot expect me to hurriedly find someone to say that Paris was not the largest city in 800 or 900 or 1000 or whenever just because you (or someone else) presumes that it was. Unverified citations without any quotation are not enough for such monumental original claims. Instead of only looking at sites which support your prejudice, you might look at books like that of Morris (2010) which demonstrates with archaeological evidence that Parisian population has been continually overestimated. You and I do not have to re-invent the wheel here trying to form a consensus on the basis of third hand citations since there have been many researchers before us for hundreds of years studying the way that things actually were rather than making statements about the way things were not. For example, if you follow the links for the books by Chandler (which I carefully provided for you although you were so dismissive of them) you will see that he gave lists of the top five cities in the West at regular intervals. Paris is not on those lists because Paris was not in the top five. Now if I were to say that London was the largest city from 800-1200 you would not have to find someone to say that it was not in order to prove me wrong: the absence of quoted evidence is sufficient. Incidentally, having studied French history myself, one may well find that not only was Paris not the largest city in the Western world in 800-1200, it may not even have been the largest city in France. One would have to check the size of Lyon, Marseille, Rouen, Strasbourg and other cities. Anyway, while the data before 1450 are far too scanty to be hazarding statements of fact, I will grant you that Paris might have been the largest in Western Europe in the second half of the fifteenth century and in the first half of the eighteenth century, but it is not okay to make a statement of fact about such things unless the evidence is clear, convincing and extremely difficult to plausibly question! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulalexdij ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Paulalexdij ( talk) 18:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to take it very personally, please be more respectful. I already said what I have to say about the three books, I'm not gonna repeat myself. I'm not the person looking at sites which support my prejudice (what site are you talking about ?), you are, you justified your point of view with a table on Wikipedia but in this table YOU looked for, I only see Paris was the largest city since 1250 to 1700 or 1750, and with my modest level of logic I don't count two centuries, not to mention the other source I mentioned. Now if you think YOUR source is eventually doubtful, it won't be easy. I'm not gonna read the Chanler book, I perfectly believe you and if it's a well known author he has to be quoted like others.

Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 07:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I am not going to repeat my arguments again and again since you are evidently unable to comprehend them as you continually ignore them or misrepresent them. So I will rest my case and wait for a mediator, or if need be, an arbitrator. Paulalexdij ( talk) 10:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the mediation we asked for has been rejected and nobody else suggested a solution, I propose another solution : we haven't here direct data for Paris before the end of the 12th century and you seem to be sure that the books or the user gave wrong facts. You certainly have more knowledge than me in that area and although I still don't approve the method ("You cannot expect me to hurriedly find someone to say that Paris was not the largest city in 800 or 900 or 1000 or whenever" : so who will ?), I can postulate that the references provided are false and we can find a solution in a sure information that both of us can directly verify : "Paris was the largest city in the Western world for about 600 years prior to the 19th century."

Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 13:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm ... well I haven't had time to go check the references yet, and if a new statement is to be made then ideally a new citation should be made as well ... anyway, while i appreciate the suggestion, i am afraid that i still cannot in all honesty concur with that exact wording. i feel very strongly that whatever statement is made should easily satisfy very high standards of veracity and should be so easily verifiable that it will not even be entirely necessary to provide a citation. if it does not meet such high standards then there will again be a problem of competing opinions backed up by conflicting quotations and contradictory citations.

In view of these stringent requirements for a definitive statement of fact, the most inclusive wording that i could support would be: "By the 13th century Paris had already become one of the most important cities in Europe, and was the largest city in Western Europe from the 15th to 18th centuries." I have carefully chosen the word 'from' rather than 'during' or 'between'. The word 'between' is too limiting as it would imply only from 1500 to 1700. The word 'during' is too expansive as it implies from 1400 to 1800. I cannot say, and probably nobody can say for sure, when in the 1400's Paris became the largest city or when in the 1700's London became the largest; so in this case the word 'from' is ideal as it includes unspecified parts of both the 1400's and the 1800's. It is really not certain that Paris was the largest before the fall of Granada in 1489 but it might have been. It might have been the largest during various interrupted decades in the two centuries before but there is no way to know for sure when we have to compare with all those Italian and Andalusian cities. We shall of course have to say 'Western' otherwise we will need to compare Constantinople/Istanbul which would also be too uncertain.

The phrasing 'by the 13th century' also works well because it includes an unspecified period before 1200. It's hard to say when something is 'important'. I was thinking 1190 when the great Philip II Augustus changed his title from 'King of the Franks' to 'King of France'. Actually, though, I think that we could truly say "By the mid-12th century Paris had already become ... ". I think it is fair to say that by the time construction of Notre-Dame began, Paris had eclipsed its regional rivals. I can't remember when the University was started, but people who know more than me about that period might have more insight.

Anyway, I do propose that we say: "By the mid-12th century Paris had already become become one of the most important cities in Europe, and was the largest city in Western Europe from the 15th to 18th centuries."

If you are in accord with the appropriateness of the statement above, then we could turn a new leaf and co-operate, since you are clearly as passionate about these subjects as I am. Sincerely, Paulalexdij ( talk) 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well frankly I still see that Paris was the largest city from 1250 in that table (and from the end of the 12th century according to Favier). In 1450, the fact that Granada had briefly slightly more inhabitants than Paris (15,000 more considering these sources) is explained by the important drop of the Parisian population due to the three epidemics of plague in 1432-1434, 1438-1439 and 1449-1452. I don’t know if these kind of short interruptions are pertinent when we speak about the demography of a city with a global vision of six or more centuries. Granada had 165,000 inhabitants in 1450 but Paris had already 275,000 inhabitants in 1400 according to the sources we have in the table (Chandler and Hoenberg/Hollen Lees). It is not about the power of the cities or their radiance but their demography. I can’t verify the books cited for the original claim but I nevertheless accept your position when you say that Paris was not the largest city before the 12th century since I have not directly verifiable source and that the real ascension of the city actually started with Philippe Auguste. But starting from that century we have reliable and directly verifiable sources. I agree to say that the real supremacy of Paris in terms of demography starts in the early 17th century, and I can understand that for few decades in the four precedent centuries the differences may have not been very large with Granada or Naples (in 1550-1575), but nevertheless, it seems to be the trend and the factual reports of the authors, so I prefer to maintain my wording.

For the second part of the sentence, I see that you consider Istanbul in the Western World while I wasn’t. I’m not sure it belongs to the Eastern world either and it surely doesn’t below to a geographical category since it was and may still be the “crossroad of the worlds”. Furthermore I think “Western Europe” is too restrictive, what about Northern, Southern and the (common acceptation of) Eastern Europe ? I still support “Western World” but we could add a note about Istanbul to be precise.

Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 15:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Awaiting for your response or other opinions, I write "Paris was the largest city in the Western world for about 600 years prior to the 19th century." Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 21:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I am afraid I am still very much in disagreement since, regardless of the cited sources which have still not been verified, the actual sources we have discussed also do not support this wording. Clearly we are in disagreement as to how to interpret the data.

In any case, I have too many other commitments to be able to continue this discussion so I will just leave my final remarks here for the record:

1. Since Istanbul was the largest city in Eastern Europe during the period cited and was the largest city in Europe for most of, if not all of that time, and according to the evidence discussed may have been the largest city in the world in the eighteenth century, I cannot support a wording which ignores this city or delegates it to a footnote. For the record, the wording which I would support would be: "By the mid-12th century Paris had already become become one of the most populous cities in Europe, and was the largest city in Western Europe from the late-15th to early-18th centuries."

2. I am not convinced that there should be any kind of statement of this nature at all, especially not at this point in the article, as it does not fit stylistically.

3. I believe that at at least one third opinion, as well as at least one other backer for any decision, should be required for deciding this issue. I believe there is some formal method for calling for a third opinion, and that this should be done.

Sincerely, Paulalexdij ( talk) 18:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I still don't consider Istanbul in Eastern Europe even less in the Western world, which is the term used in the sentence. About the references, you can't call all of them into question : I accepted to ignore the books, but once more, you are the person who provided this table, if you finally think the references are doubtful and deserve a check, I'm sure you'll understand that it's not my job to do it. I will support any factual informations so if you'll bring reliable sources to support your point of view, believe me, I will support your position. We already called for a mediation which has been rejected : I think the better way is to wait but if you want to use another method I will accept it. Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 21:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

PS : I'm not sure about the sources you call into question since I accepted to remove the previous ones we couldn't check. Is there any problem with the table or is it just the interpretation ? En-bateau ( talk) 21:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Hotel de Ville Paris Wikimedia Commons.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Hotel de Ville Paris Wikimedia Commons.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The text suggests Paris being the Merovingian capital, which is only an half truth, as the Merovingian Realm wasn't unified for most of the time. While Neustria was mostly governed from Paris, Austrasia had different capitals (Cologne, Metz) 88.159.71.34 ( talk) 23:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Frankish king Clovis the Frank, the first king of the Merovingian dynasty, made the city his capital from 508. The late 8th century Carolingian dynasty displaced the Frankish capital to Aachen". I agree that the text could be ambiguous or incomplete, maybe you could modify it ? (With sources ideally). Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The article claims 42 million people visit Paris making it the most visited city in the world, but last year New York City had 50 million tourists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.237.172 ( talk) 04:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

They're not the same figures. In most cases American cities count the "visitors", whereas European or Asian cities count the "tourists" (i.e. overnight visitors). It brings huge differences, like for Orlando, the most visited city in America : it welcomes annually 55 million visitors but approximately 30 million tourists. In any case, the text refers to "tourists" whereas the link to "foreing tourists", it may be more relevant to mention only foreign tourists (or... international visitors in common language). Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Paris Ouest" has been associated with great wealth, elitism and social hegemony in French popular culture as well as in some masterpieces of French literature such as Balzac's La comédie humaine or Proust's In Search of Lost Time.

I strongly doubt that Balzac ever used this "Paris Ouest" phrase. -- Superzoulou ( talk) 13:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, I never heard this expression. "L'Ouest parisien" is more appropriate I think. Maybe you could modify the paragraph ? Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 23:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the first sentence of the "sociology" part, as it did not add anything, and replaced 'Paris Ouest" with "the Western part of Paris". I do not think that a French translation is very useful: 'ouest parisien' is often a neutral geographical term rather than an idiomatic expression used to evoke wealth (it can refer to Nanterre as well as to the 7th arrondissement, as a Google search results show). I would gladly trim the whole thing a bit more, as it is a rather lengthy and impressionistic, and of course we would like a sociological analysis of the whole Paris "Paris Nord" etc.. By the way there is a Paris Ouest article with some valid references, but be written in a somewhat sensasionalistic tone that does not fit Wikipedia. Should it be renamed too ? -- Superzoulou ( talk) 06:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the revision. Like you said, the expression "Paris Ouest" is purely geographical, maybe it would be better to change this article into an analysis of the whole sociology of the city, but it's a big job. En-bateau ( talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. Yes, writing an article about the sociology of the city is a big job, and I do not think it would be very useful to start from Paris Ouest-- Superzoulou ( talk) 21:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To Suitcivil133, I don't know where you see any vandalism. If you want to modify something, very well, but don't reverse an entire well done work. I spent time to reorganize the lead of the article (which was already made by myself in large part). For the form, I actually trimed the text : too many useless informations for an introduction and not always coherent with the references. If you have any objection, the least you can do is to preserve the references which are way more clear and accurate than in the previous version. We can discuss of any addition if you want. Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 12:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all I was unaware of those past edits done by you. It was my clear conviction that vandalism took place.

I fail to see that the information I added yesterday can in any way be deemed "useless". They are very valuable statistics about Paris which should be mentioned in the introduction.

The current introduction, which all due respect, is not thorough enough for such an important city as Paris. For once compare the introduction of New York and London to that of the current Parisian one on this page. In my opinion it's simply too superficial considering the importance of Paris.

The introduction of valuable statistics such as number of visitants, the economic, cultural importance, major headquarters etc. based in Paris is highly valuable information in a introduction. At least I am certain that most people reading the introduction would be in agreement with such an statement.

Can you be more specific with the references not being coherent with the content? And most importantly what and why you deem the information I restored to the introduction as "useless".

Thank you. -- Suitcivil133 ( talk) 13:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Some time ago I would have agreed with you, since all major cities articles use the same approach. These statistics are not exactly "useless" but, nevertheless, they're not really appropriate to introduce a city (besides they're available elsewhere in the article). We should avoid changing an encyclopedic article into a communication brochure. I think an introduction should summarize important demographic, economic, socio-cultural and historical facts with clear and solid references. Maybe there's a lack in the case of Paris (notably for the historical part) but I don't think the previous version (that I made) satisfied those criteria.

For the references, I'll let you compare the two versions. The last version has more references, more clear and more systematized. On the other hand, unadapted references have been removed.

Cordially, En-bateau ( talk) 16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)