Talk:Paris metropolitan area

message: The unreferenced table removed was suspiciously WP:OR, as no data of the sort existed before the 1990's. Now that the table-creator has reverted to his original creation, we see that the 'source' is a single experimental study (in French), which was probably why it wasn't presented in the first place: one cannot present a single study as actual statistics, this is both laughable and borderline plagiarism (as such experiments are the authour's invention; statistics aren't). Also questionable is the merit of presenting the 'demographics' of a demographics tool.
It's funny to see complaints to administrators about removers 'not talking about' their removing beforehand: if anything, it's the reverting to removed material that merits most a talk-page entry, but none was made. I've seen this sort of behaviour around similar 'contributions' a thousand times in the past, and although I'm back to editing after a five-year hiatus, it seems as though that contributor never went away. THEPROMENADER 20:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After a second look, User:Der Statistiker has reverted to his first table without providing a reference at all, so, instead of removing it again (we all know it will only be re-reverted), it has been tagged 'no sources'. The second 'reference' to a single study has also been accordingly tagged with 'single source', with an additional 'verify source' tag because the numbers are an 'approximation' creation of a single person, they are not data from any statistics organisation. Wow.  THEPROMENADER 20:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

text: …aand adding a 'verify source' tag (to the same source as above) to the (again) reverted-to-as-is "At the 1968 census, the earliest date for which population figures were retrospectively computed for French aire urbaines…" phrase. Why the convolution? One can simply say that 'urban growth in the 1960's was smaller than (an existing area)…' (and there are many sources for that) without retrospectively reinventing a 1960's statistical area that didn't exist before the 1990's. That's more than enough for one day. THEPROMENADER 21:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

text: By the way, it was my bad for not mentioning the fact that the tables were unreferenced and possible WP:OR in the edit summary where I removed them - I thought I had. THEPROMENADER 21:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a second: I ~did~ properly summarize the reason for my removal. Why make it look as though I didn't by selectively providing this diff in post-revert 'complaints' to administrators? Really. THEPROMENADER 09:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

text: When some content is not referenced, we don't just delete it, otherwise we could delete half of Wikipedia. If you think some content needs to be referenced, there exist some tags for that. There is no justification for deleting some content just because you don't like it. As for your repeated personal attacks, I won't even respond to them. You're just discrediting yourself in the eyes of everybody by ranting about "his first table", when anyone checking the history of this page can see that I am not the editor who added the urban area table to this article in the first place (user DerBorg did). Der Statistiker (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a question of 'unreferenced', and we both know very well that kind of data couldn't exist before the 1990's. I don't care who wrote it, I just assumed it was its creator who was protecting it so ferociously (reverting without source or comment?) THEPROMENADER 21:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." THEPROMENADER 23:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Yet more personal attacks. Sigh... You placed a verify tag claiming that the reference didn't come from INSEE when it did in fact come from INSEE. Are you doing this on purpose? or do you not even take time to read the sources and just placed a verify tag for the sake of it? Either way, keep in mind that people are watching you and that this will not improve your reputation. But then it's up to you. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (Pointing upwards) 'single study by one authour' != 'data'. Read before reverting next time - and straight to ad hominem? I don't think you've answered any question at all tonight. THEPROMENADER 21:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Demographics" section table. History repeating. 

message: The claim about being "second largest urban region in Europe after that of London" is not sourced and sounds unlikely. Istanbul is certainly larger and on the top of my head I'd say Moscow is as well. The important thing is that a proper source is needed.Jeppiz (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur.  List of metropolitan areas in Europe has about 6 different sources, and 5 of them do NOT have Paris as the second largest metro area.  --Jayron32 01:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Two sources there has Moscow bigger than Paris, while others have "No data" for Moscow. Istanbul is bigger in 4 sources, one having "No data". However, Istanbul article says about a third of its population living on the Asian side of Eurasia, so the European population of Istanbul is smaller than Paris's. 82.141.95.20 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Sounds rather awkward. Still being used to understand "European Union" as a political entity rather than a (static) geographical entity, I'd prefer "2nd largest established, (and/or whatever), in the European Union".  --Askedonty (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Being "2nd largest in the EU" is indisputable, though "3rd largest in Europe behind Moscow and London" would be more informative.  I agree with Istanbul being discounted due to only 1/3 being in Europe. I don't quite get your suggested 'established' or other qualifier... Batternut (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "In the EU" is not exactly the same than "in the European Union", and that form would be very fine with me. I'd just prefer any kind of distanciation that will not be sending the Front National (France) amok being left out just behind Angela Merkel. As I wrote above, the term "European Union" is not generally understood as defining primarily a geographical area, otherwise the change would have been acted probably sooner besides. I do not suppose that "inside the European Union" would be grammatically correct ? --Askedonty (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second largest? 

message: Move to Metropolitan area of Paris. This seems actually to be a subarticle of Paris, (like Landmarks in Paris etc). There is no corresponding administrative structure. The subject of the article is just the measurement of the spread of the Paris commuter belt. Batternut (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your rationale, but also consider its similarity to the real-administrative 'Métropole du Grand Paris' entity and the confusion that may cause. TP ✎ ✓ 09:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate proposal #2