Talk:Paris/Archive 3

message: In the second paragraph, I'm not sure that this is the normal usage for the word "eponym". "City of Lights" is more a "sobriquet" for Paris, isn't it? Though it wouldn't read well if this word was used instead. In any case, I'd suggest sticking to simple words to keep it accessible to the widest possible audience. Adrian Robson 21:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote that in a word-trimming rampage. For what it's worth, you have my blessing to rewrite that paragraph however you like, including moving the relevant bits to other paragraphs. Somehow I think we should capture the idea that Paris has a romantic association, but I just don't know how to do that in a NPOV way. It is undeniable that, particularly in the US, Paris conjures up images of romantic boat trips down the Seine and marriage proposals at the top of the Eiffel tower. Personally I don't share these delusions, but they're very common.  (On a tangent, Venice is totally unromantic too. Go to Annecy or anywhere in the Alps instead :)) Stevage 22:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just give me a sunset on the Californian coast, I know nothing more romantic than that. But anyway, we're getting off topic now. Lol. Hardouin 17:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I changed it for "nickname". Feel free to change to something else if you know a better word. Thbz 12:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eponym 

message: There's not really much to say but I made an edit so I'll note here what I've done. I took some time and a good step back from what was written/reverted over the past weeks to spend a couple days patching the article together in the interest of article itself. The key developments are there (without the walls now) as are the main monuments and "common knowledge" periods as well. It's a brief an outline as 2000 years of history can be so if it works as it is, here's hoping it won't blow back up again. Cheers. ThePromenader 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At a first glance, looking at the size and style, it looks great. I can't vouch for the technical details, but I think the size is really about right for this article. So if anyone wants to add something to it, they should take something else out (preferably unimportant words) :) Well done. Stevage 21:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you sir. À votre plaisir : ) ThePromenader 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Have to" what ? How convenient. Errors? We'll see. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Not an error - a question of "how much are we going to say". I'm sure they had very well defined borders that they dare not tiptoe over in their hunts for fear of... er, being accused by an armchair historian of settling another region. The Senon mother tribe was quite a way downriver. Your change is trifling and the result is ugly.ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  The Parisii did a "scorched earth" and fled as far as England - traces of them have been found there. ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  In no way an error. He granted teachers and students the right to govern themselves independently in a new "Universitas" guild with rights equal to the many of the other trade guilds then. If that's not creating something, I don't know what is. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Philip Augustus did not create the University of Paris, period. Don't try to rewrite history now. What Philip Augustus did was to give the University its legal foundation, but the University already existed before. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It existed unofficially - once chartered they could govern themselves as an official.... now we're just splitting hairs.ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Arguments vague then irrelevant. The Paris University was popular because contrevertial - it was the first to teach things forbidden by Catholic dogma such as Medecine and philosophy. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about that. The University of Paris was most famous for the teaching of theology, which was deemed very important in the Middle Ages, and theology is the reason why so many students came to Paris from all across Europe. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Theology too but this is again "all that wasn't said that we can say"... ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  How silly. Paris is famed today for its Paris University, its Renaissance philosophy and Gobleins tapestries? Give me a break. The first thing anyone thinks about today when they hear "Paris" is the Eiffel Tower and the Belle Epoque kitsch best portrayed by the 1900 Expo pavillions and architecture. Not to mention the tourist attractions (Moulin Rouge) that began with the Expo visitors in mind. I suspect the rather obvious nuance of that phrase was beyond you. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Paris didn't have to wait for the World's Fairs to become world famous, it was already extremely famous before. Just read the correspondence of Franklin or Jefferson when they reisded in Paris, or have a look at what Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire and Spain already said in the 16th century ("Paris is not a city, it is the World"). And I don't even mention the Paris fashion which was admired and copied all throughout the western world long before the World's Fairs happened. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But I never said that Paris wasn't famous before. Paris' fame Today originates in... didn't I just explain that? Read again.ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Again this is "how much are we going to say". Prussians are obviously very important for you, but others to who the Fronde or 1814-15 wars are important could also make the same "omission" claims. None of these changed the face of Paris to any degree. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  This one's just cheap. So why did these artists choose Paris over any other city? What was the spirit then? Do you really know what bohemian means? ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Artists came to Paris because there were already many artits there, because the city was rich and the bourgeoisie was a prime market to sell their art work, because the Louvre was (and still is) the largest museum in the world to draw inspiration from, and because the buzz and livelihood of the second largest city in the world back then simply attracted people. This does not mean however that the bohemian spirit was reigning in the city, despite what some movies would have us believe. What was reigning in the city for the working classes, by far the largest group in Paris back then, was hard work and the constant struggle for survival. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "many artists already there" was this "bohemian atmosphere" - even the rich wanted into it ! To say I reference hollywood again is... (cough) Anyhow, again it's about "how much we will say" ... Okay, Paris was a dry, bland list of facts. ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Actually that was your statement ported to the new edit. I was surprised at this as well. Bravo, you have finally corrected your own work! Wait a second, you're asking me for references? LOL!  ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're wrong. I never wrote that Paris was emptied of half of its inhabitants. I wonder how you can invent all these things. If you care to check the history of the article, I wrote that Paris was emptied of a part of its inhabitants, I never specified how many. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, I had omitted my (rather heated) statement above in admitting my error and now it's back again. I don't think it's a good idea to copy the whole contents of this text box to a separate page then paste it back again when you are done - others might have made edits since. ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  You're skipping the period of the HBM's built from the destruction of the "Fortifs" - These were built for the "white trash" from the period of which you speak. The Cités were built for the workers of "new France" and presented as a sort of worker utopia. Odd period. I have had no misunderstanding and your reverts unfounded. Besides, we already said the Belle Epoque ended with WW I further up yet you insist on re-inserting your repetition here once again. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all it's HLM, not HBM. The Cités were built for French people primarily, not for immigrants. Just check any history book. And check the history of some slums like the slum of Nanterre, which still existed in the 1950s whent the Cités were built. Hardouin 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you misunderstand. HBM's came well before HLM's. I am aware of all you say, but now this is correcting corrections in a talk page.ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Why would you think you know "better enough" to do that? The result is very sloppy if I may say. Our wordsmith hadn't a word to say on the matter thank you very much.ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  LOL, I missed this chestnut further up. Well, we'll have to write  reams  then, won't we? ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I find it strange Hardouin, that while you sit on an article graced with a broken star, lack of sources and bypassed by the Finnish Paris page, you have made no improvements to your own work. You seem to be interested only in finding "error" in other people's contributions - and this, IMHO, as a justification  to reappropriate "your" article. If this isn't a clear case of article appropriation, I don't know what is. I will consider the quality of your reverts (as that's what they really are) and if I can't see them as an improvement they will go. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  BTW, I've been researching ("spying") this whole question of "aire urbaine" and such, and have seen quite a bit else of what you've done. I can't say I'm pleased at what I saw. More on that later under another heading; it's time to clean things up. Draw some defiinite borders, rather. ThePromenader 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (After reading) In all, your changes are basically reverts. You have added to parts that were concise without bringing any added clarification to the flow of the article; you have just stuck things (back) in there according to your "better opinion" without a care for how it reads. "Weilding more power" instead of "rose to grasp more power" - why this change? Weilding from where ? Twice you have reverted "recovered from the Prussian war to open the Expo" - this is nonsensical! They did not hold the expo to spite the Priussians. LOL. ThePromenader 19:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you even moved the photo... to where you had it before! This is not leaving a footprint; this is sticking your finger in a cake. ThePromenader 19:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I can accept that people correct my edits, but not that they revert it to what it was before without even a thought at the intent of the changes made. I have never refused to admit any error, and have always included your corrections in my edits. I do not need an English history book thank you very much (!). I know all of the events you indicate (and how I hate to say "I know") and there is truth in all you say, but the problem is we can't say it all and what we do say we must say clearly. Fix anything you like but don't revert to the version that was being corrected in the first place. This is your principal fault and this is the only thing that makes me paranoid. 
While you're at it, why don't you get around to cleaning up and rearranging your own work instead of chasing me around?
ThePromenader 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You see this last sentence you wrote? That fits exactly the definition of paranoia. LOL. Hardouin 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know, I just visited the Petite_ceinture page this morning and noticed that you had moved it. How did you know that I had even started it? Some would call this harrassment. Yet the changes you made were indeed improvements. I'm really curious all the same.  ThePromenader 12:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Your own work needs improvement, so why not tend to that instead of pestering others who try to? This is what I meant and mean. Please be honest and don't be base. ThePromenader 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Repatch 

message: In correcting the "corrections" I can't help but think that many of the revert/edits were made out of pure spite. We do not introduce controversy to disclaim the writing of another, nor do we replace that other person's writing with something expressing an opposing POV - when the first person's writing wasn't even POV in the first place. I notice an insistance on using "World's Fair" in the 1900's period when even the link and the title of the page it is linked to is "Exposition Universelle". This smacks of someone insisting the stupidity of "those English speakers" (yet this souci is expressed nowhere else in this page). The imposed Bolchevic-fleeing pianist sounds rather non-sequitur in the same phrase as his Spanish painter and American writer friends, and the 1870's Prussian war and 1871 Commune, having almost no effect on the city's own development, drops like a lead mallet into the flow of what's written around it - it could be included but not in the very awkward way it was. We do not impose twice in a row "the flooding of the Seine" where it is needless detail, nor do we remove "marketplace" description from the "Les Halles", as without it the uninitiated will not know what it is. In short, the changes, as much of this page, is written without a thought outside the authour's own knowldedge, opinion, and understanding.
I took a few days to take a step back and really look at what needed to be done and do it, and here I see all that lambasted with hastily-pasted writ from the "authour's" own precedent version. I could care less if any changes made are improvements, but in most cases, and especially in this one, they are not. I can swallow such uncivil behavior in occasions such as my earlier Economy writ (for it was off the mark), but in subjects such as this it cannot stand. From where come these airs of superiority? If indeed they do originate from a being superior, why is his work not the same? ThePromenader 21:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Recap

message: The last total revert aside, what bugged me most about yesterday's "corrections" is that they were made "against" the edits they replaced - this is the worst possible attitude for a Wikipedian to have. What's more, hardly any effort was taken in a) readablility and b) comprehensibility - many transformations made phrases difficult to understand for those not already well-read in French history or even culture. I'm not supposed to criticize "style" but when my "bad" style is replaced with phrases choppy, repetititve and difficult to read we cannot call this an "improvement". It took a while to lose (again) all the riffraff feelings to really read the entry like one doing so for the first time. I left in a lot of Hardouin's "corrections" but in all, after all, after corrctions, the reading and the meaning between his and my version is almost nil and could have been done by changing a word or two. In short, once again, splitting hairs and much ado about nothing. Again I have severe doubts about the pretext of such actions but let's save that for another day. ThePromenader 11:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Edit Recap

message: Well, you blink and you miss a lot. I don't understand what's going on with this article, but yet again, lots of squabbling over wording, lots of reverting etc? Could I just ask that rather than reverting wholesale changes that we don't like, we take them individually on their merits? I notice for example that TP has made a raft of changes including changing this sentence: "From the 1840s, rail transport and train stations spilled an unprecedented flow of immigration into Paris. A majority of migrants found employment in the new industries appearing in the suburbs." to "From the 1840s, rail transport and train stations spilled an unprecedented flow of immigration into the streets of Paris, a majority of which had come to seek employment in the new industries appearing in the suburbs." Without having too much of a go at TP, I think *both* versions are bad.  Surely: "From the 1840s, rail transport and train stations had caused an unprecedented flow of migrants to spill into the streets of Paris, most of whom sought employment in the new industries appearing in the suburbs." would be much better. In quibbling over whether it's better to have one sentence or two, we've lost sight of the fact that "an unprecedented flow of immigration" isn't even English :)  (hint: immigration is an abstract noun, it doesn't refer to people)
So, please please please, let's try and leave our egos out of this, and not focus on whose changes we're reverting etc. I'm off on holidays for a week and a bit, I look forward to the results when I come back :) Joyeux noël à tous! Stevage 22:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Stevage, as you may have noticed over the days, whenever you edit ThePromenader's edits he always applauds you, whereas whenever I am the one editing his edits he is infuriated and complains bitterly, calling it "revert". What am I to do? Change my pseudonym? For the sake of scientific experimentation, it would be interesting if you edited his history edit, then I would sign your edit with my name. I bet 1,000 Australian dollars (no clue how much that is, lol) that he would bitterly attack this edit signed under my pseudonym. Holding personal grudges is really not helpful... Hardouin 22:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not a very honest argument at all Hardouin. Stevage does not revert and explains his changes. Most of what this page contains is your work and I am quite aware of this - this explains my constantly questioning your motives when I see that a) you do not make this fact known even in our discussion of changes and b) even in spite of this talk you never make any improvemnts yet when b) changes are made any you "don't like" are returned to the letter to their former form. This is a revert. Of course I would be very suspicious of anyone who reverted anything other than vandalism to a former form - if the intent is improvement then more than likely improvement needs to be made. Reverting totally discounts a) the fact that there is a need for improvement and b) the integrity of the person trying to improve. This is what I've been seeing for months now and of course I've had enough of it. ThePromenader 23:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hardouin just reverted  again . A complete revert. Didn't even take into account a single one of my edits or arguments, wasting hours of people's time with a single... this is just pure toying and provocation, nothing else. ThePromenader 23:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Points taken. We've got sun and chill in the 5th arrondissement, and wife and I are just leaving for a walk to Notre-Dame (Touristu, ne!). - Merry merry to yous toos : ) ThePromenader 12:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest changes

message: Two articles I found over the Holidays that I find extremely relevent to the improvements needed for this article. I'd like to give Finland a run for their money come January : )
*Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article
*Wikipedia:Summary_style
Cheers,
ThePromenader 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readings for the New Year 

message: I don't think the sub-section about Muséification should be inside the Demographics section. Indeed, demography is only one of the reasons of muséification (others being the urbanism mistakes of the after-war, the strong feelings of the French for ancient architecture, etc). In my opinion this sub-section belongs to the history of Paris (and its future) or its economy. Other opinions? 
BTW, someone just added a link to "Règlements d'urbanisme de Paris", which is an article I wrote for the french Wikipedia. We can remove that link unless s/he creates the article (but the name is of course inappropriate). Thbz 10:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know I was thinking exactly the same thing just last night about the "Muséeification" section. I actually think it deserves a section of its own as it is a reality - perhaps after the Economy section - the service industry boom, lack of artisans, turn towards tourism are all a part of this phenomenon so yes it should not be where it is. If you think anything here at all is inappropriate, please feel free to change it yourself - if anyone has anything to say on the matter they will post it. Thanks! ThePromenader 10:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should give too much importance to it, especially since it mostly concerns the city of Paris itself, not the suburbs (and the article's topic is the whole metropolitan area, isn't it?). La Défense, for example, is far from being finished (a 400m skyscraper has been officially announced recently)... Besides it's not a very long sub-section (and shouldn't be). That's why I simply moved it to the History section and rephrased it a bit. Feel free to change it, of course. Thbz 12:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it's good where it is now. It's true it concerns only the city of Paris, whereas the article deals with more than just the city. It's true the metropolitan area is still growing and is not a museum. Yet, Paris is one of the few metropolises in the world where the central city is becoming a museum while the modern activity is almost only happening in the suburbs. You don't find that in London, NYC, or Tokyo, so I think it's good we have a subsection about it (as is already the case). Hardouin 12:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to differ, but I think "Muséification" doesn't at all belong in the "History" section. In fact it would be very hard to place - as I mentioned earlier, it is a result of many different elements of Paris' growth/culture - it is for this that I suggested that it have a (short) section of its own. As it stands it could stand to be cleaned up a bit, and some of its more POV phrases removed. ThePromenader 14:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Muséification is about what Paris is becoming and will become; it is less about what Paris is now (other sections) than about what Paris was and will be (history of economics, of politics, of demographics, of society, of architecture). I'm not completely satisfied with this sub-section too, but it's not important enough to deserve a separate sub-section. Thbz 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright - perhaps we could at least make it shorter. ThePromenader 16:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's nice that you indicate others who share the same ideas as yours, but let's not lose track: these ideas are not administrative realities and cannot be explained as such, nor can they be given more priority above existing administrative boundries. ThePromenader 13:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muséification of Paris 

message: If you would like to "vaguify" (even further) the actual place the Parisii lived it would suffice to change "at" (the île de la Cité) to "near" or "in the area of". We don't have to take a whole line to explicitly spell out doubt - a change of that one word is more than enough to express it. ThePromenader 10:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better to mention explicitly the doubts of the historians, because many people (at least in France) take it for granted that Lutetia was on the Cité (I personnally used to think that the name "Cité" itself referred to Lutetia itself, while the name apparently dates from the time of Clovis) Thbz 11:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cité" is a name that is not proper to Paris. It comes from Latin civitas, where it meant a Roman colony, with full rights. In medieval times, the word "cité" started to be used to mean the walled area inside which were the administrative and ecclesial insitutions. The word "cité" was opposed to the word "ville" which meant the walled (or unwalled) area inside which were the merchants and craftsmen. For instance in Bordeaux there was the cité and the ville, and both had their own walls. In Paris the cité was on the Ile de la Cité, whereas the ville was on the right bank. In London the Normans carried that usage, and the walled part of London became known as the "City", although there, confusingly enough, its was inhabited by merchants, not the administrations. Hardouin 12:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My main concern was about how much room we have here (rather - how much to say) - but yes it is true that the general Parisian consensus is that the Cité was the first to be inhabited - a theory debunked only recently. Yet are we going to put it all there? ThePromenader 12:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again the history section has blown up again. The history in Paris is not always the history of Paris. Please show some intelligence in making a distinction between the two. There is a "History of Paris" page reserved for details such as these. ThePromenader 13:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History re-addition 

message: About the administrative map, I notice that none of the last series of changes that ThePromenader promised have been carried out. There is still the spelling error on "Metropolitain", there are still the urban areas of Montereaux-Fault-Yonne, Provins, and Nemours, there is still the unexplained color for département 75, etc. Hardouin 11:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! Done but forgot to upload it. Consensus is for the Department 75 color to stay as it is. Thanks! ThePromenader 12:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative map 

message: The re-insertion of the removed information in its exact former form is (again!) a revert. First off, the "administration" section is no place to push the "aire urbaine first" POV through phrases such as this: This région encompasses the city of Paris, its suburbs, and most of the commuting belt beyond.  were changed for already-stated very clear reasons. As for the "prediction" text re-inserted  to the letter  as it was before, please see WP:WIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. This is again a case of a single contributor enforcing a POV. ThePromenader 12:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, we just added comments about that editing at the same time, it seems (see my comments below ;). Thbz 12:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say we open a debate on the subject - the correct context in which to speak of the Paris within its limits, Paris as an agglomeration, Paris as its île-de-France region, and the aire urbaine of Paris. There should be a discernable distinction between these, and this especially with the uninformed reader in mind, but this page shows none. ThePromenader 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administration - Re-Insertion 

message: As far as I'm concerned the page has gone back almost precisely to its pre-holidays state, even to the badly-placed photos, yet with yet another unwanton addition not coincidently made by the same person who wrote most of the rest of this very POV page. I am getting quite tired of this cycle of unanswered dialog and then reverts to any changes previously announced. I'm a very tired as well of seeing that the only parts of the page really getting any attention are those modified while the rest of the article also needing improvement just sits there month after month unchanged. I'm extremely tired of knowing the reason this page is resitant to change, and tired of knowing that any attempts I do make at changing it will be reverted by one user, and tired of knowing the base reasons why that have nothing to do with the quality of Wiki. Most of all I am very tired of the overall muddledness, ugliness and incomprehensiblilty of this article, frustrated at the knowledge that any attempt to change it will be met with sluggish resistance, reverts and stalling, and almost angered that this tactic of tiring other contributors out to hold claim to a page is actually working. ThePromenader 01:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's Improvements 

message: This article's lack of definition is becoming mushily overwhelming. Time to draw lines, and here's where I propose to do it.
* Administration.  The Paris administration, in a "Paris" article, should go no farther than Paris and anything under city jurisdiction. Mention of course should be made of its role as chef lieu of the Île-de-France region, but any details thereof should go to the very-neglected île-de-France article. There exists no "greater Paris" administration or even organisation.
* Economy. This will of course speak of Paris' suburbs (as per the agglomération parisienne) but I find it difficult to speak of the Île-de-France's "grande couronne" industry in the same breath as Paris'. The only GDP statistics existing are for individual departments and the Île-de-France région, and should be distributed accordingly to their respective articles. The only credible way "aire urbaine" can be used here is in a brief description (and eve a sentence would do) of "the reach of Paris' economical influence".
* Population. Again of course this will include the agglomération parisienne. Since this is a Paris article, it is only logical  that Paris' own population would be examined before we discuss its growth into the suburbs - this is even important and needed as it exposes the glaring disparities between the two. Again it is not very credible (voir unbelievable)  to speak of the Île-de-France's outer reaches, and even less the entire aire urbaine, as Parisians per se. Again the only credible use of "aire urbaine" would be to briefly describe the commuter movement around the capital, as - this is important - far from all commuter activity described within is directly with the capital itself.
I think I can stop there as these are the points where precision is most important. Feel free to insert any thoughts.
ThePromenader 10:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Size of Paris 

message: This is a revision of a first much more elaborate version found here
====What is a "Metropolitan area"?====
The "metropolitan area" statistical concept is relatively new. To date it is the most accurate way of mapping a core agglomeration's influence on its outer regions through charting commuter movement between 'core' places of employment and habitation. Inclusion criteria and definitions for areas bearing this name differ greatly between countries using it, and a single worldwide standard has yet to be created.
THEPROMENADER 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested Content; POV 

message: The "metropolitan area" statistical concept is relatively new. To date it is the most accurate way of mapping a core agglomeration's influence on its outer regions through charting commuter movement between 'core' places of employment and habitation. Inclusion criteria and definitions for areas bearing this name differ greatly between countries using it, and a single worldwide standard has yet to be created.
THEPROMENADER 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a "Metropolitan area"?

message: The French INSEE equivalent of the above statistical unit, the aire urbaine, uses an indirect inclusion criteria that makes it much different from its North American counterpart - in addition to counting commuters who travel directly from the city centre, it also counts commuters who commute to other areas that commute with the 'core'. 
The completed aire urbaine is named for its 'core' agglomeration, or in this case, Paris. Thus the 'Paris metropolitan area", or "aire urbaine de Paris", as a statistical region embraces, across sometimes vast expanses of land, distant rural communes (counties) to encompass an land surfact that is 45% agriculture. Because of their exreme differences, the North American-understood  metropolitan area term cannot be applied 'as is' to the Paris aire urbaine without a note of explanation.
THEPROMENADER 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is an "Aire urbaine?"

message: For the time being, it doesn't. The Paris aire urbaine (metropolitan area) is still but a statistical method applied to Paris, and not the other way around. It has no administrative function, organisational function, or even inter-communal association. It is a term little used today, but some transportation organisations have begun to refer to it, and politicians are only just beginning to catch on to its real analytical value. To date, outside of the INSEE statistical agency itself, no organisation calculates its data on Paris' aire urbaine (metropolitan area). The calculation standard is still administrative divisions: communes, départements and régions.
THEPROMENADER 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How does the "aire urbaine/metropolitan area" affect Paris?

message: Too much. Everything. As detailed below, this article's recurring theme is that "Paris is as big as its metropolitan area". This is not only a view shared by next to none, but is totally unsupported by any factual resources - and certainly not by web-sites of official agencies and organisations. 
The aire urbaine (metropolitan area) is calculated in a way completely independent of any existing administrative boundary save communes, but by coincidence it covers an area roughly equalling Paris' Île-de-France administrative région. In this article, this coincidence has been used as an excuse to transfer any and all data taken from the Île-de-France région to the metropolitan area title, even statistics. The term "Greater Paris" generally refers to the Île-de-France, as does the term "Paris region", and these too have been either replaced or equated to a "Paris metropolitan area." The goal here seems to be to create an image of a vast "Paris metropole" whose thriving importance supplants even the role of administrations. 
This is factually and conceptually plain wrong. No citable reference in existence, and again, no official web-sites, makes this sort of comparison. 
THEPROMENADER 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does the "aire urbaine/metropolitan area" have to do with this article?

message: Paris is small; one can cross it by foot in two hours. It has a very marked physical and political border with its neighbouring suburbs. Once over the péripherique, one is no longer in Paris, and is in a commune of a completely other name with its own municipal government. What's more, it isn't even in the same département as Paris. In fact, Paris is united administratively with even its bordering suburbs through only the régional Île-de-France which itself englobes eight departments including Paris. This is a problem for sure, but it is reality.
Yet to limit this article to these limits for all subjects would be folly. For matters of population growth, the Encyclopaedia Britannica (2006) and Encyclopédie Universalis (2002) speak to the limits of the Paris agglomeration in their respective "Paris" articles - that is to say to the limits of its conurbation or "built up" area. For things Economy both references speak of production throughout the Île-de-France. Both encyclopaedias use precisely the terms stated here. Since we are expected to cite sources, I would only expect that we do the same.
If we were to stretch beyond these limits for all subjects (as this article does), we would be writing an article on either the Île-de-France or the Paris metropolitan area. Both contain Paris, but neither are Paris.
THEPROMENADER 09:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So how big is Paris then?

message: To speak no further outwards from Paris than the limits of the Parisian agglomeration for all things save Economy, with all areas mentioned named as they are in their references. I see no harm at all in adding "metropolitan area" with an explanation as a brief description of commuter activity around the capital, much like in the French Wiki fr:Paris article. Simple, non? 
THEPROMENADER 15:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How do we make everyone happy?