Talk:Paris/Archive 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Île-de-France Region now always refers to itself in English either as the "Paris Île-de-France Region" or as the "Paris Region" (here for example). It has become their standard policy, because they have realized people outside of France confused Île-de-France and France. On Wikipedia,

Paris Region redirects automatically to the Île-de-France article. Der Statistiker (talk

) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2019 Census Paris Region
( Mauritius		18,840
Guinea	18,709
Brazil	17,887
United Kingdom	17,789
United States	17,583
Other countries and territories	857,720

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Culture and Patrimony

Intellectual importance

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

Cityscape

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

Monuments and Tourist Attractions

Parks and gardens

Cemeteries

Cultural Patrimony

- brief description about Paris' accumulated physical cultural Patrimony

Museums

Libraries

Operas, Theatres and Cinemas

Cafés, Restaurants and Hotels

Paris in The Arts

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

Paris in Literature

Paris in Painting and Sculpture

Paris in Music and Dance

Paris, Capital of Fashion and Luxury

Paris in Photography

Paris in Cinema

Paris in Other Medias (Comics, Video Games)

Paris, Myth and Reality

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

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

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

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

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

The problem with sockpuppetry is that people generally use multiple accounts to hide who they are or to get around sanctions such as

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

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

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

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

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

No, what's being contested is a

INSEE? THEPROMENADER

17:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Seudo: you arrive late in the discussion. If you re-read everything since early July (it's in archives #10), you'll realize that:
1- this article was almost entirely rewritten by a singe editor, User:Dr. Blofeld, who also uses the account User:Tibetan Prayer (apparently the admins don't consider this to be a case of sock-puppetry, go figure)
2- Dr Blofeld is the one who turned this article into a tourist brochure (what you're seeing now is actually an improvement compared to the article as it stood in the end of July; we managed to reintroduce some important information deleted by Dr Blofeld, such as the Demographics section; article before Dr Blofeld's massive rewrite: [20], article in the end of July: [21], with some extremely important and current information such as the "demi-mondaines" and the "French can-can")
3- the "Landmarks by district" was written and introduced in the article by Dr Blofeld himself. It has been criticized by several editors. I am the one who created the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, I had seen the history of the article and the discussion before I posted the message above, but since it had been archived I thought it was better to start a new one. Since the

Paris Quarters is, in my opinion, the only one with a potential (with List of tourist attractions in Paris, for those who enjoy lists). Seudo (talk

) 20:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'll answer that on

Talk:Paris Quarters. Seudo (talk

) 20:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, readers should understand how Paris works, and that means that we should explain the relationship between Paris and the suburbs. But that does not mean the core topic of the article should be about the whole urban area. In French it is handled by the still stubbish

Paris aire urbaine - though its scope is arguably too narrow. In some respects, I think the urban area is a more important topic than the city proper, but for better or for worse the official definition of Paris is still the commune, not the urban area. --Superzoulou (talk

) 11:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the question

I'm afraid I fail to see what we should discuss here. The article already deals with aspects of the greater Paris area, such as mentioning the population of the entire area and it talks at great length about certain Paris suburbs, such as La Défense. That is all well. Needless to say, the article should not make up it's own distinction of what Paris is. Paris is the 20 arrondissements, and the article should reflect that, but of course also talk about relevant aspects of greater Paris. That is what the article already does. As per

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 
  The Gallo-Roman baths

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

->

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

  Wall of Philip Augustus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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