Talk:Paris

Coordinate are wrong

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

Reference 4 - not in citation given?

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

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

Mistake

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

When we speak of largest it is population wise.

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

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

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

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

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

Paris' Role in the Fashion Industry

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

any songs about Paris?

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

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

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

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

Place where citation is needed

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

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

Mistake or incorrect source

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

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

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

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

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

ISS over Paris

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

History of Paris

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman occupation

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

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

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

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

demographics

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

Infobox image

Pet peeve: Recently, the image in the infobox of this article was changed from a single panoramic view to a "collage" [1] consisting of eight photographs, with a combined height of 450px. This has been a recent trend on many city articles, and no doubt many people feel that since so many other articles now do it this way, it must be a good thing. IMnotsoHO, it isn't. It's a fad, but it's not good. It's a waste of space. These collage pictures are so big they push the actual content of the infobox below the screen on many displays.

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

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

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

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

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

Note that there is no freedom of panorama in France (see: [2]). So most of these collages violate copyright policies. Only general views of the city where the monuments are accessory compared to the main represented subject do not violate copyright policies. 90.35.46.60 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crime

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

God's tears

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

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

15 what?

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

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

Paris V London

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

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

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

Pages of Paris school documents

English:

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

Multi:

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

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

Intercommunality

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

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

Most visited cities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Par Arr.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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

File:Stade de France 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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

Demonym

I`d like to add the line

|population_demonym = Parisian

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

Number of tourists

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

Contradiction

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

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

Paris and Paris intra-muros are the same city.

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

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

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

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

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

land area of paris

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

Largest city?

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

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

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

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

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

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