Talk:Paris

'Referencing'?

I've been catching up on all the resourcing work done here (and learning to use the new templates) when I (again) came across the reference to "the French Connection" - following it to the top, I found this text that seemed rather odd to me (I'd never heard of Haussmann being the origin of Paris' Ville Lumière appelation):

"Paris became known as Ville Lumière in the second half of the 19th century, when Baron Haussmann, who had been put in charge by Emperor Napoleon III of the drastic transformation of Paris into a modern city, tore down whole quartiers of houses and narrow streets dating back to the Middle Ages, opening large avenues which let light (lumière) come into the former mediaeval city."

...then I followed the link and read the cited book excerpt, and found this:

"The pale, locally quarried Lutecian limestone facades we associate most strongly with la Ville lumière are Georges-Eugene Haussmann (1809-91) creations designed for the vast middle class who suffered from a severe housing shortage after the Revolution. During the Second Empire (1851-70), Napoleon Bonaparte‘s nephew, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte lll (1808-73), hired Baron Haussmann to metamorphose the shattered, war-torn city from a bleak, crowded metropolis where living conditions were dreadful into the most elegant, imperial city on earth. And, indeed, his city-planner rose to the challenge."

The passage on Haussmann relooking the city simply used the la Ville-Lumière sobriquet as a replacement for "Paris" ! It looks as though whoever wrote that Etymology 'City of Light = Haussmann' passage just did a google for books containing certain words he/she had written instead of verifying what he/she wrote is true or not. Are there many other gems like this? THEPROMENADER 07:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are. This is the same problem that I have highlighted in my comment about the Bangui edit (most of the French community drunk by 10 am), a comment which Blofeld asked an admin to remove. Perhaps because he's ashamed if someone mentions this edit? In this age of internet, with Google Books and tons of internet websites, you can find books or websites to support pretty much any claim, even the most bizarre or grotesque ones. I can write "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States" in the Barack Obama article, and present hundreds of websites as sources to support that claim. On a formal level, it will respect the Wikipedia guidelines (sourced information), but it is of course completely wrong. It is the same with the drunk French community of Bangui, and many other edits in the Paris article. For example, in the paragraph of the book that you have highlighted, I stopped reading after seeing "metamorphose the shattered, war-torn city". When Napoleon III came to power, Paris wasn't a "shattered, war-torn city". This bizarre citation alone should have led the editor to discard this dubious book as a source. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

True that the book in question looked more like a bed-and-breakfast guide. THEPROMENADER 15:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• The issue redacted was not your point about "drunk at 10am" (note how I said "point? perhaps"... that's an implication that you were on to something) but how you brought it into the discussion... as a tool for claiming an editor was not assuming good faith. We can discuss the accuracy of the sources, particularly with potentially controversial material, but a source being incorrect does not mean that an editor is knowingly inserting false material (which you seemed to imply). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ashamed? The Bangui article has absolutely nothing to do with this article iand it is completely irrelevant to attack my work on other articles here. The quote given in the source tells a lot about the French garrison at Bangui, it was used by the French military, meaning men. That in the line of duty the French officers were reportedly frequently drunk is very relevant to understanding the city during the colonial period in my opinion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit has been deleted anyway, so no need to argue anymore on that silly point. It would be great if you could admit mistakes sometimes though. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of the text in etymology and history is unchanged but sources were added. It is possible that some of the sources only mention the subject indirectly but the vast majority of the book sources should be fine and snippets can be accessed via a google book search. What section is the "Paris became known as Ville Lumière in the second half of the 19th century, when Baron Haussmann, who had been put in charge by Emperor Napoleon III " sentence in, can't seem to find it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Der Statistiker, can we keep 'other page' discussions about other editors out of this article discussion in particular please?

@Blofeld, I edited that phrase this morning because it was in error, and replaced it with a shorter and widely-known fact referenced by a relevant source. THEPROMENADER 14:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That was me - I didn't add the text, but I think I did the reference. Mea culpa, so thanks for fixing it.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 15:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ermagerd, another one. "Val de Seine, straddling the 15th arrondissement and the communes of Issy-les-Moulineaux and Boulogne-Billancourt to the south-west of central Paris is the new media hub of Paris and France, hosting the headquarters of most of France's TV networks such as TF1, France 2 and Canal+.[138]" is referenced by a vague map in a Microsoft Windows 8 guide. THEPROMENADER 15:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Of the most luxurious of these, the Hôtel Ritz appeared in the Place Vendôme in 1898,[196]" is linked to a book about the life of a relatively obscure (although strange) Paris celebrity. I'm seeing many links to inaccessible Google books (the pages cited don't even appear, and we can't access them unless we know the keywords the contributor used to turn up the pages cited). Searching on... THEPROMENADER 16:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

References for the Val de Seine business district can be found in the SDRIF of the Île-de-France region, but there are hundreds of pages to go through to find the proper reference. It's one of the so-called "territoires de projet" that they have defined if I remember correctly. Otherwise there are simple newspaper articles that mention it, for example this one: [1]. Or pictures: [2]. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a few things in http://www.apur.org/sites/default/files/documents/273.pdf (the part titled "industries culturelles"). It is not very detailed, and slightly outdated, but I think it can be a useful document if we want to describe the economic geography of Paris.--Superzoulou (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC) edit: Actually, it does not directly mention Val-de-Seine, but http://www.apur.org/sites/default/files/documents/192.pdf does. --Superzoulou (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of purely 'hunting down' weak/erronous references one by one, it would be more productive to concentrate on the article itself - the contributor focused on a section would most probably be knowledgeable about what he/she is writing about, so perhaps it would be more productive to let him/her judge the quality of the references as he/she edits, and the same would most probably already know good/better ones. I spent only a half hour chasing down references, and for sure it's a time-wasting PITA (because of the three-step process it takes to do it). Just iterating my thoughts. THEPROMENADER 20:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, what's the point of spending time editing the article if the hours we're gonna spend on our edits are going to be either reverted (as were ALL my edits in early July by SchroCat, not just one or two edits, but all of them, including reverting back to outdated 2009 census figures), or completely rewritten afterwards. I'd gladly participate in the improvement of the article, but for the moment I can't see why I would spend hours of my time on it just to have everything reverted by Blofeld & co. afterwards. Your thoughts? Der Statistiker (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Care to back up your lies with diffs? I reverted one of your edits (twice) - your monumental statistics bloat: not all your edits. If you're going to carry on churning out your bad faith bile, please at least try to keep it truthful. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You reverted this edit [3], this edit [4], this edit [5], this edit [6], this edit [7], this edit [8], this edit [9], this edit [10], this edit [11], this edit [12], this edit [13], and this edit [14], all 12 of them reverted by you in two big blanket reverts ([15] and [16]). Time wasted by me: 3 hours (to research data, write them down in the article, write proper citations, reword parts of the article and move things around to remove information repeated twice, etc.), 3 hours of work reverted by you in 9 minutes, with only this single explanation: "Not really an improvement" (!). Der Statistiker (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverting a series of edits remains a single revert. It would also be helpful to the discussion if you stopped trying to personalize everything. Focus on the content, not the contributors. Resolute 23:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted this single edit, after you had reverted Blofeld's removal of it. After Blofedl removed it you should have come to the talk page (it's what WP:BRD strongly advises users to do), but instead you went into edit war mode right up to the limit of 3RR. So, I reverted one of your edits, which were not an improvement overall. The 2009 figures may have been germane, but the monumental statistics bloating deserved to die a horrible death: it was not an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody will be reverting any edits that are a real improvement to the article. The above 'Lumière = Haussmann" example is a good one - how can anyone in good faith revert that? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 04:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

By what I've seen so far, during the short but massive rewrite, it seems that one or two contributors were doing the rewrite, and others were 'following up' with references for the text written. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how else can one explain, Gilderien, "That was me - I didn't add the text, but I think I did the reference."? Or was the 'Haussmann' phrase I corrected from a much earlier version of the article? Either way, one could basically write anything in the article content, say, "Paris is a communist city", and I'm sure if another editor searching for a reference in google books, something will turn up, say, this. This sort of 'team work' doesn't work, and I don't understand the motivation for working in this way - was there some sort of 'rush', or 'goal' to get this article to GA status? The result is an article that, at first sight, ~technically~ looks right, but I doubt that most GA reviewers verify the veracity of article content (although they should) and chase down references (although they should) - if they did, I don't think this article would have GA status today. THEPROMENADER 04:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's my impression too. Some people seem to favor form over content, which is very counter-productive. And how can you discuss with people who won't even recognize what they have done, as per SchroCat above? Der Statistiker (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, I reverted ONE of your edits (which may have been constituted of a series of previous edits), but was still ONE edit. It was part of your edit warring while trying to force your personal choice on the article you consider that you own. See, I recognise and know exactly what I have done: you seem to be the one with problems identifying what has happened, and have real problems in telling the truth about it afterwards, even when the diffs are presented to you. The only other thing I will say is that—as numerous others have tried to impress on you—it may be more productive if you try and keep to the point and discuss the edits, rather than other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(Waving, pointing upward) Can we have conversations about something other than hurt feelings and accusations? Was I right about the rewrite referencing? Perhaps some input from the authours would be nice. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Waou, not even the authours will answer - I take their silence as confirmation. It there a 'GA trophy wall' somewhere that someone's hell-bent on filling? Pffffft - moving on. THEPROMENADER 12:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You were wrong. Unfortunately being 9 hours behind you and travelling for 24 hours is a little obstructive to replying to all your comments as soon as I would like to. I left a note on your talk page.--Gilderien Talk to me|List of good deeds 14:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my earlier post, was in a bad mood. Okay, so the references in question were added to old content. I'm still wondering at the usefulness of Google books references if we can't even access the pages cited - again, we'd have to know the google search terms used to turn those pages up. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I rather suspect that Google Books varies what you can look at based on location, but in any case I would assume it would be relatively easy to find the page needed (search the page number?).--Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 13:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to search by page number. Shouldn't this sort of thing be researched ~before~ referencing? Again, with references like this, the article ~seems~ to be referenced, when in fact, it is not. Doing a search for text already written in google books is a lazy practice - the 'referencer' is bound to find something that corresponds to his writ - but the reference may not have at all anything to do with the phrase referenced, as in the example that started this thread. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Demographics

As I think the demographic section should be improved, I have started a new version. It is quicker than trying to define a lengthier layout, and that might help to come up with new ideas. A few remarks:

• some things remain to be done (at least improving style and formatting...)
• I have tried to balance Paris proper / Paris urban area. I do no know if that is the way to go, but I think we should settle for one unique solution for the whole article.
• I have tried to remain quite short, and avoid overly detailed figures (they can easily to find in the reference given anyway. I do not think it is useful to provide population figures with high level of precision outside infoboxes and tables. That sounds a bit strange, and people looking for precise data should go directly to the sources provided, and there are several ways to measure the population anyway). I would gladly make something a bit longer, as it seems to me that a baic grasp of the demographic data is essential if we really want to understand a city. But I suppose that it is a matter of personal taste and education.
• I have trimmed down a part that was rather overplaying the high density aspect. Actually, it is not true that the density "could be compared only with some Asian megapolises and the New York City borough of Manhattan". It can be compared to Barcelona or Cairo for instance, and if we focus on more local levels, we can find very high densities in many places.
• I have removed "The city's population loss was one of the most severe among international municipalities", it is not properly sourced, and I do not think it is true.
• I have removed "Reasons for the migration include deindustrialisation, high rent, the gentrification of many inner quarters, the transformation of living space into offices, and greater affluence among working families.". I think that it is true but leaves out the most important part, the improvement in transports. In any case, we need a proper source.
• Much relies on a single French-language source -INSEE-, I guess that we could find others if we want to make a more developed article, but really, it is the main source for best source for most demographic statistics about France.
• I have tried to provide the same kind of content as in other similar articles, but there is no ethnicity section, contrary to what we have for American and British cities, the most obvious reason for this is that ethnic statistics are banned in France.
• I do not know what to do with the religion section. It is probably part of the demographics or sociology, but we actually have very little reliable data. So we are left with "christianity has been important in the city history", which should rather go to the history section, and "there are many bautiful churches" in Paris, which is more about tourism/landmarks. The French article does not contain any religion section.
• I have refocused immigration on the current situation. If we are to keep things short, I do not think that 19th century immigration should be the priority.

Current

City proper, urban area, and metropolitan area population from 1800 to 2010 The population of the city of Paris was 2,234,105 at the 2009 census, lower than its historical peak of 2.9 million in 1921. The principal factors in the process are a significant decline in household size, and a dramatic migration of residents to the suburbs between 1962 and 1975. Reasons for the migration include deindustrialisation, high rent, the gentrification of many inner quarters, the transformation of living space into offices, and greater affluence among working families. The city's population loss was one of the most severe among international municipalities and as a result the city administration is trying to reverse them with some success, as the population estimate of July 2004 showed a population increase for the first time since 1954, reaching a total of 2,144,700 inhabitants, which reached 2,244,000 by 2010. Paris is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Its density, excluding the outlying woodland parks of Boulogne and Vincennes, was 24,448 inhabitants per square kilometre (63,320/sq mi) in the 1999 official census, which could be compared only with some Asian megapolises and the New York City borough of Manhattan. Even including the two woodland areas, its population density was 20,169/km2 (52,240/sq mi), the fifth-most-densely populated commune in France after Le Pré-Saint-Gervais, Vincennes, Levallois-Perret, and Saint-Mandé—all of which border the city proper. The most sparsely populated quarters are the western and central office and administration-focused arrondissements. The city's population is densest in the northern and eastern arrondissements; the 11th arrondissement had a density of 40,672 inhabitants per square kilometre (105,340/sq mi) in 1999, and some of the same arrondissement's eastern quarters had densities close to 100,000/km2 (260,000/sq mi) in the same year. At the 1999 census, 19.4 per cent of its total population was born outside of metropolitan France. At the same census, 4.2 per cent of the Paris aire urbaine's population were recent immigrants (people who had emigrated to France between 1990 and 1999), the majority from Asia and Africa. 37 per cent of all immigrants in France live in the Paris region. The first wave of international migration to Paris started as early as 1820 with the arrivals of German peasants fleeing an agricultural crisis in their homeland. Several waves of immigration followed continually until today: Italians and central European Jews during the 19th century; Russians after the revolution of 1917 and Armenians fleeing genocide in the Ottoman Empire; colonial citizens during World War I and later; Poles between the two world wars; Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, and North Africans from the 1950s to the 1970s; North African Jews after the independence of those countries; Africans and Asians since then.

Proposed

As of 2010, the population of Paris proper stood around 2.3 millions, while that of Paris unité urbaine, roughly corresponding to the city and the surrounding built-up area was about 10.5 millions. Though substantially lower than at its peak in the early 1920s, the density of the city proper is one of the highest in the developed world. Compared to the rest of France, the main features of the Parisian population are a high average income, relatively young median age, high proportion of international migrants and high economic inequalities. Similar characteristics are found in other large cities throughout the World. Population evolution The population of the city proper reached a maximum shortly after World War I, with nearly 3 millions inhabitants, and then decreased for the rest 20th century to the benefit of the suburbsMost of the decline occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when it fell from 2.8 to 2.2 million. This trend toward de-densification of the centre was also observed in other large cities like London and New York City. Since the beginning of 21th century, the population of Paris has tended once again to rise, regaining more than 100,000 inhabitants between 1999 and 2009 despite a persistent migratory deficit and a fecundity rate well below 2. The population growth is explained by the high proportion of people in the 18-40 age range who are most likely to have children. Density Paris population density reaches 22,000 inhabitants per square kilometer - 25,000 if the outlying Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes are taken out. It is one of the highest in the developed world, only slighly lower than Manhattan. The residential density tends to be higher in the Eastern part of the city, while the centre-West contains more offices aris urban unit (built-up area) extends well beyond the city limits, and comprises all of the surrounding départements of Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis, and Essonne, as well as substantial portions of Yvelines, Val-d'Oise, Seine-et-Marne and Essonne. It includes heavily built-up inner suburbs, with densities comparable to those of Paris itself, as well as more distant and more sparsely populated areas. The average density for the whole urban unit is below 4,000 /km2. Income Though low wages are relatively similar in all Metropolitan France, high wages are higher and more numerous in the Paris region The median income for 2011 was around 25,000 euros in Paris against 22,200 for Île-de-France and 19,200 for the whole Metropolitan France, ranging from 16,400€ in the 19tharrondissement to 41,800 in the 7th . Generally speaking, incomes are higher in the Western part of the city, and in the Western surburbs than in the Northern and Eastern parts of the urban area. Migration About one third of foreign immigrants to France settle in the Île-de-France region, about a third of which in Paris proper. Twenty percent of Paris population either is a foreigner or was a foreigner at birth, and 40% of children have at least one immigrant parent. Most immigrants come from Europe or Africa: out of the 300,000 foreigner officially living in Paris in 2010, 29,000 were Algerians, 28,000 were Portuguese and 21,000 were Moroccans. 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. Population exchanges between the Paris region and the rest of France are relatively intense. About one half of region population was not born there. In total, net migration flows are strongly negative, but it is heavily age dependent. While many retired people leave Paris for the Southern and Western parts of France, internatl migration flows are positive in the 18-30 age range.

That's a sight better, Superzoulou (you forgot so sign!), especially with the visual - to hide nothing, of my making - that instantly shows how far Paris' urban spread actually goes. I actually made that graphic to end a long-standing argument about 'how big Paris really is' - the red part is the actual 'city' density (closely-grouped buildings) and the pinky parts are looser agglomerations whose populalations (above a certain percentage of) commute to the urban area... I'm sure you know all that already, but perhaps a word of explanation would be useful to other contributors. In short, Paris' (and France's) demographic scheme is so much different than other countries that it deserves more than a brief explanation. A 'commune' system little changed since its creation (the late 1700's), Paris' borders almost unchanged since 1860, and the INSEE (France's cencus bureau) base all of their data on the same administrative subdivisions... Paris isn't the 'Five Boroughs' for sure.THEPROMENADER 14:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: The map/graph duo is a ~damn~ informative one: look at the map, see the spread of each area, look down to the graph, see what's going on there. Bravo for finding that ; ) THEPROMENADER 06:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good, but can you add references after punctuation and fill out the urls with Template:Cite web? Needs a copyedit and reword in parts and I'd prefer to give exact figures on population census rather than approx, but I like your idea for it Superzoulou.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I had already added the references, but forgot the references/ at the bottom. I'll do the templating, but would rather wait until we have the definitive text. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

His name is ThePromenader, not Superzoulou. Regarding The Promenader's proposal:

No that was me ;). --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you forgot to sign! Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

2019 Census Paris Region (Île-de-France)

Country/territory of birth	Population
Metropolitan France	9,215,134
Algeria	330,935
Morocco	253,518
Portugal	234,399
Tunisia	127,827
Guadeloupe	81,269
Martinique	75,959
China	71,500
Turkey	67,982
Mali	66,085
Côte d'Ivoire	63,810
Senegal	60,124
Italy	58,141
Romania	53,848
Democratic Republic of Congo	52,449
Spain	45,828
Sri Lanka	45,786
Cameroon	45,370
Republic of the Congo	38,651
Haiti	36,685
Poland	35,871
Vietnam	35,251
Cambodia	30,321
Réunion	30,077
India	29,623
Serbia	25,632
Lebanon	21,066
Madagascar	21,002
Germany	20,523
Pakistan	20,178
Russia	19,019
Mauritius	18,840
Guinea	18,709
Brazil	17,887
United Kingdom	17,789
United States	17,583
Other countries and territories	857,720

• I broadly agree with it, although there are little things that will probably need to be tweaked here and there, but it would be too long to detail. For example, it should be "About one third of foreign immigrants to France have settled" instead of "About one third of foreign immigrants to France settle", because the number of immigrants living in the Paris Region is of course the reflection of past migrations. The percentage of immigrants who arrive in France now and settle in the Paris Region is probably much higher than 33% (ancient flows of immigration were less focused on the Paris Region).~

One third is for recent immigrants, apparently meanining something like 2000-2005 http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?reg_id=20&ref_id=16769. I have not found the detailed figures, but they must be available somewhere. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought it would have been more. In any case, that stat (people arrived in the last 5 years), was exactly the one I had in mind to find a current figure (for current waves of immigrants). Your document is a bit old though (2006). We have the 2008 figures now (INSEE changed the methodology in 2009 I think so no data more recent than 2008), although I see the tables are currently unavailable on the INSEE website, and this being France, the technical problem won't be solved until the end of August. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would insist less on the evolution of population in the city proper and more on the evolution of population in the whole urban/metro area. Reading the previous demographics section and your proposed one, it would seem Paris was a city in decline, and now, since Delanoë came to power, it is suddenly growing again. In fact, Paris always kept growing (except during WW2), but people were moving to the suburbs, and now there is a tendency to go back to the inner city, as is happening in many other Western cities (NYC, London, Tokyo, many German cities, etc.), even though the suburbs are still growing of course. We should present this big picture, instead of a narrow look at the inner city proper, and contextualize it in light of what's happening for inner cities in the rest of the Western world.

Yes, I am not sure how we should handle that, but we should settle on a single solution for all sections (demographics, economy, etc.) --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no obvious way to do it, because we don't necessarily have all data for all geographic levels. Sometimes we have data only for the Paris Region, sometimes for the Paris metro area (aire urbaine), sometimes for the city proper. It's better to be flexible and use the best data we have for each subject, as long as we specify each time to what geographical level the data refer to. In general, the most available data are for the Paris Region. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit wary about switching to and fro between different topic just because it is easier for the writer. Sometimes, it may be necessary to use a different area as a proxy, but most of the time I think we should be able to find the data we need.

Note that there is also an article about Paris aire urbaine. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also an article about Demographics of Paris. ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my point was that if we want to talk about the greater Paris area, we can use dedicated articles, whereas we have no articles specifically called "Paris (city proper)" so that it might make sense to focus the Paris article on the city proper.

We can create a City of Paris article to discuss specifically issues related to the 20 arrondissements. This will be even more needed once the Métropole du Grand Paris is created. Brussels deals essentially with the Brussels Region, and then there is a special City of Brussels article for the city proper. Same with London. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've heard this suggestion many times before, but there is no call for it as far as far as Paris is concerned. "Greater London" is known even officially as "London" (and the "City of London" is ~tiny~, known also as "The Square Mile") - comparing Paris to this is comparing apples to oranges. As for the "Métropole du Grand Paris", let's wait and see if it will officially called "Paris" - if not, there will be a need to create a new article called "Greater Paris Metropole", if so, we will have to modify this article. THEPROMENADER 18:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• For once, I agree with Blofeld in the need for exact figures instead of approximate figures such as "one third", because as a reader, such approximate figures always make me doubt of their accuracy. When some data come from an official serious source, the figures quoted are usually exact figures. Approximate figures tend to come in general from 2nd or 3rd sources, and I always tend to doubt them as a reader.

To my knowledge I've agreed with you on most of the points you've brought up so far on most things except restoring the full length demo and admin sections in the main article which I don't think you really support anyway, so I'm not sure why you think I'm totally disagreeable with you, quite the opposite actually.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

One trouble with exact figures is that they require some rather lengthy qualification. It does not mean much to say 2,343,454 people in 2011.if you do not tell whether it is the beginning or the end of the year, and the way they are computed. The INSEE sometimes use alternative definition of populations, and the criteria have changed a bit over time. Exact figures may give a misleading sense of accuracy and comparability. I have mostly used INSEE studies and statistics as a source, and there is a link to more detailed figures in the reference. --Superzoulou (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's why whenever I have edited this article (and other articles), I have always indicated the exact date for each figure (for example "Jan. 2011"). Exact figures not only give an air of seriousness to the reader, but their great usefulness is that they allow a search on Google, whereas an approximate figure is of no use on Google (don't forget that web links change quite often, so most likely in 2 or 3 years time most of the web links in the citations here will be dead links, but readers will always be able to retrieve the sources by putting the exact figures in the Google search engine). Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This would be a perfect example of a need for 'floating footnotes' - the text would contain approximate figures, but it would be great if a link (blue '*'?) after it, when hovered, opened a tooltip containing exact figures. Does this exist already? THEPROMENADER 21:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia, hovering over a note provides with the text of the note, but apperently it does not yet work on talk pages. Perhaps we could have something like "As of 2010, the population of Paris was 2.25 million(look at the note)

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
(Île-de-France)
Country/territory of birth Population Metropolitan France 9,215,134 Algeria 330,935 Morocco 253,518 Portugal 234,399 Tunisia 127,827 Guadeloupe 81,269 Martinique 75,959 China 71,500 Turkey 67,982 Mali 66,085 Côte d'Ivoire 63,810 Senegal 60,124 Italy 58,141 Romania 53,848 Democratic Republic of Congo 52,449 Spain 45,828 Sri Lanka 45,786 Cameroon 45,370
Other countries/territories Republic of the Congo 38,651 Haiti 36,685 Poland 35,871 Vietnam 35,251 Cambodia 30,321   Réunion 30,077 India 29,623 Serbia 25,632 Lebanon 21,066 Madagascar 21,002 Germany 20,523 Pakistan 20,178 Russia 19,019 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)

Images

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 Thermes de Cluny at the 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)

Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre by Huguenot painter François Dubois

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)

Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry - Octobre

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)

"Etymology"

Shouldn"t that be called "Names" ? To me an "etymology" section should only be about the etymology of Paris, but this one actually describes the various nicknames of the city. --Superzoulou (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

True that 'etymology' is a useful title if we only discuss the origins of the city's modern name, Paris. How about 'City Names' or... 'Appelation' ? THEPROMENADER 18:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

'Toponym' would be an even more fitting title, IMHO. THEPROMENADER 11:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Toponym seems more suitable, agreed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That should be "toponyms" with an s, shouldn't it ? --Superzoulou (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, since there are many... I think we all agree, go ahead and change it! THEPROMENADER 05:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, it would have been nice to let Superzoulou make the change - it was his suggestion, after all. Cheers.THEPROMENADER 09:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference who makes the changes, at least to editors on here who don't have a resentment of others and serious ownership issues.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about basic politeness, and it's usually the editor rushing to make a change (before anyone else can touch 'his' article) who has ownership issues. THEPROMENADER 05:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Paris in... the Arts.

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)

Fortune 500 vs CAC 40

It has been mentionned in previous threads, but I though I'd have to readd it in light of this edit. Should we have say that Paris is a headquarter of 34 Fortune 500 company, or that it is the headerquarter of most major French companies. To me the Fortune 500 thing does not make much sense in the lead, because the list changes every year, and may remain outdated more often than not, and more importantly because a Fortune 500 ranking is strongly affected by structural artefacts. Frand has many large companies but not so many mid-sized ones. Paris may have more Fortune 500 companies than New York City, but I doubt that anyone can seriously claim it makes Paris more "important" or "powerful" economically than New York. --Superzoulou (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, the Fortune 500 figure is updated every year by some editors here, so no need to worry about an outdated figure (besides, there are many outdated figures in this article, starting with the 2009 census figures which SchroCat reverted to after I had updated with the 2010 figures!). Regarding what you call "structural artifacts", I don't see where the problem is. It is a fact that France has many large companies, so why trying to hide it because, according to you, the country has less mid-sized ones? Stating that country A has many large companies is just a fact, and Wikipedia is about collecting facts. It doesn't imply that country A also has many mid-sized companies. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: I completely agree with the comment by that anonymous IP by the way. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a fact that France has many large companies. It may make sense to mention it inside the article., but a city economic importance, whatever that means, is only loosely correlated to the number of headquarters of large companies. Well actually, I am sort of ok with it they way it is, associated with "high concentration of national and international political, cultural and scientific institutions", as long as it is not coupled "weasely" claim to being an "engine of the global economy". --Superzoulou (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Paris is not an engine of the global economy?? Der Statistiker (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not know, I do not know what "engine of the global economy means" (or rather, I could make up definitions that would make the claim more or less true, and other that would not). --Superzoulou (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Changing the photo at the start of article

I propose to change the photo montage at the start of the article, and replace it with the single view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense that appears at the start of the Paris articles in French, Japanese, Portuguese, Chinese, and various other languages. Several people here have already said they preferred the single general view of Paris, rather than a montage of tourist attractions (Paris is not a tourist theme park, that would be Disneyland Paris). The montage also infringes French copyright laws (views of Pei's pyramid at the Louvre are copyrighted; there is no freedom of panorama in France). Given that the usual suspects will revert any attempt to remove the montage championed by Dr Blofeld, I think it's best to vote on this. So express your views. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You can forget the copyright infringement argument: I had a conversation with the author of the photo himself (about another issue, the SNTE's copyright claims) last night. Someone tried (again... and again...) to have his Louvre photo - the one used in the montage - deleted, and you can find the quite informative discussion around this here. What really should be an issue is Versailles' presence in the montage. Anyhow, cheers. THEPROMENADER 05:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In favor of the photo change

1. I'm in favor of replacing the photo montage of tourist attractions with the single general view of Paris (Eiffel Tower and La Défense), for the reasons stated above. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
2. You can put my vote here, but I do think going to such lengths (including Paris' suburbs in the photo) to make Paris itself look 'Manhattan-y' is a bit ridiculous. Paris is a unique in that it has (to date) no skyscrapers, so I don't see the point in trying to hide that. But ok. THEPROMENADER 20:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
3. I couldn't agree more. Why should this article follow the dominant trend, with a lead picture looking like a postcard ? Mouloud47 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
4. I'm in favor of the photo change. The picture shows well the very unique urban fabric of the city with its dense collection of stone buildings, the Eiffel tower in the foreground making it instantly recognizable and both Bois de Boulogne and La Défense far away in the background giving depth to the picture and symbolizing the economic importance of the Paris region. Metropolitan (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. I generally prefer single images, but that is a matter of taste. But as stated in a previous discussion, I am not sure File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg. I do not agree that it "shows well the very unique urban fabric of the city". The zoom and the frame distort distances, and makes Paris look like it a city of parks and skyscrapers, which are certainly not its distinguishing features. La Défense is an increasingly important business center, but its architecture is not very typical of the Paris urban area, and I do not see a major need to feature it here. These problems are less pronounced in File:Pano_0519.jpg even though the technical quality may be lower. --Superzoulou (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

23% of the City of Paris (within administrative borders) is made up of parks, gardens, and woods, as this view reminds us: [18]. That's nearly one-quarter of the city that is parkland. I would call that a distinguishing feature. As for La Défense not being typical of the Paris urban area, then Manhattan is also not typical of the New York urban area. Should we therefore have no view of Manhattan in the NYC infobox and show only Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn low rise buildings? Der Statistiker (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, much of the green area in this view is not inside Paris (Parc de Saint Cloud and Parc de Brimborin in Sèvres if I am not mistaken ;). --Superzoulou (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. All of the green area in this view is the Bois de Boulogne. It is entirely within the administrative limits of the City of Paris, except the part most to the right (to the right of the elevated freeway), which is inside the administrative borders of Boulogne-Billancourt. Sèvres and St Cloud do not appear in this view (which was taken from St Cloud actually). Der Statistiker (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

...and Manhattan may not be ~all~ of New York City, but it ~is~ the centre. Towers make the centre of many of the world's Capitals, but La Defense can't be represented in that way here: it is a suburbs-unique (and even France-unique) island of towers not even in Paris: trying to show otherwise in a Paris article would be at best considered misleading, and at worst considered a lie. I understand that many here (including myself) would like the world to see Paris as a 'kick-ass Metropolis' and not a place of backwards laws and touristy clichés, but if we're going to remain honest, we're going to have to wait a while and tell things how they are while we do. THEPROMENADER 17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The image shows both, the Haussmannian mid-rise buildings of Central Paris, and the high-rise buildings of La Défense, so we have the old and the new in one view, plus the Eiffel Tower on top of it. It's rare to have so many things in one view. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You meant 'mid-rise buildings of Paris', right? THEPROMENADER 17:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of the photo change: the héterogeneity of the city needs to be highlightedClouchicloucha (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Against the photo change

1. Obviously not. Also, it seems that Der Stat, you are the only one who is saying it is a copyright infringement. Could you explain in more detail? My understanding is that this should be discussed on Commons anyway.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 04:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. I can see the argument for one single image, but in my opinion the montage just looks of higher quality, and better reflects Paris's most notable landmarks than the one image of the Eiffel showing the business district of the suburbs. If anything it's a cliche just to have an image of the Eiffel, and with the high risers in the background it is indeed trying to look like NYC. I think the montage betters reflects Paris's architectural/cultural heritage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. I would go along with the current approach but agree that the Versailles image should be replaced with one taken in Paris itself. It seems to me that despite the fact that many other wikis have the Eiffel Tower as the lead image, the montage brings us into a new level of sophistication. So let's continue to work on that basis.-Ipigott (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

   Sophistication to the detriment of information I would say. What's shown in that touristy photo montage are tourist sites and touristy neighborhoods of Paris which the Parisians seldom ever frequent. It is clearly "Paris as seen by the tourists", which is not surprising since those insisting on using that montage do not live in Paris and are only tourists to the city. If the photo montage was meant to inform readers about the real Paris in which Parisians live, work, go out, then it would rather show areas such as Bastille (the streets around, not the column), Montparnasse, Belleville, St Lazare, and uh, well, La Défense, where tens of thousands of Parisians work and shop every day. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

4. As per my comments below, I'd stick with the montage - and of places known around the world as being representative of Paris - as per WP:LEADIMAGE. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Strongly opposed to changing the image. The idea of the photo is to give an idea of Paris, and I think the current photo does that very well. The proposed image of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense given a very distorted image of Paris. In Paris, there are hardly any skyscrapers, the proposed image gives the impression it's a major US city. (Strictly speaking, La Défense isn't even in Paris). The proposed image is already used in the article on La Défense, and it suits that article well. It's a picture of La Défense, it's not a picture of Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

New photo montage?

Ok, I've just made a new montage by using pictures from Wikimedia Commons. I've tried to make it less touristy and more resident-oriented, with, for example, views of the Rue de Rennes shopping district, the Pompidou Centre, the Rue Sainte Anne Japanese district, and La Défense. I've also tried to mix the old and the new, because Paris didn't stop in 1900. I still prefer a single view for the Infobox, but if a montage absolutely needs to be used, then I think this one would be infinitely preferable to the current touristy montage. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I quite like this montage, though I am a bit wary that the image of Beaubourg will get deleted, as Commons tend to be very strict in the enforcement of French copyright law (the idea is that buildings can only be photographed when the architect has been dead for at least 70 years...). --Superzoulou (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the view of the Pompidou Centre has a Free Art License: [19]. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a vote, but I do think it would look better if the Eiffel scene filled the entire top third, and the Pompidou image filled the entire bottom third... but that depends on the Pompidou Centre image's (cough) 'right' to be there. Nice balance of 'raw known' ('known' referring to the Eiffel tower; the top image is not 'daintified' at all, or it shows 'the city as it is'), the middle image is 'lovely known', and the bottom is... 'modern abstract'. That's the message I get, anyways, and the mix of the three could be quite powerful. Just my two cents. THEPROMENADER 17:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried that, but it's nearly impossible. The Eiffel Tower, due to its vertical structure, cannot appear as the entire top third (that was my initial intention), because there is not enough width compared to height. Same with the Pompidou Centre. There is simply not enough width compared to height, at least for the pictures I've seen at Wikimedia Commons. Also, this montage contains 5 photos, which seems more or less the average for city montages. A montage with only 3 photos would have significantly less photos than all other city montages I've seen, and might destroy the dynamic effect of the montage. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it was just my opinion - cheers ; ) THEPROMENADER 18:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Better still, why don't we put photo candidate suggestions up here and agree on them for a montage?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about the top and bottom right pics: WP:LEADIMAGE suggests that "The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic", and I'm not sure that the two rather anonymous locations do that at all. You may rail against the fat that the current montage has a number of well-known locations, but those locations are exactly what many people from outside Paris think of when they think of the city. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The montage I've made contains already 3 well-known locations (Eiffel Tower, Louvre, Pompidou Centre), even 4 if we consider that La Défense is also well-known outside of France now. It's ok to show less well-known locations besides these, to make a contrast. It arouses the curiosity of the readers, whereas a photo montage containing only pompous views of tourist sites so well-known that they have become almost clichés (like the Sacré Coeur) is tedious in the extreme. A city is also made up of its streets, and it's crazy that the Paris montage didn't even include views of city streets. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's taken as read by most people that a city is made up of streets! As I've already said, those two images don't help readers identify with the topic. They may, of course, be entirely suitable in the relevant sections about those local areas of the city, but not really in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Although I am pleased to see that the new montage does not contain the Palace of Versailles, it has nothing like the impact of the former montage. I know Paris extremely well and have seen it evolve over the past 60 years. For me, the original montage was not a "tourist" appreciation of the city but simply emphasized some of the more outstanding landmarks. In my opinion, the tubes of the Pompidou Centre are not typical of the historic monuments of the city. May I humbly suggest that we work on the original montage with, for example, an image of Notre Dame or Sacré Coeur to replace Versailles. My Parisian friends are as proud of their churches as they are of the other landmarks in the montage. We should not forget the historic role the square outside Notre Dame played during the liberation in 1944. I would therefore suggest Notre Dame as the replacement image.--Ipigott (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The past ("churches", "1944", "historic monuments"). Do you realize your comment and proposal seem to be stuck in the past? Are there any landmarks from the past 30 years in your list, or did Paris stop in 1900? Is this an article about Paris in 2013 or about Paris in 1900? There is already Britannica 1911 for the Paris of 1900. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to be incivil. A few crappy 1960's-70's architecture experiments aside and a building here or there since then, Paris is stuck in 1860 as far as I'm concerned (and I work with the APUR!). How about forgetting the 'International Towers and Power' race (that seems to have swallowed many Wiki 'big city' article editors) and making an article that ~really~ represents this city? Paris will grow one day soon. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 23:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

« Paris is stuck in 1860 »? Then the image should not show the Eiffel tower if nothing really significant was built since 1860... Or did you mean 1960? Seudo (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I started off my comment meaning 'stuck border-wise' and I guess I digressed… of course a lot has happened building-wise since 1860! Sorry 'bout that. THEPROMENADER 09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So the Institut du Monde Arabe, the Quai Branly Museum, the Louvre Pyramid, the Louis Vuitton Foundation, the National Library of France, and many more (Cité de la Musique, La Géode, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, etc.) never happened I suppose. The 1999 census also found out that a majority of the housing stock in Paris was built after WW1, and more than a third of the housing stock was built after WW2. And these figures refer to the city of Paris within its administrative limits, they don't even include the suburbs. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The buildings you list are isolated; nowhere in Paris, save the Front-de-Seine and that horrible 'ilôt' behind the quai de la Rapée are there entire blocks of tall or modern buildings (and even these are hardly worthy of mention in the 'international tower race'). Paris is at least 80% either buildings in the 'Hausmannian style' or are (preserving the style of) more 'normal' pre-Haussmann style buildings (back streets, Belleville, Menilmontant, etc). Aside from a post WWII-1970's 'relaxation', the Haussman-era 'alignement' law (itself actually a revision of an unenforced law created by Napoleon I) has been in effect since its creation. And that is the entire story, not just a selective part of it. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I was discussing the age of the buildings, not the height. They are forcing a montage that shows only the old Paris from before 1900, completely disregarding the Paris that has been built in the past 100 years, and when I propose as a compromise a montage that shows both the old and the modern Paris (since they also refuse a single view in the infobox), they oppose it immediately without even acknowledging that it could have any quality. It's like talking to a wall of prejudice! Der Statistiker (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So what do we do, show images of La Villette, the former PCF headquarters, the Montparnasse tower (that most Parisians disdain) and tell people that's 'Paris'? There's only a few images in a montage, and doing that would generate a 'wtf?' in anyone knowing anything about the city. It's like going into a room full of blue pillars with a few red pillars here and there, and taking photos of mostly red pillars to show 'this is that room'.

I don't think the montage I've made shows only "red pillars". Der Statistiker (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Paris never got into the late-19th century 'skyscraper race', and have obstinately refused to do so since then, and that's a fact. Paris' wealth is indeed great, and its international influence also, but it's managed behind a facade that is quite different from any skyscraper/'modernist' model, and that should be told as it is. THEPROMENADER 07:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What does this comment have to do with the montage I've made? Der Statistiker (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you just feigning ignorance? In the cas contraire: I'm sure it's possible to find images that are 'un-touristy', 'un-individual modern building-y' and 'un-suburb-tower-y' that better represent Paris. THEPROMENADER 11:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Montage of Paris' Eiffel Tower and Louvre Museum

Is this any better? The tweaks in the upper photo were quickly done (too contrasty to my taste) and I'll probably eliminate it later as it's just an example. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 11:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That one could work too. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking again, the Eiffel image is esthetically not very nice - out of alignment, and that haze - but that's the best you can get if you want absolutely that the Eiffel Tower and La Defense are in the same picture, and that's what you get with Paris' 'periph' smog (about midway between the two locales) and the (at least) 300mm lens used to make the La Defense look 'closer' to the Eiffel tower (almost 5km between the two as the bird flies). There must be something better out there. THEPROMENADER 22:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just replace the photo of Versailles with something else for now. Versailles is not only not in Paris (or even bordering it), it spent decades as another Capital of France - an ironic note to a misleading message. THEPROMENADER 10:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A unique photo ?

I do like the idea of a unique photo. THEPROMENADER 18:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: I'm just adding to the discussion - the only thing we're voting on is whether the existing photo should go or not. THEPROMENADER 18:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Tour Eiffel Wikimedia Commons.jpg looks good by itself at 275px.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It does look good. The City symbol, alone, no hassle. THEPROMENADER 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: Blofeld, you stole my signature font colour! Now I'm going to have to make mine all blinky or something ; ) THEPROMENADER 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It offers much less content than File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

...content... you mean suburban skyscrapers and the bois de Boulogne? Just poking : ) THEPROMENADER 20:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I do prefer the montage and don't think one image is the best way to approach the lead. However, I do see the merit of having File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg in there. It's not the best or most striking image of the tower itself, but it does show the tower in some form of context to the surrounding city. Having a small selection of the very small number of skyscrapers in the shot actually shows how few there are in the city from this shot. - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

'Context to the surrounding city'... suburbs, you mean. If one ~really~ wanted to show how few skyscrapers the city has, then he/she would simply suggest an image of the tower and Paris. THEPROMENADER 12:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Aerial view of Paris.jpg is good but it kinda looks like CGI!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

O...M...G...! That's ~beautiful~ ! I don't think it's CG - that tent in the centre of the esplanade du Trocadero (complete with power cables coming out of it) is usually set up for the 14th of July - the country's bigwigs dine and watch the fireworks (best spot, of course) from there. I wonder if the same photographer has other views of Paris too. THEPROMENADER 15:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, a WikiBot pulled it from Flickr. It's not CG, but it is HDR - a mix of over/under/correctly exposed versions of the same view. It looks unreal because neither a camera or the human eye can pick up that much data (details in the shadows (normally underexposed) and highlights (normally too bright) at the same time). Great find! THEPROMENADER 15:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

PPS: I've done HDR myself before, but that photo can't be published here. THEPROMENADER 15:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That picture may be beautiful, but it is quite outdated. Several skyscrapers have been built at La Défense since that picture was taken, and the god-awful Tour Axa was replaced with the more iconic Tour First ([20]). File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg is a much more up-to-date picture, although it will soon have to be replaced too, because three new skyscrapers are currently under construction at La Défense: Tour Carpe Diem (topped out a few months ago), Tour Majunga, and Tour D2. A general view with those three new skyscrapers: [21]. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Paris article lead picture has to be replaced every time La Defense gets a new tower? When La Defense isn't even part of Paris (yet)? Are you serious? We obviously have some 'we want skyscrapers in Paris (even if they aren't)' fans here. The POV creep in that direction is becoming a tiresome waste of time. THEPROMENADER 20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a magical looking photograph.. If we had to have one image I'd be happier with something of better quality like that. Der Stat perhaps you could have a go at a montage image with that and one of the Eiffel and Louvre or whatever and get rid of the Versailles image. I think the existing montage with File:Aerial view of Paris.jpg instead of Versailles would be an improvement. Or File:Aerial view of Paris.jpg with images of landmarks all around the edges or down either side in a strip to look less postcard-like. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Blofeld, that image is actually a view ~from~ the Eiffel Tower (not an aerial view - I looked at the authour's website), so this picture combined with a picture ~of~ the Eiffel Tower itself would make a both sensible and esthetically-pleasing duo that I'm sure would please everyone. THEPROMENADER 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem of course is that most of the images of the Eiffel are vertically oriented so it wouldn't easy to place one on top of the other. Somebody could try the "CGI" photograph with a few landmarks pictured at the sides.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that "magical looking photograph", as already explained, is that it is outdated and shows La Défense in the early 2000s, with buildings that don't even exist anymore. It would be like having a view of Manhattan with the twin towers. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

...the twin towers were ~in~ New York. La Defense is not. Stressing the importance of making a few isolated towers in the article subject's suburbs look like they're in the city itself - and stressing the importance of these towers being 'the latest version' - is ridiculous at best. Enough with the 'Paris is a modern skyscraper city too!' POV-pushing please - it's not, yet. Period. Patience, grasshopper. THEPROMENADER 05:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

La Défense is not Paris

It seems as if most of the discussions here derive from the wish of one user to showcase La Défense. I would oppose any such move, for a number of reasons.

• La Défense is not in Paris.
• La Défense is not representative of how Paris looks, quite the contrary.
• You cannot see La Défense from most parts of Paris.
  

In short, I see absolutely no reason for this article to have any image of La Défense to represent Paris, just as I would not support a picture of Slough representing London or a picture of Newark representing New York. There is an article about La Défense, we have a picture of La Défense in that article. In this article, we should stick to Paris. And preferably try to use pictures that represent Paris, and Paris is not a city of skyscrapers.Jeppiz (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg shows essentially the City of Paris within its 1860 limits. All I've been saying is if we use such a picture, we shouldn't use an outdated one from the early 2000s. And there's more than one user in favor of that picture as per the discussion above, so please do not falsely picture this as "the wish of one user bla bla bla..." Der Statistiker (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain how the picture is "outdated". If any of the buildings in it had been razed to the ground, then I could understand the point. As it is, I'm afraid I don't see how it is "outdated". In short, I haven't seen a single viable argument for why the current picture wouldn't be good. The picture you propose, on the other hand, is very unsuitable for the reasons given above.Jeppiz (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I see we have an editor who has decided to jump in the discussion without even taking the time to read it. So first off, read the above messages, and you'll understand which outdated picture I was referring to. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try to stick to factual arguments instead of discussing persons? I have read the discussion, in which no valid argument is made for why the picture would be "outdated". Jeppiz (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This comment and your previous one show that you haven't read the discussion. Pray tell me which picture I was referring to when I said "outdated"? Der Statistiker (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

...the point of whether the towers in question are 'new' or not is rather moot when you look at the section title: new or old, those towers have never been in Paris. Keep it up and I'm going to vye for keeping the (modified) montage. THEPROMENADER 19:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I wonder why La Défense is not Paris ? This district is built in the perfect match with the axe historique and included in one of the most famous perspectives of Paris with the Carrousel, the Arc de Triomphe and the Grande Arche. And then, why is the palace of Versailles included in the photo ? More far away from Paris than La Défense, not visible from anywhere except the gardens of Versailles itself, not representative of Paris urban area. Paris is also Paris Rive Gauche, Front-de-Seine, Austerlitz, many modern districts so the outdated Epinal vision of Paris by Amélie Poulain is quite the contrary of what Paris really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.13.182.45 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(Pointing to above comment) Um, really. A Paris-and-wiki-knowlegable (but Paris-deluded) anon parachutes into the discussion just when.... oh, forget it.

But, dear non-anon anon, to answer your question: 'La Défense is not Paris' because... La Defense is not Paris. THEPROMENADER 18:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If I use most arguments against la Défense.

• The Eiffel tower is not representative of how Paris looks.

So the Eiffel tower and any other monuments should not figure in the main Paris photo, we should have some Haussmann buildings, pre haussmannian 18th century buildings and 1970's to now housing buildings very common in the "outer" arrondissements and the "outer" arrondissement which are the majority of the city).

• You cannot see the Eiffel tower from most part of Paris.

The Montparnasse tower is more visible from most of the city than the Eiffel tower, the Louvre or Notre Dame, so we should have Montparnasse tower in the first picture of Paris.

• About the fact that La Défense is not in Paris.

Why still be focuced in the outdated city limits? More parisians go in La Défense everyday than in the Eiffel, Notre Dame or the Louvre (places mostly limited to tourist crowd).

In the real fonctionnal way, la Défense is more a part of Paris than those monuments.

Comparing La Defense with Slough clearly show that this editor has really a small knowledge about Paris, its realities and functioning. The distict is only at 3 km of the Arc de Triomphe and Etoile Plaza. La Défense has more its place in the picture than the Versailles castle.

The real question of all these talk is: what Paris should Wikipedia showcase?

The real functional and living Paris or the theme park that tourists imagine, you know, the romantic city where everything is old and everybody is white.Minato ku (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

'Why still be focuced in the outdated city limits?' - Paris' limits may be outdated in some people's opinion - opinion -, but they exist. Nothing outside of those limits is 'Paris'. No lawyerly argument, no matter how convincing (to any uninformed audience) will change that. Are you suggesting we throw fact to the wind, go above and beyond the government and documented fact and tell people about your 'Paris as it should be', and that it exists already? Enough already, this article has seen and rejected that a thousand times. THEPROMENADER 22:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"Nothing outside of those limits is 'Paris'." - Well the French postal services seem to disagree you, as per the postal code of La Défense, as can be seen in the mailing address of this company whose headquarters are at La Défense: [22]. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I kindly suggest you read WP:OR before you try to impose your own interpretation of where Paris is based on where a company may have its postal address.Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(Pooking left and right) Nope, in spite of that only seemingly sensible argument, Paris hasn't changed yet. Enough. See my comment in the section below. THEPROMENADER 23:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:LEADIMAGE, which suggests that "The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic". I'm not sure what else could provide a better visual association to Paris than the Eiffel Tower. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree fully. Most lead images for cities show some famous monuments and/or sights of the city. That is the point of the lead image.Jeppiz (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg precisely displays the Eiffel Tower prominently. So case solved? Der Statistiker (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. THEPROMENADER 22:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, La Défense is FULLY part of Paris, and its second business district after Paris CBD in the “triangle d’or”. You cannot except every district outside Paris Intramuros because it has no sense - The transport network is used by 12Million inhabitants who work in the region, and mainly in the inner Paris: it doesn’t make difference if you are inside the old frontiers or not - The main Airport Paris CDG, outside the official Paris, would so be considered as not included in the city? - Versailles has been the main residence of the kings of France, which capital is Paris. It is by the way direct linked with Gare Montparnasse in 15-20 minutes - The Grand Paris project is on its way! The future metro area will have the same name as the existing lines, which means lines 15-16-17-18. - The administrative limits will expands massively and officially make the administrative limits as the real Paris area - The official name of La Défense (official address for La Poste) is Paris La Défense - The Police action is getting harmonized by the authorities on all Grand Paris perimeter - You say *La Défense is not representative of how Paris looks, quite the contrary”: what does it mean? Paris, a world city, would just have only one face? You are not addressing one type of people, Wikipedia is open to every kind of people. Paris is not just a tourist city, it is, actually, the most powerful economic region in Europe. So yes, La Défense is representative of Paris. And its economic face08:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Clouchicloucha (talk)

(Looking up) Wow, there's a lot of 'one time only' revisionists parachuting in here today. I don't see any whining on user talk pages, so someone's either networking or sockpuppeting.

Anyhow, this article has heard all the above arguments a thousand times before, all of them weak WP:OR 'interpretations' that change what 'Paris' is. Rather than pushing for a 'pretend Paris' that doesn't exist yet, start a 'Paris area' or 'Paris urban area' article. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

Apparently those who want to show only a picture from outside Paris are running out of arguments. Nothing wrong with that, but their increasingly ugly arguments are displeasing. Der Statistiker keeps repeating he doesn't think I've read the discussion. Again, nothing wrong with that, just a bit silly. I don't mind if the user thinks I haven't read his posts. I have, and I've said so, and if he wants to repeat an ad hominem point instead of discussing the matter, well, just go and do it. But the low point goes to Minato ku who goes completely off track to imply that everybody who doesn't agree with his view apparently must be a racist who wants a city where "everybody is white". Did anyone say anything even remotely like that? Completely uncalled for, and a clear violation of WP:NPA.Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't told me which image I referred to when I said "outdated". Until you do, I won't believe that you have taken the time to read the discussion. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Drop the stick DS, and stop being so pushy with others. This is supposed to be a collegiate, consensus-led project, not Fight Club! - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you referred to the how La Défense looked 10 years ago, with many fever skyscrapers than today. Which in itself is a rather moot point as this is the article about Paris, not about La Défense. And I agree 100% with SchroCat.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I referred to the picture proposed by Dr Blofeld (here), a picture which both Dr Blofeld and The Promenader seemed to find great, and this is what I said regarding that picture: [23]. But you reached for your guns without even considering which picture I was referring to. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to threat this very much as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I have stated my reasons for prefering the picture currently in the article, and I stand by that.Jeppiz (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with my comment about the picture proposed by Dr Blofeld? You picked on me without even properly reading what I had said or to what picture my comment referred. I'm sure there is a WP: somewhere to describe your attitude. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Drop. The. Stick. This is hardly a constructive line: can we move on to something more positive? - SchroCat (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Paris article has had an amazingly few (knowledgeable) contributors for an article of its importance over the years (and I've been editing and following it since ~2005). Anyone making any sizeable edit has spent at least some of their time correcting/arguing with a few 'skyscraper revisionists' frustrated with Paris' lack of evolution, revisionists who try to make this article look like 'Paris' is either a) full of skyscrapers and/or b) as big as the Île-de-France. This article's talk archives shows ~reams~ of convoluted (often ad hominem and quite often uncivil) arguments to this end, but when these (arguments) ran out their propagators always, if their opponents were few, resorted to tactics like off-board networking (to call 'parachute' comments, consensus and reverting) and sockpuppetry (I think we just saw an example of one or the other above). I could even argue that the same even dissuade anyone from contributing to this article. Funny that nothing of the sort ever happened on the French Wiki article - this says a lot, actually; It's FA, by the way. THEPROMENADER 23:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the French wiki article is FA, and it has File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg as its main picture in the lead. Conclusion? Der Statistiker (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Funny that, after all I said above, the image was inserted without comment by a Lésigny-based anon contributor at 2am ~after~ the article already had FA status, in spite of an obvious consensus (see fr:talk page and link below) ~against~ the La Défense image. (After further reading) Actually the French article has seen its fair share of revisionists.

I forgot to mention: revisionists also a) ignore entire explanative replies (usually about the why of how revisionist dreams cannot be presented as reality) to give a long lawyerly reply on a single POV-serving 'fault' (in the explanative reply) and b) try to wear other contributors out. THEPROMENADER 06:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We had no "obvious consensus" against the La Défense image on the French Wikipedia. On the contrary, all the discussions on the subject lead us to keep that image. It's far from perfect, but we couldn't find a better one. There is a good reason to this: if you want a good picture of the Eiffel Tower with Paris behind it, the best place is the top of the Montparnasse tower (and you get La Défense as a background, whether you want it or not). So it is not an image about La Défense, but the best image you can get of the Eiffel tower with some background. (However I also thought about this kind of point of view, which you can see in every American movie about Paris but shows nonetheless the Parisian typical architecture). Seudo (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion is that you still haven't dropped the stick, or realised that the consensus is running against you. - SchroCat (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I count 7 people against the current photomontage, vs. only 5 in favor of it. But nice try. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Errrmmmm... Firstly I'm talking about the view showing the skyscrapers (as per the rest of this thread) and secondly, when did Wiki become somewhere to vote. Either try and move on and stay positive, or edit something else until you can be. - SchroCat (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is 5 even.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 06:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Montage (versailles)

Regardless of the outcome of the discussions above, it seems there is clear consensus that the Palace de Versailles image should be replaced. The question is, with what? I would favour Ipigott's suggestion of either the Sacre-Coeur or Notre-Dame. Suggestions would be welcome, then I'll redraw it in GIMP.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 06:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How about the Pompidou Centre? - SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll second that. THEPROMENADER 07:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

With a bit of colour correction (and framing) this could be quite nice too. But if only one image is to change, I prefer Pompidou. THEPROMENADER 07:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for a montage, so I don't even see the point in discussing a change in the current montage. The alternative is between File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg and the current dubious and clichéesque montage. That's the reason why I created this section, and so far we have 7 people against the montage vs. only 5 in favor of it. We'll have to wait for more editors to speak their mind on this, as most of France is on holidays until the end of the month. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the choice is not between the precious 'Marsfeld2' photo and the montage, it is between a single photo or the montage, and the montage will stay in place until what that photo will be is decided. If your arguments for La Défense made any sense, there would be no need for such convolution. THEPROMENADER 18:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely sure when Wiki went over to becoming a !vote-driven entity. Oh right, that's it, it hasn't. I'm also not seeing any support for File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg, apart from you. - SchroCat (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This image is nice too, and it is being offered for free in HD (as wallpaper) on many 'wallpaper websites' (more versions here) - can't find any authour info, and I'm not sure how 'free' "free" is in this case. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Doh! The image is 'free' wallpaper ~because~ it's from wikimedia commons. What's more, I was just speaking with its authour last week! Here's the full Commons version. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In favor of the photo change

1. I'm in favor of replacing the photo montage of tourist attractions with the single general view of Paris (Eiffel Tower and La Défense), for the reasons stated above. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
2. I couldn't agree more. Why should this article follow the dominant trend, with a lead picture looking like a postcard ? Mouloud47 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
3. I'm in favor of the photo change. The picture shows well the very unique urban fabric of the city with its dense collection of stone buildings, the Eiffel tower in the foreground making it instantly recognizable and both Bois de Boulogne and La Défense far away in the background giving depth to the picture and symbolizing the economic importance of the Paris region. Metropolitan (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. I generally prefer single images, but that is a matter of taste. But as stated in a previous discussion, I am not sure File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg. I do not agree that it "shows well the very unique urban fabric of the city". The zoom and the frame distort distances, and makes Paris look like it a city of parks and skyscrapers, which are certainly not its distinguishing features. La Défense is an increasingly important business center, but its architecture is not very typical of the Paris urban area, and I do not see a major need to feature it here. These problems are less pronounced in File:Pano_0519.jpg even though the technical quality may be lower. --Superzoulou (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

   Comment by 2.13.182.45 above. Please anon user, register on Wikipedia, and replace this here with a reason why you favor the photo change (if I correctly interpret that you're in favor of File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg). Another misleading "interpretation" by DS. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

5. I am in favor of a change of the photo, I would prefer a single photo, the picture File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg was quite good, at least much better than the current photot. The picture File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg gives a much better representation of Paris than the tourist cliché of monuments, we see some famous monuments, the dense haussmannian fabric and its modernity and economic power with La Défense in the background. The current photo shows nothing of the structure of the city, just monuments and monuments are not more representative of Paris architectural structure than La Défense, so if we only include numberous monuments, I don't see why La Defense could not be included.Minato ku (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
6. I am me too in favor in a change of the photo, to be remplaced by the photo with La Défense in background. This one: File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg Paris is a dynamic economic city, Paris La Défense is the biggest CBD in europe, and it represente the cities economy !Sesto Elemento — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.14.224.2 (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I call bullsh*t on this. Let the Saint-Mard vacationer himself correct this. THEPROMENADER 05:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

1. The goal is not to create a postcard but show emblematic places of Paris in ONE photo, here are La Défense and the Eiffel Tower. Unless some here have a problem with Defense? ... --Abdel-31 (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Against the photo change

1. Obviously not. Also, it seems that Der Stat, you are the only one who is saying it is a copyright infringement. Could you explain in more detail? My understanding is that this should be discussed on Commons anyway.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 04:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
2. I can see the argument for one single image, but in my opinion the montage just looks of higher quality, and better reflects Paris's most notable landmarks than the one image of the Eiffel showing the business district of the suburbs. If anything it's a cliche just to have an image of the Eiffel, and with the high risers in the background it is indeed trying to look like NYC. I think the montage betters reflects Paris's architectural/cultural heritage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
3. I would go along with the current approach but agree that the Versailles image should be replaced with one taken in Paris itself. It seems to me that despite the fact that many other wikis have the Eiffel Tower as the lead image, the montage brings us into a new level of sophistication. So let's continue to work on that basis.-Ipigott (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
4. As per my comments below, I'd stick with the montage - and of places known around the world as being representative of Paris - as per WP:LEADIMAGE. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
5. Strongly opposed to changing the image. The idea of the photo is to give an idea of Paris, and I think the current photo does that very well. The proposed image of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense given a very distorted image of Paris. In Paris, there are hardly any skyscrapers, the proposed image gives the impression it's a major US city. (Strictly speaking, La Défense isn't even in Paris). The proposed image is already used in the article on La Défense, and it suits that article well. It's a picture of La Défense, it's not a picture of Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

So a picture of Tokyo skyline with Fujiyama in the background wouldn't be a picture of Tokyo because Fujiyama isn't part of the city? What a silly argument! You guys make no sense. The picture used to be for years on the Paris article and is still in the French version. Metropolitan (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

1. All this insistant but nonsensical hankering for La Défense erections has finally tired me out of wanting to change the lead image. I do think we need a unique image, but I'm for keeping the montage on the condition that we get rid of Versailles therein. Once we find a better image, let's vote again on it if we have to. THEPROMENADER 17:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are we voting for here?

I voted for replacing the montage with a single image that represents Paris, nothing else, but a few seem to be trying to weevle the above into a vote for an image (La Defense, of course) in particular. I therefore withdraw my vote. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: And who moved the 'vote' down here, in leapfrogging (and ignoring) the above discussion about replacing just the Versailles image? It looks like an attempt to force a vote on two 'choice' choices when there are many options. This is becoming downright immature. THEPROMENADER 14:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Guess... - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As there is a massive lack of clarity here, can I suggest we open a formal RfC to ask whether it should be a single image or montage? At present there is no consensus at all and the same people saying the same things in different ways. Once the single -v- montage issue is resolved, the actual image(s) to be shown can be thrashed out. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The first sentance was pretty clear, It was about changing the current photomontage of monuments with a more broad aerial view of Paris with the Eiffel tower and La Défense in the background. Honestly, I don't mind if this is not exactly the photo File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg that is choosen, I just want a better picture with a big aerial view of Paris than the current montage of monuments. Minato ku (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Which first sentence? The one that says La Défense isn't part of Paris and having it in the image is misleading? There are so many first sentences in the various threads and sub-threads that, as ThePromenader has pointed out, there have been several questions and scenarios raised and people are being misled into which point they are addressing. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Beausoleil is not part of Monaco either, so having it in the top image of the Monte Carlo article is misleading too I suppose. Anyway, more pettifogging from the same users. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Do try and avoid the little ad honinem comments if you could, please. They're hardly helpful are they. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What's hardly helpful is to behave like a pettifogger and claim that La Défense shouldn't appear in a view of Paris because it's not adminstratively part of the City of Paris (although it's part of the Paris Region), when it's impossible not to have administrative suburbs of Paris in a general view of Paris, just as it's impossible not to have parts of France in a view of Monaco, due to the extremely small size of the City of Paris and of Monaco. So unless you have a hidden agenda, I can't see why you and 2 or 3 other users would engage in such pettifogging. PS: I was outside of Palais Royal métro station half an hour ago, in the Medieval heart of Paris, can't be more central, and the skyscrapers of La Défense were very conspicuous in the end of the Rue de Rivoli. But I suppose I wasn't looking at a street of Paris according to your book. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

DS, I've just asked you to be civil, so to repeat and expand on your rudeness is even less helpful than your normal comments. Stop. Drop the stick. Walk away for a little bit and try and come back in good humour. If you want to keep sniping at people, don't be surprised if they turn round and either bite back or report you: neither of which you would appreciate. In order not to drag this on any longer, stop with the petty sniping and try and focus on the issues, not the insults. - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You reverted ALL my edits (4 hours of work) in the beginning of July before having even had a conversation with me, so don't make me laugh! You lost any credibility in my eyes from that moment. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Way to go DS, drag up the old stuff and pile on more bad faith to compound it. Considering I've been asking you to remain civil for the last couple of posts, I can't believe the lack of thought that's just gone into your last post. Move on DS - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Less royalist than the king?

Guess which picture was used by the magazine published by the Paris city hall this month for their cover page... The answer here: [24]. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That is one ugly photo. Not the precious 'Marsfeld2', but what other content can you expect when taking a photo of the Eiffel tower from the city's only other tall tower? The 'precious' will always be in there somewhere. THEPROMENADER 06:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: and what does that title mean? Plus Royalist que le Roi is the usual term. Was someone drunk? THEPROMENADER 06:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, La Défense is FULLY part of Paris, and its second business district after Paris CBD in the “triangle d’or”. You cannot except every district outside Paris Intramuros because it has no sense - The transport network is used by 12Million inhabitants who work in the region, and mainly in the inner Paris: it doesn’t make difference if you are inside the old frontiers or not

- The main Airport Paris CDG, outside the official Paris, would so be considered as not included in the city?

- Versailles has been the main residence of the kings of France, which capital is Paris. It is by the way direct linked with Gare Montparnasse in 15-20 minutes

- The Grand Paris project is on its way! The future metro area will have the same name as the existing lines, which means lines 15-16-17-18.

- The administrative limits will expands massively and officially make the administrative limits as the real Paris area

- The official name of La Défense (official address for La Poste) is Paris La Défense

- The Police action is getting harmonized by the authorities on all Grand Paris perimeter

- You say *La Défense is not representative of how Paris looks, quite the contrary”: what does it mean? Paris, a world city, would just have only one face? You are not addressing one type of people, Wikipedia is open to every kind of people. Paris is not just a tourist city, it is, actually, the most powerful economic region in Europe. So yes, La Défense is representative of Paris. And its economic faceClouchicloucha (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)