This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Archives

Talk:Paris/structure discussion

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I've had a mull over the last week's doings and it's obvious that I was going way overboard in dealing with the details. This page must improve: Its structure must be cleaned up, redundant parts removed, a central in context "modern Paris" theme imposed ( removal of the long history with an inclusion of in context "greater Paris" info) yet without the "bigger than ___" statistical comparisons that offend such.

As usual the replacement page can be found Here and, as indicated at its head, all comments and edits are welcome (and expected) there; In using that page we can keep this talk page clean and get more work done without worrying about over-editing the original Paris page. Added - to ease discussion I've set up the Talk page into different sections attributed to each subject.

Over the past months I have taken great pains to make all this clear and I'm sure all concerned have had more than their fill of education in the matter, so from here I can only consider a lack of response as a consensus to change. I am in no hurry; what is destined next for change is very clearly marked on the Paris Work Page, so any edits, opinions, criticisms or suggestions should be made there before the topic in question is completed and brought to the main page. As my restructuring and "making accessible" certain parts of the Paris article will involve rewriting subjects not my specialty, I only expect that those who do know better will later bring their knowledge, corrections and improvements to the newer version.

In light of the above, a revert without a prior show of interest in the editing will be inacceptable. I ask all concerned to please allow this page to improve.

Cordially,

ThePromenader 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (aka "Josefu")

Work in Progress

To see "live" what's going on below, please look here. Any edits, comments and suggestions are welcome (and should take place) there, and the details of what's being changed (and why) can be found on its Talk page.

• The "Economy" section is being refined (in light of earlier criticisms) and will be going up as soon as it is complete, hopefully today or tomorrow.

- I'm behind in my work. Tou can see it "how it is" here. Tomorrow I hope. ThePromenader 17:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Concerning the introduction "total rewrite" - it contains 90% the same information as before but re-arranged into a more flowing form. The only information "gone" is that that made this page a target for "vandalism". Figures cited are actively used, and cited to boot. All the above is an improvement, there is no call for a total revert, so abstain from doing so again please.

I personally disagree with a lot of what you wrote in this new introduction. But I guess my own opinion is not that important. What matters is that not one single user should alone rewrite entirely the introduction of one of the most read articles on Wikipedia. I think some users told you before already that it is better to change things bit by bit, and see if other users like it. For instance some months ago I wasn't pleased with the introduction of the article France. I changed some parts of it, but I didn't rewrite the whole introduction mind you! Then some users edited part of my changes to the introduction, fair enough, that's how Wikipedia works, and in the end the introduction was the common work of many people. But you come here and rewrite the whole introduction because you know better. I don't think this is how things should work. If the introduction needs to be re-written entirely, that means there is a serious flaw into it. Yet so far among the serious Wikipedians coming time and again to this page (such as User:Olivier, User:PedroPVZ, User:David.Monniaux, User:Parmaestro, etc.) I have seen no complaint about the introduction. Actually, if they had thought the introduction was totally flawed, they would already have changed it, trust me. If you think the intro needs to be totally re-written, it's not a light move and should need the consensus of several Wikipedians before doing it. In any case I'd be curious to know what other people think about it. Hardouin 20:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In all the time I have been here I have not seen you bring one improvement or even change to this page, I've only seen you making very sure that it stays the way it is in your own unchanged version no matter who shows misgivings with anything you wrote. Nor have you ever engaged in any dialog over any propositions for improvement, nor have you even done more than complain after your revert about what I openly proposed on my User page. As you are the only one to enforce your (revert) POV, we will not see "what others think" unless you leave any changes which you quite obviously aren't prepared to do. It is only normal that even if many people do contribute to a passage or subject that it will eventually be rewritten or it will have the "cut and paste" feel that much of this page has. I have waited four months now for consensus to change and it is obvious to anyone reading here that there is none save your own. You have stalled long enough - let's really see what others think.

Refusing to discuss improvements, then reverting them without even criticising or lauding them as such is very counterproductive and doesn't seem at all to be in the interest of Wiki. It's about what's there to understand, not who wrote it.

ThePromenader 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My remarks still stand. If there is a particular sentence or data that is wrong in the intro, please change it if you can back up your edit with sources. If you feel something is missing in the intro, please add it, althoug you should remember that the intro should not expand to the point of becoming too long for its own good (e.g. I think the etymology of Paris' name in the intro is unnecessary). But to simply rewrite entirely the intro is far fetched I think. Again if you don't agree with me I recommend you ask other users for their opinions (the ones I mentioned above are a good start). Hardouin 02:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Even your first revert was unwarrented. You alone cannot be the judge of what changes or not in this page. My changes brought a cleaner flow, context, relevent numbers and sources to the intro and were a definite improvement and given the chance to see them anyone else would agree. This makes your reverting doubly wrong. Not only have you reverted to a former questionable version, you refuse to change a single word of it or cite your sources. This cannot stand. ThePromenader 08:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote. I alone cannot be the judge of changes on this page, but neither can you. Total rewrite is way out of the way. Again, and please READ this time, DELETE any data or sentence that is untrue (if you can back up your deletion with sources), and ADD whatever you feel is missing in the introduction, but please do not rewrite it entirely. I mean, if you think it is ok to rewrite an introduction entirely, just go on the United States article, and rewrite the introduction there entirely, and you'll see what happens and what comments you get from other users. Hardouin 13:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I am also adding sources, given the level of mistrust here. Hardouin 13:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat - your reverts to clear improvements are unwarrented, uncalled for and inexcusable. Your comparisons to other pages are irrelevent as you are the only authour and opposing party here. This must end. ThePromenader 13:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. What you call improvements, other may call deterioration. Unless several users agree to a total rewrite of the introduction, I continue to think that you alone deciding to rewrite it entirely is not acceptable. Ask other users for their comments please. Hardouin 14:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Four months is long enough of a wait for a consensus, you have stalled change to your writ long enough. I have already contacted many for their opinion; let us see what they think of this less offensive new version. Your motives are quite clear and you are beyond reson. ThePromenader 14:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What is offensive exactly in the introduction that you are deleting to replace it with your own introduction? Please be specific, as you make strong accusations. Hardouin 14:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If you pretend to be unaware of the dozens of reverts you have made to a certain edit to the introduction I don't know what to say about your even asking that question. ThePromenader 14:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The edit to the introduction that you are mentioning was done repeatedly by ONE anonymous user using the IP codes 82.35.100.95 and 80.195.235.28. This anonymous user never cares to explain why he makes such changes. His changes are basically this: no, Paris economy and population are not on par with London, they are second to London. It obviously looks like vandalism as it is not backed by sources. The Paris GDP article explains why the Paris and London economies are basically on par (impossible to say really which is first and which is second). Same about population. So you cannot base your total rewrite of the introduction on this single anonymous user. Hardouin 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind the details; your intro as you wrote it was a target. The fact that your numbers were an ambiguous estimation (as perhaps were those quoted by the "anonymous user" quite identifiable by his IP that he never attempted to change). Your posting the same numbers into the London intro didn't help calm things either. Again I don't know what to say about your totally ignoring the fact that I know that you know full well that this wasn't my only misgiving with the intro. Now, if you don't mind, I have work to do. ThePromenader 16:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That's it for the reverts today; as it stands this has gone too far and anything more can only be considered as vandalism. Not only are the intentions of both parties clear to all, so are the changes that need to be made. I hope we can move forward in a more mature fashion as I find this all quite demeaning. ThePromenader 15:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. It is totally appropriate for a single user to completely rewrite an intro, section or the whole article if the result is better than before. It is not always possible to make incremental steps to reach a particular destination. It is not necessary to wait for consensus to make an improvement. If the changes are unworkably bad, revert them. If not, continuous reversion is just mean. Just a neutral bystander's viewpoint. ( Stevage 15:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC))

If the result is better than before, but in this case I don't think the result is better than before, as we now get: long winded sentences in the intro; a mention of the etymology of Paris name, which is a bit irrelevant in the intro; the replacement of Paris GDP in dollars with Paris GDP in euros instead (GDPs are expressed in dollars internationally, so we can no more make any comparisons); the replacement of Paris aire urbaine figures with Île-de-France région figures instead, which is misleading. So I don't call this a better result than before. Hardouin 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The "long-winded less better" is only a "writing style" POV and can in no way merit a total revert. At least it doesn't contain detailed information repeated elsewhere in the article. As for the sense in using dollars, add the dollar equivilent in brackets if you wish ! But this is a detail trifling. Let's not forget that the original INSEE number is in Euros as that's what it was calculated in. As for your citing the AU area for Paris' economy, this is wrong, as not even the INSEE uses it. The statistical and administrative norm, as indicated by the adjacent citatiion linked directly to the site, is using the number for the île-de-France région. ThePromenader 16:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the way to move forward is to copy-edit the article and see if there is anything that was better in the previous version that should be brought across to this version. There are definite weaknesses here - but if the structure is better than before, overall the change is good. If you start with a good structure but bad writing, you can take small steps to greatness. A bad structure with small steps will never get anywhere. -- Stevage 20:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That intro's first line was bugging me so thanks for setting it straight - I try to say everything at once sometimes. The structure was basically all I wanted to change here! Have you seen my "work page" yet? I've been playing with an "order of things" there but if that looks ok I was intending to "port" info from here over to there to make a final version... I was intending to do it article by article. What do you mean by "previous version" and "this version" - were you referring to "this page" and the "work page"? Can you help? ThePromenader 22:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

ADDED - I'd spent my lunchtime reading, as earlier this morning I came across the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities page and found much useful information about situations similar to the "suburb-city" problem we have here. I have also looked at the pages of the world's other capital cities and - LOL - Hardouin, I see you have your finger firmly planted into the London pie as well.

I am not in such a hurry anymore. I have re-read much of what I have (most recently re-) written, and have indeed found factual errors due mostly to my cut-and-paste insertions into phrases I had written from rote. My ire has abated. I will be more careful, less hasty, and will continue to give full warning about anything I intend to do. If I recieve no comment from the authour then I will seek opinion elsewhere if the need be, but an I will consider the absence of any feedback as permission to go forward. Let that be clear.

My apologies if "my" Paris page seems for now to be a total rewrite, but my proposed changes are a result of a gradual accumulation of writing over the time I waited (in vain) for a consensus that turned out to be... one. I need not impose the whole in one throw, and if we manage to get a constructive dialog going, I may not need impose anything at all. Most of the texts you see there are but a from-memory recital fleshing out the headings and order I think would work well for this article. What I am working on for insertion I will find a way of highlighting, and most probably will note it at the top of the page.

In all civility, I remain in the opinion that this page is a mess. It is head-holdingly dull. It is a compilation of statistical extracts (some from contested sources it seems) that together convey a meaning both dry and erronous, and has a tone that is obviously offensive to some. The flow from subject to subject is incoherent, and the whole of the article, down to its "custom" city box tailored for "extra" populations, is unlike that of any other major city save London's - for obvious reasons. Paris does trade much, but neither its skyline nor its breadth is as imposing as the choice of statistics presented here would like to make us think. This vague "teeming and mighty metropolis" impression is only doubled by the a) plans presented b) skyscraper images chosen and (most importantly) c) absence of all information about how Paris lives today.

Statistics from contested sources? Which ones? Hardouin 12:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea, but according to the thrice-daily modifications to your "bigger than" phrase, someone obviously thinks you're wrong.

I will work my "city life" texts, as a replacement for the "Economy" section, until they are in a truely publishable state - with references. I now will remove my reams of posts below, as my aims are clear enough here so that I can spare unconcerned readers the entire story of how they evolved to this point. For sake of reference (or should you fancy some stonewalling and impatient ranting) I will store them all here.

I've changed my mind. The "City Elements" texts I am working on are perhaps a clear way of describing how the city works, but it can in no way replace "Economy". All the same, Economy, as it is, must either change or go. Please see below.
Josefu 10:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Here's a compiled list of what I think could be improved on this page. Please comment.

Introduction

Paris' suburbs are not Paris. The " aire urbaine" population cannot be considered as Paris' metropolan area under the same definition used for many of North America's cities or even London's, and it is fallacy to even try to do so. In fact, this purely statistical (<-- corrected) recently-invented "aire urbaine" limit (added - a term which neither the 2002 Encyclopaedia Universalis or 2006 Encyclopaedia Britannica make mention of concerning Paris, by the way), defined as an "area where more than 40% of the resident population is working in an "urban pole" (in this case Paris) or other communes drawn by it (and this makes the whole definition very ambiguous)" INSEE, has almost doubled since 1990 through pure re-definition and not by actual growth. Neither the physical aspects, demographic make-up nor inner-city dependancy of Paris' aire urbaine are at all comparable to the world's other metropolitan areas, yet not only are you misleading here, Hardouin, but you have even made an English "aire urbaine" page that goes to great lengths to try to convince people that they are.

If you would like then to say that the "île-de-France" region is Paris: It isn't. Paris has very distinct (even physical) limits, a very precise population number, and enough things that make it different from every other city to fill five pages let alone one. No other article on Paris even tries to make the complicating claims this one does, and certainly not in the introduction.

This aside, there are two pompous clauses in this intro that must go: the"Bigger than" section (subject to constant "vandalism", but it still may be that the insistant editor is right) and "Former" colonies. These offend.

Josefu, I have already told you not to write about subjects that you are not specialized in. Obviously you're not very familiar with statistics, and your comments are often ridden with errors. Here you oviously understand nothing to the concept of aire urbaine. An aire urbaine is not an administrative area defined by the government, it is a STATISTICAL area defined by the French statistics institute (INSEE) based on urbanization and commuting patterns. The concept of aires urbaine was created by INSEE in 1995 to match the US concept of metropolitan area. Aires urbaines are totally comparable to US or Canadian metropolitan areas. In fact they are even more conservative than US metropolitan areas: in the US, if a county has as little as 25% of its population commuting to the core county for work, then it is included in the metropolitan area, whereas in France INSEE uses a limit of 40% (with less than 40% of people commuting to the core area, the commune is not considered part of the aire urbaine). If we used the US definition of metropolitan area, the aire urbaine of Paris would be even more extended. And for your information, the aire urbaine of Paris did not double between 1990 and 1999. In 1990 there were 10,291,851 inhabitants in the aire urbaine of Paris, and in 1999 there were 11,174,743 inhabitants. If you're not good at math, a doubling would have meant a population of 20,583,702 in 1999. Hardouin 12:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It is my job, or that of those I know qualified, to decide what I am qualified to write - check your arrogance - and I never pronounced myself qualified to write anything analytical or statistical concerning economics, nor did I ever propose to do so. As for you, the message you send through your choice of numbers is clear enough for any Paris resident to see that they represent little to nothing about what Paris really is. Excuse my misuse of "Administration" (which the INSEE I linked you to is indeed not) but even in my error my meaning is still quite clear. You can pick any source you want and throw any numbers you choose, but this won't change the fact that the Paris region "aire urbain" in no way resembles any North American metropolitan area, and you cannot pretend that this is so. In fact much of Paris' "aire urbaine" is agricultural and sparsely inhabited (your 'peri-urban' areas). If I was not clear enough above, area of the "aire urbaine" did expand greatly since its invention as, as its inclusion criteria evolved, so did its borders, and in the process swallowed even other "aire urbaine" areas and their "pole" communes. Even that point is moot because this "aire urbaine" is not the city of Paris in all its aspects, economy, population and size confounded, nor will it be in the forseeable future. This statistic was created ion an attempt to discern the limit of Paris' economical influence, direct and indirect, and can be cited, if at all, in an economy section at best. It cannot apply to the entire article.
Josefu 13:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Paris' name

Not so important, but this is the first I've heard of "Cauldron" ( J. Hillaret's "Connaissances du Vieux Paris" and "Dictionnaire des rues de Paris", and Jean Favier's "Paris" cite "river landing"). Parigot, Paname - interesting although I don't think it's been used since the 1960's.

Geography

• Area - Again the "greater area" comparative diatribe, already falsed in the introduction. Besides, it goes into comparing "communes" before we even know what communes are (lower down in the "administration' section), and the commune of Paris is only as big as itself. See this commune of Paris compared to a "greater area" and you're lost. Add "unité Urbain" with its plan to the right just underneath (itself untitled as such) and you don't know what you're reading about. And where is there a plan of the City itself? This whole section is confused and misleading with the intent of telling us that "the suburbs are Paris too", yet there is little information here about Paris itself at all.
• Density - Aside from the usual comparative (and now we're not sure whether it's just the city the authour is talking about, or its suburbs), nothing wrong if only to say it's written for those who already have a good idea how dense one of the "compared-to" towns is, and even this is not for the average reader. To give a layman (such as myself) a better idea of density, perhaps it would be better to use the more imaginable square metre per inhabitant measure.

Altitude, Temperatures

fine fine, but best keep it simple for the temperature measurement locales (many of them far from Paris). Many died, yes, but not only from "not cool down".

"Brief" History

This should be replaced by a short paragraph. Paris' history has a page of its own. History may come into play when indicating what is in Paris and you want to describe where it came from - this is enough detail for here. Paris' history is full of detail, so we need not repeat get lost in anything here that isn't relevent to Paris' functioning today. Anything more would be redundant because if a reader actually is interested in Paris' history he will click through this page - or skip it altogether if he uses the search function.

Demographics : population growth Immigration - Without even getting into the content, by what logic are these down here away from the "Density" (and perhaps "Area") section(s)? Or should the above be down here? Personally, I think Density and population growth could be grouped into a unique "population distribution" section with (for example) a first paragraph concecrated to the population of the city itself and a second to the commuter belt - and this is where you could indicate that Paris until recently losing its inhabitants for its suburbs. This would be putting the suburbs in a proper context for a "Paris" article.

Economy

• This problem section was resolved but has been reverted by its authour twice to an original and unchanged version.

• This section should be the only section that bleeds into the suburbs (as the others should do the opposite), and, should it even exist in this page, it should be brief, clear, and comprehensive for the uninitiated. This is no easy task as, as we have already seen, it is a subject easily distorted.
• Paris' Economy exists in two levels: a) the economy supporting the city itself, which is a host for b) the trade that flows through it. You cannot speak of everything exchanged within Paris as the city's own product, nor can you claim the same for Paris offices that sell or trade the product of suburban, national and International factories. (This part on replaces a former version) Borders drawn outside of this basic logic are ambiguous at best: the Encyclopedie Universalis spends most of its "Paris, capitale économique" Paris article sub-section, in un-knotting the false picture that can be painted by existing statistics and administrative limits, trying to define the Paris' real economy, and does manage to do so, albeit in a "from different angles" way that together give the reader but a vague idea of the extent of the Paris and its region's (namely: île de France) real influence and importance in National trade. One of the reasons this is so complicated is because the Paris of today is a "service" town ("tertiaire" trades: commerce, services, exchange, communication, etc) and some of these services, those that support Paris itself and its flow of trade, do exist to the suburbs (communications, shipping and postal services) and are an integral part of "Paris' Economy" - but it must be stated as such, and the product traded through Paris is still not Paris' own. Banks and trading centres should absolutely be mentioned as well as their importance in the European or international trade arena - and here can be mention of the volume of all that flows through them, but a mention in a context fitting to a "Paris" article. You see, Hardouin, your "reverting" obstinance in your refusal to accept anything but your own distorted version (that you refuse to edit even a letter of) has ired me to a point where I've done research enough to almost become *cough* "qualified". In fact, based on what I have learned, I most probably will be adding an "Economy" section to my work page as a placeholder and guide for readability.
• As it is, the "Economy" section must change or go for its lumping and pompous display of all traded within Paris as Paris' own (production) over others, and in the not-so-distant past, already has: you can find it at Paris_GDP. There is no excuse for its returning here unchanged, and this in spite of a quite heated complaint about it.

Administration

This one's fine... until "Bertrand". Everthing after is... Non Sequitur, and most probably won't interest anyone looking to learn about Paris. At least know we know a bit more about all the commune stuff we were reading about earlier on. As for the List of Mayors, there's only a few of them, and the break's a bit of a sore... perhaps best in the History page. I suggested a first part describing Paris' own administration (arrondissements, etc) and a second describing Paris' role in France's.

Transportation

Could this be developed? - I have done so in adding to the information here - if interested see the "work page" link below.

Cultural Centres and Organisations

I gave this section this title, as it englobes what's under it, but it is at best a compromise. Anhow the lists under it are spare. There is already a quite complete List_of_museums_in_Paris page - why not another for Paris_monuments?. "Historical Centres" - ambiguous and incomplete and I think this should go. I have begun a Paris_districts page if anyone is interested, and there's lots many more that can be added there. "Cemeteries", "parks and gardens" - no problem, but it depends on how long the page will be... these lists are short but it would be nice if they somehow fit into a "page logic".

Chronology

I think this one should go to a page of its own. As an example (and perhaps source), there's a very good French version at fr:Chronologie_de_Paris.

External Links

Fine the way it is; since this is a non-travel page, no commercial links.

CONCLUSION - In short this page contains often incoherent and ambiguous information, is arranged in an incoherent way as we can't get a grasp of what the page is trying to say about Paris. I can't begin to look into the motivations of whoever wrote most of the above (and, no coincidence, evidence shows that most of this was the work of one person), but it is a message a complete other than "what is Paris", a message telling us that Paris' suburbs, population, growth and economy confounded, are Paris itself. I cannot see that changing a thing here or there will fix anything, as making compromise with incoherencies has at best half-coherent results. Thus I proposed a total re-organisation, and a total rewrite of some sections. Please be reminded that I am under no circumstances questioning the accuracy of any fact that's been contributed to this page; my doubts are more with which facts have been chosen to represent Paris, as together they paint a false picutre of a teeming, sprawling, horizon-covering skyscraper'd metropolis that Paris is not.

I have been working on a such rewrite (as I have already mentioned "mainte fois" in this page) that you can find at --> Paris Recap. I am open to any and all discussion, and will be proceeding (short of any other propositions) with much-needed rectifications.

Doesn't the broken star at the top of the edit page mean anything? This page just can't stay the way it is, and I've taken more than just a bit of my time to see to it; to see about setting it on a straight track we can see the end of. That done, I'll feel that my job here is too.

As usual, shoot anything that's on your mind on the talk page. And, by the way, once this is sorted out my reams of (useless it seems) posts here will go. They stay for now just in case this case may need any further arbitration. (ADDED - all is here now.)

Cordialement,

Josefu 15:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This entire section is worthless drivel. It's basically a longwinded Paris-promoting diatribe. It goes to great lengths to hammer into everone's heads how mighty Paris is economically. It continues on and on comparing Paris with other major world cities. It spends an entire paragraph diminishing London's economy to come to the conclusion that "London is not richer than Paris." It even includes a little table at the end that lists Paris' economy as larger than London's. All that BS is irrelevant and the motive behind it is utterly transparent.

What are Paris' major economic bases? Industries? What is its GDP per capita? Are there any major banks located there? No one knows, because this section only serves to aggrandize Paris.

I was a bit dumb in posting way down at the bottom but there's more than changes to the economy section going on here. Did all that was cut get moved to a page of its own? This would give its original authour(s) the chance to improve on it there - but true, perhaps in more distinct, developed and coherent detail.

Cheers,

Josefu 21:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The entire Economy section has been rewritten, as requested. Not only was it filled with data that only in an indirect way concerned Paris, the data itself was based on statistics generated (on a statistical area scheme invented in 1990 and cited since 1995) for the very recently-created région Île-de-France (voted into existence in 1982 and effective from 1986) and not at all for Paris. Paris' "grande couronne" today has the majority of the région's growth, yet this fact, even its existence, has little if anything at all to do with Paris. Paris being in the île-de-France can in no way justify its being responsible for all the région's production. In short, Paris' "aire urbaine" GDP has no place in the front and centre (if in it at all) of a "city of Paris" article, and it took a fair amount of imagination and reality-bending intent to even think of putting it there. It took me a few days of research to a) be sure that I was right in my misgivings and b) find out what the real story is. Now that I have done so, Hardouin, I can write an article on the subject that's worth reading about - perhaps your reverting-enough-to-ire-everybody-to-your-own-unchanged-POV was for something after all, as it sure was motivating enough to make me go to all this work.

If there is something wrong with the article, fix it and leave a note here, as is the standard procedure. Reverting to your "original" version, Hardouin, after all the contestation and revert wars it has generated (and I can say a good lot of that is due to your trying to edit both the London and Paris articles with the same out-of-context statistics), will be simply inexcusable.

Now we can look to what you've done to Paris' population.

Josefu 17:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"of upper-case letters, only E takes accents"

Not the case. Accents can be omitted or used on all upper-case letters. It is more common to use accents on upper-case E because of more common differences in meaning (e.g. AIME vs. AIMÉ). Now that we have computers that can put accents on uppercase letters more easily than (say) a typewriter, it is much more common to do so. - montréalais

An interesting geographical feature of Paris is that it is one of only two cities in the entire world to have its governmental offices on an island, the second being Cedar Rapids, Iowa in the United States.

I've seen this before, but I lend it little credence. Which of Paris's government buildings are on an island? City Hall isn't; it's on the Right Bank. The Parliament buildings are on the Left Bank. - Montrealais (whose city's government buildings are also on an island)

It looks like Stockholm also has government buildings on an island. — Bkell 22:50, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The only government buildings on the Île de la Cité are the police prefecture and the Hall of Justice David.Monniaux 23:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that le Raincy is not one of the main attractions around Paris! David.Monniaux 23:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed the statement about traffic in Paris being notoriously dangerous. I live in Paris and very seldom see traffic accidents. Simply, in most areas there are too many traffic lights and other impediments for people to really go speeding. David.Monniaux 16:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've added History of Paris - see what you make of it... -- ChrisO 23:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My knowledge here is a little sketchy at best, but my understanding was the Statue of Liberty that was gifted to the United States by the French was an enlarged copy of the original in Paris. I'm not saying this article is wrong as I don't know. But can anyone provide citations to prove the reality? -- Colin Angus Mackay 00:44, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty in the harbor of New York is an original design commissioned from Bartholdi. I'm unsure whether the replica in Paris was built before or after the one shipped to the United States. In any case, the Statue of Liberty was not copied from an earlier statue in Paris. David.Monniaux 06:16, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The statue in Paris was one of several later copies made of the original. According to "The Statue of Liberty Revisited" edited by Wilton S. Dillon, 1994, page 155:

On July 4, 1889 the American community in Paris offered the French people a gift of a bronze replica of the Statue of Liberty; it still stands now, on an island in the Seine River, downstream from the Eiffel Tower.

Derek Ross | Talk

"The name Paris could be originated from the phrase "par-isis" (ancient french for "near Isis") because in ancient times the town was consacrated to the homonyme Egyptian God"

I suspect this is nonsense. The name derives from the Gallic tribe of the parisis. David.Monniaux 08:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

True or false: someone can explain what advantage of having this article at Paris as opposed to Paris, France. 66.245.125.9 21:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the same reason that London is at "London" and not "London, England": when people talk about "Paris", in general, they mean the capital of France and not some other town called Paris or some mythological character. I note that all other towns call Paris are far far smaller and have far less "brand recognition". David.Monniaux 12:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the picture is not as detailed and neat as I would like it. However, this is the case of most pictures I have seen on Wikipedia. Nice pictures are made by professionals, and they are copyrighted, therefore it is not surprising that the pictures found on Wikipedia are not very great in general. Of course, if you have a better picture of the Parisian skyline of La Défense, then replace the picture. BUT, in the meantime, I think we should leave this picture at any rate, because it is important that people can have a look at the real face of Paris in the 21st century, instead of the cliches to which we are always treated (Notre Dame, Montmartre, Eiffel Tower, etc.). For the majority of Parisians in 2004, living in Paris is not fancy tourism in quaint historical districts. The reality is big commutes, fast pace life, and an environment of concrete, asphalt, steel, and glass so typical of major metropolises; and I think this picture, although not perfect, gives a sense of that. Hardouin 22:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Totally agreed. We should not present an Amélie-like cliché of Paris complete with accordion players. David.Monniaux 07:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've seen more accordion players in Paris than anywhere else in the world, except possibly for Lyon. It may be a cliche but I'm not convinced it's an inaccurate one. Stevage 20:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a picture of the high-rise neighbourhoods of the 13th arrondissement. David.Monniaux 07:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Skyscraper pic would be good in the suburb section, it seems. WhisperToMe 05:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And that's (in the suburb section) exactly where I put it :)

I'd like to express my opinion regarding the alledged difference in quality between professional and amateur photos. I don't think this has to be of any difference at all as long as there is enough talent and a reasonable technology in use. I mean, any talented person can potentially make good photos with todays digital consumer equipment, the difference isn't at all that big, unless you are looking for something very specific that would do well commercially.

Let's not be cynical or biased negatively toward "home-grown" photography because it really is like all other forms of art and creative expression: something that a person has or has not. The professional probably has it, but that's not a reason to assume that there aren't (I think much more) non-professional artists out there.

Besides, isn't one of the fundaments of Wikipedia the belief (and fact) that large communities of altruistically motivated and talented individuals can indeed produce very high quality work in a very efficient way, given the right technology?

-- Neep 15:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While editing the article, a so-called "spam filter" blocked the following links, for no obvious reasons:

• http://www. insecula. com/salle/EP0570.html#menu/ More than 40.000 pictures about Paris
• Architecture of Paris: http:// france. archiseek. com/paris/index.html
• More than 700 photos of Paris and other areas of France: http:// www. planetware. com/photos/PHF.HTM

An administrator needs to do something about this!! Hardouin 13:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm doing a bit of research on Paris for a fictional purpose. For the incident I'll be portraying, could someone familiar with the city tell me if there's an open air or street market that I could set a scene in? Also, if it isn't an additional burden, the location of the hospital that would be nearest there? The former is more important than the latter, and if you assist me, I wish to extend in advance my profound thanks. -- Mr Bound 02:55, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

In the 12th century, and centuries thereafter, you'd have wanted "Les Halles". If you mean after 1971, you might want Rungis. Look here. - Nunh-huh 03:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rungis is certainly not an open-air market, it's a wholesale market located in a dreary suburb. I'm unaware whether the Halles served individual customers or was solely wholesale.

A typical touristic street market is that on Rue Mouffetard (google for the name, it's a street descending from the Montagne Sainte Genevieve). The nearest hospitals, if I'm not mistaken, are the Val-de-Grâce, and the Pitié-Salpetriere. I'm unaware of where emergencies go. Another fact: very often, if needed, the fire service will send paramedics/doctors on emergencies. David.Monniaux 12:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like the Rue Mouffetard is just what I'm looking for. Just a quick question about those hospitals: I'm not certain how they operate in relation to hospitals in other countries, so if I had an apparent minor injury or needed to be checked out to determine if I had injured myself, could I do it at one of those facilities? Or is there other information I need to know? I appreciate your information thus far, you're helping me a great deal. Thanks! -- Mr Bound 03:57, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Depends. You could of course go to the emergency room at any hospital (Hôtel-Dieu, Pitié-Salpêtrière etc.), but unless you really have some injury this may be overkill. You could also see your general practitioner (most French GPs are in private practice). David.Monniaux 19:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

City of Light...or Lights

In English, the correct term for Paris is actually "City of LightS" (plural), but this has been corrupted by writers over the years. Must Wikipedia propagate the error?

I have never heard Paris called "city of light", I've only heard "city of lights" MechBrowman 23:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've would think that La ville lumiere would translate to the glowing city or the city of light, not the city of lights. Does anyone know the origin of the term? jengod 18:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Paris is a beautifull city and to walk... -- Adelepuc 18:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In here, Northern Portugal it isnt summer yet and yesterday and the day before and the other the temperature was above 28ºC at 2 A.M. Nobody died... o_O when some body is about to die they just go to the beach and cool down in the water. LOL. - Pedro 13:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're alluding to the extreme heats of summer 2003, the thing is that people are absolutely not used to them and don't know the precautions to take. Remember, they were very elderly people. And there is no beach, by the way. David.Monniaux 15:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pedro, your thermometer must have a problem. According to the Portuguese Meteorology Institute, the temperature in Porto yesterday was 26 maximum during the afternoon, and 17 minimum during the night ( [1]). In Vigo the Spanish Meteorology Institute says the minimum temperature was 17.3 last night, and in Ourense it was 15.3. Maybe you measured the temperature inside your flat/house, but that's quite different. Meteorology institutes measure temperatures in the outside. Also, 2am is never the lowest temperature at night.... usually the lowest temperature is reached between 4am and 7am. The 25.5° C temperature that I wrote down in the article was recorded inside the Parc Montsouris at approximately 4am (at 2am the temperature was still 28-29). The temperature in the streets was higher than in the park, and inside flats/apartments, it was even higher than in the streets. In many Paris apartments, temperatures never went below 30° C at night during these days, which is extremely high. A 25.5 minimum at night as recorded by meteorology institutes is extremely high, even for southern Spain where daily temperatures reach 45 in the summer. Usualy it's the kind of night temperatures you find in Madras or Bombay in the summer, but not in Paris. Hardouin 17:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the Spanish Meteorology Institute website they say that yesterday the temperature in the Sevile area reached 36.5 in the afternoon, but the minimum at night was only 17.5. So you see that 25.5 is indeed very high. Hardouin 17:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK... the weather is colder today than yesterday, I'm going to see the temperature better, in a better place. BTW Galicia is traditionally very cold! At least for us here. So you cant compare. When I go to Galicia I normally use a lot of cloths. Unfortunnaly even in here the temperature reached 40ºc in the last summer, I hope it doesnt occur again this year! But 25ºC is a very pleasant temperature.-- Pedro 23:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

after a lot of time measuring correctly, and today the night is much more pleasant than yesterday. Much more. The temp is: 18.7 at 1 A.M. (so you are correct, although the temp. today is much lower than yesterday).

in August 2003, I had IN my flat a temperature of 38°during the day, and a lowest of 33° in the night (at 6AM) during 3 weeks ! You can imagine what these temperatures can do to ederly and ill people...

Where is the source for Paris being the second largest stock exchange in Europe? Surely both the London stock exchange and German Stock exchange are far larger. I would also dispute that paris is alongside London as being the major financial centre of Europe. Again London, Frankfurt & Berlin are far more developed in this respect

The Paris-based stock exchange called "Euronext" was formed on September 22, 2000 in a merger of the stock exchanges of Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris. It's perfectly logical that it's the second biggest stock exchange in Europe. Your motive, which is to diminish Paris economical weight, is utterly transparent, pal ...

The introduction is correct.

There are different ways to measure the size of a bourse. Data below as of Feb 2001.

One way is by the number of comapnies listed. London had 2,921; Paris 1,437 and Deutsche Börse 988.

Another common method is by market capitalisation. London with close to 2.5 trillion dollars, Paris with over 2 trillion and Deutsche Börse with over 1 trillion.

So by market capitalisation, which is the most common measure of size, Paris is twice the size of the German bourse. However, it should be noted that turnover in the German bourse may be higher. The reported figure is higher but reporting rules and calculation methods differ among the bourses. Parmaestro 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem in the introduction is not the size of Paris, or the size of its stock exchange. The problem is the frame of reference. While one could argue which, out of Paris and London, is the largest business centre; the statement that Paris is the most urban in the European Union is not. By most measures, London is a larger city - and is part of the European Union. This can be corrected with a simple change from "European Union" to "Euro area". In that frame of reference, Paris is undoubtedly the largest urban area.

Anonymous user, you don't know what you're talking about. Check Largest urban areas of the European Union FYI. And if you don't trust the list, check also www.demographia.com. Hardouin 15:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

...has with Paris? It's not even in it, nor does it have anything at all to do with French culture. Is Wikepedia forwarding "sponsored" links to its users now in addition to real encyclopedic resources? Actually only the top few links (besides the Disneyland URL) provide any real Parisian content.

This page seems to be open to all so I hope I didn't overstep the line by eliminating a spam link or two I found these past days. There's still one or two there IMHO but I draw the line here - also I don't seem to be very good at it (according to the page History, I somehow "spam linked" to the "old" version). The reason I did the above was out of a frustration at finding little in the English language of value or even relevence about Paris on the web - anything "Paris" is literally swamped with spam by tourist-fleecers. I do like Wikepedia and it has been a great help in my research - it is sad for me to see the same happen here.

I do have some link suggestions but now I hesitate to post them. The utter democracy of Wiki is indeed puzzling to one not used to it (smile). If anyone is interested please leave word here - and sorry for any problems I've caused, if any!

In my book everyone who checks out external links and removes them if they aren't all that great is very welcome. There are many city pages more in need of a trimming of that section than Paris. If you want to focus on Paris, I suggest you keep in mind that WP is not a travel guide, but tries to be an encyclopedia. – In my opinion, the Euro Disney link belongs into Disneyland Resort Paris, not Paris. Rl 07:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting the hang of this. Thank you for your reply - the fact is that my subject of research concerns Paris and this thread contains more than a few "strands" to follow if I get too caught up in the details. So yes, that is where my focus is... I will definitely see about tending to elsewhere, but I'd prefer keeping to my level of expertise. I hesitate where I don't know if that may be assurance.

Obviously someone wants those Disney links there. The spam links as well. Care to explain?

This is a much-visited page, and many who post links here have motivations very (*cough*) un-encyclopaedic. If one commercial link appears and stays then the flow will never stop. I have a website of my own concerning Paris that I would love to post here, yet I can't for the very same reasons. The only "Touristic" link here is the official Ville de Paris tourism website which itself is the limit of this logic. Please show some understanding.

ThePromenader 16:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just my two cents here. This is a great page start for someone starting a research on Paris but let's keep it in that theme. Disneyland definitely has no place here, as anyone looking for "Disneyland Paris" will type - disneyland paris - and be taken to or shown the link to the corresponding wikitravel page. Putting Disneyland on the "paris" page is an attempt to hook someone interested in Paris who might be coming - and this is certainly not an encyclopaedic practice. "Amusement parks" should go as well. Actually I think the Wikitravel link should go up near the top as an immediate reminder for those actually looking for travel information.

(added) In that light there are a couple other "non-encyclopedia" items that should go as well. If no-one has anything further to say on the matter I will see to it later today.

Changes complete. Travel moved up, Amusement Parks moved to WikiTravel, Roller Paris (photo-only site) moved to WikiCommons Paris with other already present Roller sub-section. Josefu 18:46:03, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Sorry for all the edits but I'm new at this. I'll try it "all in one go" next time with the help of a text editor. Josefu

Alright, I understand that I was abrupt in my changes this morning so I've already put back some of the few things I removed. I do think my re-formatting was beneficial to the page coherency (from one subject to the next) and I hope you'll agree. I'll see to the rest later.

Apologies for the "bomb" presentation. Henceforth I will give fair warning about any major improvements I think could be made.

take care,

Josefu

The section on the area of Paris is a little misleading. It says that the commune of Paris has an area of 105.398 km² compared to Greater London (1,572 km²) and New York (786 km²). Only further dowes it mention that Paris is a metropolis which contains smaller communes. The commune of Paris is more comparable to the cities of London and Westminster or the borough of Manhattan.

In fact I think it would be wise to remove all "comparative" information - not only is it misleading, it is rarely understandable unless one is very world-demographically informed. I think an actuall hard-fact shape, diameter (etc) info would be more informative and better-suited to this article.

Josefu 10:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

International comparisons are useful and should not be removed. Raw figures in themselves mean nothing if they cannot be compared with other data for other cities. As for the reader above, I'm not sure what she/he does not understand. The city of Paris (an administrative area with arbitrary limits set in 1860) has an area of only 105 km², which is much smaller than the administrative territory of the city of New York or the Greater London Authority. On the other hand, the metropolitan area of Paris (a statistical area with limits expanding year after year as people build houses further and further away from the center of Paris) is much larger than the administrative city of Paris and includes many small suburban communes. Sounds easy to understand. What exactly did you not understand? Hardouin 23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What I meant is, why bother comparing with the surface area of, say, Sao Paulo when you don't have any real idea what the surface of that city is? Only a well-informed geographer would understand as it is "his" language. Would this be yours as well? On the other hand, stating the city's actual circumference followed by something like "#XX in the list of the world's largest capitals" would be understandable to one not already in the know. The city's population could be given the same sort of treatment.

Josefu 17:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Except that, as you may have noticed, no comparison is made with São Paulo. Most comparisons are made with New York City and London, because these are two cities known by most people in the world, because these are considered two "world cities" like Paris, and because these are the two most prominent English speaking cities in the world, and after all this is the English Wikipedia, so I suppose most readers here come from the US or the UK, so New York and London mean something to them. If this was the German Wikipedia it would make sense to make comparisons with Berlin or Hamburg. Hardouin 10:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Since Paris is such a vast subject, putting it all on one page would be unreasonable if not imposssible. Since it will lead to other pages anyways, best to leave all the detail for the "specialty" antenna pages with just a recap here for those following leads. Too much detail on a "leader" page makes further detail on another redundant (and boring) and will bloat it past its suggested size as this one is. "Specialized" people will follow "specialty" links to the information they're looking for, so best leave that to that page. Get me?

Josefu 17:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the concept of a "leader article". When you open Encyclopedia Britannica, or the French Encyclopaedia Universalis, subjects are fully treated in their own article. You don't have endless subdividing of subjects. If you read the Paris article in these encyclopedias, everything about Paris is treated in the article, they don't tell you to go check a particular "Paris demographics article" or a "Paris geography article". I find it particularly tedious on Wikipedia when people endlessly subdivide articles and force readers to check tens of different articles to find information about one subject, when everything could be in the same article. If you don't care about most information in the article, there's a TABLE OF CONTENT at the beginning of the article that was designed specifically to allow you to scroll down directly to the section of the article you are most interested in. Nobody forces you to read the other sections. Hardouin 10:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So you actually are suggesting that we put "all of Paris' onto one page? I'm sorry but I must strongly disagree, mainly for a reason which forms the fundament of your argument: Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia. It does not have its space limitations, nor does it have its "a-z" hierarchical organisation. There is an astounding amount of publishable information on Paris, as Paris has engendered many inventions and movements over the centuries and today has yet another importance as a financial centre in the makeup of the world economy. How do you propose to put all of this on the same page? I fully understand now this page's hodgepodge of selective information, as well as why it is bloated well past the suggested size.

If you want to cite Britannica, Universalis or why not Quid, go to those sites to see how "Paris" is organised. None of them contain "everything" on one page, but even there, there is no reason Wiki should not do better. We should be contributing ideas, not territorial markings and idealogical limitations.

As I see it, the only way to expand is to reorganise this page into several "primer" subjects suitable for those uninitiated to the subject or those following leads (geolographical situation, demography, history, culture, etc) and have a link to a more elaborate page on each subject (if it exists). This leaves room to expand. A "Paris Culture" page, linked to from this one, could lead itself to different aspects of Parisian culture such as "Paris Fashion" - a page that, by the way, doesn't exist in English wiki. Anyhow, if someone is looking for "Paris economy" or "Paris fashion" he will type exactly that into the search field and be taken directly there. One can assume that one typing only "Paris" is either uninitiated on the subject or is looking only for very general information.

Wiki should not only be informative, it should be efficient.

Josefu 08:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm checking now, and the Paris article is only 44 kb long, whereas the London article is 59 kb long, the NYC article is 65 kb long, the LA article is 52 kb long, the Toronto article is 56 kb long, and the San Francisco article is 71 kb long. So I don't see how this Paris article, with only 44 kb, can be called "bloated well past the suggested size". At any rate it is less "bloated" than the articles about many other cities on Wikipedia. If anything, there's still room in the article to add some more valuable info. Hardouin 22:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"This page is 44 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."

I think the above says it all - for starters. I don't get the comparative either - just because other "city" articles are bloated doesn't mean that this one has to be too. Other than that you totally ignored every one of my arguments; exactly how much "valuable information" do you intend to put on one page? How much can you put?

Your stance on this page is quite clear to me now. I would like to hear from the others before making any changes though.

Josefu 15:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The limit on article size was written a long time ago, when there were still many browsers that couldn't handle long webpages. I have read on several discussion pages some computer savy Wikipedians that assure that this warning is a bit old-fashioned now, as browsers nowadays have much larger capacities. Hardouin 12:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with you there, but I still think that even 100k page would not be enough to hold all the information needed for a complete and informative "all-in-one" Paris page.

Josefu 20:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think once we get in the upper 60kb or so, we can start to worry. But for now I see no reason to fret about size. Furthermore, I'd like to remind you that it is not text that makes articles long, it is pictures. So if you want to trim the size of the article, you can start with removing some of the useless pictures in the article (are pictures of each and every Paris monuments needed?), instead of removing text. Hardouin 10:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong. The "k" measure of this page is only the text (including contributor markup code). The average photo in this page weighs around 20k - two and you're over the limit. Josefu 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There's more than photos that need to be removed or moved to other pages, there is a lot of over-specialised, redundant or pompous information on this page. Need I make a list? And why are you the only one answering? Where is the "page consensus" I've been told that I must apply to? It can't be but one person. If I don't hear anything I will go ahead with my changes and "be bold" as I was first advised.

I would like an end to this seeming stalling and an open discussion, but I have posted my aims here to no reply for long enough.

Josefu 08:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting once more Josefu's edits about Paris economy, and pretty much for the same reasons as before. Josefu's edits deal only with the administrative city of Paris, exluding the rest of the metropolitan area from this article. This is silly and makes no sense at all as I have already said before, and it is also quite misleading. For instance, one of Josefu's conclusions is that industry is a small and declining component of the Paris economy, based on the fact that indeed inside the administrative city of Paris there are few industries. But this leaves totally aside the industries in the suburbs, which make the metropolitan area of Paris one of the largest industrial base of Europe (car industry, Ariane rockets, satellites, Dassault fighter jets, Falcon business jets, optics, among others). Josefu, since nothing that I can possibly say seem to convince you, please check some serious encyclopedias, maybe you will listen to them. Go to your local library, and check Encyclopaedia Universalis, Edition 2002, Volume 17, page 393. There you will find the article about the Paris economy. Check also Encyclopaedia Britannica, Edition 2002, Macropaedia Volume 25, page 444. There also you will find the article about the Paris economy. Both these very serious and reputed encyclopedias talk about THE WHOLE METROPOLITAN AREA, not just the administrative city of Paris, because it makes no sense to discuss the administrative city without talking about the very extended suburbs beyond the city limits. Please be reminded that most of the Paris economic activitiy is happening in the suburbs, and not inside the administrative city proper. You can also check Encyclopaedia Britannica, Edition 2002, Micropaedia Volume 9, page 152. There you will find their Paris article, which talks about the whole metropolitan area, and not just the administrative Ville de Paris. Some of Josefu's edits are interesting and should be incorporated into the economy section, but first we need to rewrite the section to discuss the whole metropolitan area, and not just the administrative city. Hardouin 16:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)\

I am reverting, as your doing so is inexcusable. You obviously did not read one word of what I wrote. You cannot with any excuse revert to your complained about (yet strangely unedited) purely POV version of "Paris' " economy - which in reality is that of the entire Ile-de-France ! What's more, my text was to the same theme as yours but in context - and I cite my sources - read it again! What's more, you reverted past edits made by other users - you most obviously want this page, as it is now, as your own word-for-word POV of how "great" Paris is - but you write nothing of Paris !. Your choice of statitstics, precise as the statistics are, is selective and misrepresentive of what Paris is. Your "reasons" written above are not NEAR anything enough to justify a total revert past complaints and the work of other users. What gall!

This is only in addition to your general bad behaviour and your total mauvaise foi. Not only have you refused to partake in any dialog, you revert to and refuse to edit a word of a text so offensive and badly written that someone felt the need to complain about it. What's more, your insistance on spreading the same trumpeting yet vague statistics through both the London and Paris pages has resulted in an edit (voir "flame") war here with you AGAIN reverting to your own UNCHANGED version. I have been more than patient until the present but today you have gone much over the line.

Josefu 18:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

ADDED - Again, the Economy article is but a glaring symbol for the rest of the Paris page - the suburbs are placed on par and even foremost even before the city of Paris itself - and often a reader can't tell when you're talking of one or the other! Granted Paris is interdependant with its suburbs (as I stated) but not in full force to the extremities of a statistical region itself final in its inclusion criteria only since 1999, and even this NOT in both its population and economy ! The ile-de-France is largely rural and not chock-full and thriving as the steroid-injected numbers you give would like us to think. Forwarding these statistics in a city of Paris article without a proper explanation as you do is not only fallacy, it is dishonesty. You must place this into context, yet you refused to. So I did the research, got the real story and did it for you.

Instead of selecting but a few paragraphs from the works you cite to fulfill your POV, read the whole article and understand. Then write. And if we speak of your writing, it took me two days of spare-time research to sort out "your" article, so think what "regular" users must retain from it. If you cannot use your statistics in a clear, honest and straightforward way to write an article that is informative (and interesting to others outside yourself), you'd best take a holiday.

Josefu 21:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Listen, I won't answer your angry comments with angry comments. I just suggest once more you go check the encyclopedias I quoted above, there's not much more I can do really. If you don't like the fact that this articles talks about the whole metropolitan area of Paris, maybe you should create a City of Paris article where you would insert all the material you wrote regarding only the administrative city of Paris, while the current article would remain for the whole metropolitan area. Such a choice was made for Brussels for instance: there's a Brussels article that discusses the whole metropolitan area of Brussels, and there's another City of Brussels article that discusses only the administrative city. The same choice was made for Sydney, with a Sydney article that discusses the whole metropolitan area, and another City of Sydney article that discusses the administrative city proper. In the meantime, before we clarify this, I think we cannot leave your edits as they stand because they misrepresent Paris, limiting it to its administrative city only. And again go check the encyclopedias I mentioned above, please. Hardouin 23:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I should be angry; you ignore all dialogue and answer only with reverts. All the same, let me (try to) make this short and sweet.

1. It is quite obvious by even its first sentence that my edit does in no way only speak of only the Paris city proper". To state this as a justification for a total revert is quite beyond dishonest.
2. Paris' agglomération parisienne proprement dit (well spoken of in the Encyclopédie Universalis) in no way covers its entire aire urbaine (as even you underline in your little drawing). You make no mention that the recently-invented "aire urbaine" is not a result of natural demographic growth away from the Capital; it "includes" much other growth from different poles. Using "aire urbaine" statistics is fine if their relation to the city of Paris is explained, but if they are just cited the picture painted is incomplete yet strangely overblown - and false.
3. "Your" article, as it has stands (and that because you refuse to edit a word of it), offends. It belittles others using comparitive data that few understand. You refuse to edit a word of it in spite of the fact that it was even complained about. It offends to a point that it instigated a revert war - far beyond the "three, three day" rule - back to your unchanged origiinal version. This in itself is inexcusable.
4. No I will not start a "page of my own" as you so suggest in so many words, as no page will ever be mine as this one is not yours. This page is on Paris and can concern its subject, and we will not change the subject just to please the page's authour. (ADDED: now that I think of it, your suggestion is quite odd. Wouldn't it be more logical to make a "greater Paris" page and leave the "Paris" page to speak of the city itself? One or the other, I'm not game. Speak of both in context and we would need but one page. Your motivations are apallingly apparent : )

I understand that a "Paris" article speaking only of the city proper would be incomplete (and hard to make), yet going to your extreme of pushing the city limits to the recently-invented "aire urbaine" (and this for every subject this page contains) paints a picture untrue. If you want this information here, you must explain fully what it is and where it fits. The interest of this page is to inform, not to glorify. I understand that it has taken you time to build up most of what this page contains (and I have seen to what point it is yours), but you seem somehow to place your own "comparison style" and POV over readability and comprehension to those unfamiliar with the subject.

Josefu 08:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

ADDED: RFC filed.

Josefu, I am sick and tired of your constant personal attacks. I try to explain rationally why your edits are flawed, using encyclopedic references, but you always come back with personal attacks, "this page is yours and you don't want to change a word of it", that sort of language. No, this page is not mine, and I didn't write the entire article, far from it. What's more, if you check the article's history, I have never reverted people when they add new information. You constantly stress the fact that at some point in the past there was ONE anonymous user who left a comment on the discussion page complaining about the economy section, but that is just ONE user, ONCE. So stop saying PEOPLE have complained about the article. In fact, if you had thouroughly checked the history of this article, you would have realized that the real complaint about this article was about a year ago, when the article presented a very cliché picture of Paris limited to its administrative city, and to touristic clichés of Amélie-esque Paris. Some users like David Monniaux, me, and others, said that this representation of Paris was a misrepresentation, and that's when I started to give facts and statistics to the article. That's also when David and I started to upload pictures showing skyscrapers and towers to show that Paris is not just the touristic core that tourists only visit. And by the way, since when is it a crime to add data to an article? Now your new proposals to this article would have us return entirely to the 2004 version that was complained about, the version of a Paris limited to its administrative city and a very cliché image of Paris. When you state that Paris industry is limited to the Sentier clothing industry, I'm sorry but this is a total cliché and you are mirepresenting what Paris really is. Your understanding of the aire urbaine concept is also quite shallow. No, aires urbaines were not "invented" recently. Aire urbaine have existed for several decades already, but it's just recently that INSEE measures them. The phenomenon of extended suburbs and satellite cities has existed since the 1960s mind you. And the aire urbaine of Paris does not include "much other growth from different poles" as you wrongly say. The aire urbaine contains only suburbs and cities that are totally satellite of Paris, such as Fontainebleau. But cities like Chartres, Orléans, or Beauvais, are not included in the aire urbaine of Paris. Please be reminded that there are about 20 million people who live within one hour train from central Paris, and yet the aire urbaine contains only 11.5 million people. This is why I am reverting your edits, not because of a supposed sense of ownership. So please stop personal attacks. Hardouin 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

More in detail, these are the points, precisely, that explain why I am reverting your economy edit:

1. In the intro, you say that Bièvres and Faubourg Saint Antoine were outside of the city limits. That's wrong. These two neighbourhoods were outside of the defense walls, but they were inside the municipal limits. The municipal limits extended beyond the walls, they corresponded to the 11 first arrondissements of today. That part of the municipal territory that was outside of the walls was called "l'octroi".
2. You write "Most all of Paris' industry is in its suburbs today, and little remains within the capital itself save a network of "sentier" wholesale clothes workshops. " This is wrong. The main industry inside the administrative city of Paris today is printing. Clothing is only number two. Followed by electronics and jewelry.
3. You insert "wholesale meat and produce markets" inside industry. This is in no way an industrial activity. That's commerce, i.e. services, or tertiaire as economists say in France.
4. You write "Due to the greatly varying size and density of Paris' surrounding suburbs, the Île-de-France's seven départements were separated into two concentric sub-regions: the three smallest and densest departments sharing Paris' borders became the "petite couronne", and in a ring around these, the much larger, sparsely-populated and largely agricultural four remaining became the "grande couronne"." What does it have to do with industry?? This has to do with administration, not economy. Besides, you are wrong when you say that the grande couronne is largely agricultural. Agriculture is only a small component of activity in the grande couronne, probably around 5% of local GDP.
5. Your subsection "new statistics" make simply no sense. Don't take it personally, but jargon such as "Although the Île-de-France région administration was more adapted to Paris' suburban regions, it is a division that in no way helps to indicate Paris' actual worth." is extremely obscure and bizarre. Your sentence "Due to growing international trade, and in an attempt to make a economical statistical equivalent to the North American "metropolitan statistical area" used to calculate a city's Gross Domestic Product, in 1990 the INSEE devised an "aire urbaine" statistical region" is also totally misleading. INSEE did not start to compute aire urbaine data in order to copy US metropolitan areas "due to growing international trade" (what does growing international trade have to do with it??). In fact, INSEE merely created a new statistical unit that reflected the phenomenon of long commutes and satellite cities that had already appeared in France in the 1960s but was not really taken into accounts by public statistics until the 1990s.
6. This paragraph is also extremely bizarre: "Yet these statistics alone are not near enough to calculate Paris' real GDP. If we can assume that the Capital and its closest "petite couronne" suburbs share a highest economical interdependency, even a number devised from adding the GDP of Paris to its petite couronne cannot ring true for one main reason: Globalisation. It is rare today that a suburban factory does business only with the Capital (or in that light, only with France) and, to the other end of the scale, although there are very many companies with a "siège sociale" head office in Paris, few have their centre of production anywhere near the capital. Thus, even with the new administrative boundries and a new statistical region, we can only get a vague idea of where the city of Paris' real economic worth lies." You seem to be confusing GDP and GNP. Check the definitions. GDP measures added value produced LOCALLY.
7. Your tourism sub-section is also flawed. First, there are sentences that are not really encyclopedic, such as "Tourism, of course, is the icing on Paris' economy cake." Then there are statements that are flatly wrong, such as "Paris has risen to become the most-visited city in the world. (75 million visitors in 2003 - (WTO))". This is wrong. WTO says that there are 75 million foreign visitors to FRANCE, they don't say anything about Paris. Not all these 75 million visitors come to Paris, mind you.

In all, in your economy edits I find only two good points that should be re-used when we write a decent economy section:

1. Your mention that the central governement has induced industries to relocate to the régions, thus decreasing the share of industry in the Paris economy. That's a good point.
2. Your mention of Paris as a city of trade and exchanges, and its role still in evolution in the common European market. That's a point that should indeed be developped.

Please understand that there are so many flaws in your edits that it must be reverted for now. If you want to reply my message, please do not use personal attacks and answer the points that I have detailed above. Thanks. Hardouin 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to finally see get some real dialog, and it is mainly the lack of that that make my criticisms so pointed. I will answer your points later today.

Josefu 11:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

(just noticing) Lord, he reverted again to his unchanged... whatever. No, I will not make any personal attacks, no need to make baseless accusations. I call your cards for what they are and I only ask that you do the same. All the same, over these past months you have given fodder enough to provoke even the most placid.

Our conflict lies on two different fronts. Mine is coherence, comprehension and readability above anything else. Yours is fronting the "facts" backing what you think Paris should be - a POV that you clearly stated above. You also seem to forget that this is English-speaking Wiki", read by a majority who know little to nothing about the theme you have insisted on centering this article on.

Trust me, I feel the energy of Paris' role in the "New Europe", but let's not go overboard. I see full well all you have done here (David's biggest contribution was the administration subject as far as I can see) but the image you've fronted borders almost on something... immature. What you are basically doing is painting one picture over another, and the picture you paint doesn't even exist yet. Yes Paris is growing outwards, of course it has districts of thriving industry in its suburbs, but anything even remotely resembling a thriving skyscrapered and industrious uninterrupted city ends with the petite couronne. Paint a picture of modernity if you will, but add it in showing exactly what it is the new growth clings to, and above all, show the city for what it is, not as you would like it to be.

Now to my "so many flaws", once again nothing near anything grave enough to merit a total revert. Yet you do insist.

1. This is just a question of "how much we're going to talk about", and your critique is dishonest because I didn't even mention a precise period. Industry made the town that later became a faubourg.
2. I totally forgot about the Imprimerie Nationale. My error. You could correct and clarify this, you know.
3. grante "even its wholesale market" should not be included in the same phrase, although the thought was centred on "left for the suburbs", as industry. This would have been a very simple correction to make.
4. The Petite couronne's density is indeed very important - it contains the capital's natural growth outwards, and is logically the densest of its suburbs for both population and industry. The administrative divide isn't there for no reason at all. Agriculture - my dumb. Best use "rural". By the way, low-profit agriculture may only account for a small percentage of a GDP, but it sure covers a **** of a lot more land than industry does. That was my whole point quite obviously.
5. That should better be read as "is adapted". Granted. This whole phrase shows that, in spite of what the statistics say, Paris' industry is exclusive no longer to Paris' commerce and trade, and that in decreasing importance towards the "aire urbaine"'s periphery.
6. New statistics - but the INSEE's "aire urbaine" is exactly that: It embraces all land between the île de France's 1990 "unité urbaine" islands in a network that stretches outward to territories whose production until now have only very indirectly (if that) had anything to do with the capital's! It can in no way represent Paris' growth outwards, and if you are to use such statistics you must display them for what they are. The new statistics say "boom", the new statistics trumpet a demographic fireworks "pow", but the reality is a complete other. The 2002 Encyclopédie Univresalis goes to great lengths through all this to unknot the real lay of Paris' economy, and only vaguely manages to do so. The same is reflected in my writ! As for my phrasing, "The real reach of Paris' economy", granted, would be much clearer. You need only correct it.
7. Whoops. France, not Paris. Do you have the real statistics then? Perhaps you could have fixed this yourself.

Conclusion: You obviously have a great source of statistics (although those you place foremost place a flaw in the very fundaments of this article), and part of my everyday trade happens to be putting things in a form comprehensible and interesting (even beautiful in its form) for its target audience. Our knowledge together would probably make a pretty damn good article. Yet when I consider your three months of silence to a series of clear "intent to improve" articles; when I consider that you, when you finally did answer (my "I've waited long enough, time for change" message), ominously "warned" that "others" than yourself would "massively revert" any changes I made; when I consider that it was only after all this that I discovered that it was in fact you the author of around 60% of all this page contains; when I consider that, in spite of your "other reverter" forewarning, the only person that reverts (after maintaining your absence of dialog) is you; when I consider that, after reverting from the formerly only proposed changes you had made no previous comment on, your only justifications for doing so are a vague "many errors" that, if you did point out any of them, were few and easily corrigible, and in any case nothing important enough to merit a total revert; when I consider that you disregard a complaint about your work and refuse to improve it, and revert any changes thereof to its exact former state; when I consider that, in looking at this page's history, I see that that the majority of changes and additions you have "allowed" on this page (without reverting) were only to writ not your own, when together I consider all of the above, I can hardly see how this page can improve.

As others have done in the face of your persistant "revertitude", I will wait for a reply to my appeal for consensus. Yet in the time being, to keep this situation productive, I will modify my "test page" texts in light of your criticisms, and, should you continue to refuse to modify your POV Paris page to something a) in context with the city itself, placing Paris in the centre of things where it should be; b) fathomable to people outside your specialty and c) arranged in coherent, comprehensible and accessible way, I will be moving forward and improving this article. And I hope I won't be the only one.

Josefu 14:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Following the very many messages of Josefu (aka ThePromenader) above, I have searched for some data to improve the economy section, and clearly list the main branches of the Paris economy, instead of having just an explanation of the size of the Paris GDP. Thus, I have trimmed the Paris GDP discussion, which has its own article, and I have added workforce data, with the distribution of the workforce across economic sectors in the Paris metropolitan area. These figures are hard to find outside of France, and I think people interested in the Paris economy will be glad to see them. I have outlined what the rest of the section should talk about (manufacturing, business services, commerce and finance), but unfortunately (or rather fortunately) I have a life besides Wikipedia and I don't have time to write about these at the moment. I have access to very good data though, and as soon as time allows I will add the data I have access to. Josefu if you want to add some of what you wrote on your Paris work page, please do so in the subsections I have outlined.

Your map of Greater Paris is also very good and it would be great to put it at the beginning of the economy section, just below the italicized note. I just have three suggestions of improvement for your map:
1- you should give a specific color to the boundary of Île-de-France, say red (whatever), to distinguish it from the boundaries of the départements. Then in the legend you would say that the red line (or any color you choose) is the limit of Île-de-France, and that the black lines are the limits of the départements inside Île-de-France.
2- Instead of having "Areas of high-density inhabitation", you should instead use the limits of the "unités urbaines" that exist within Île-de-France, and call them "built-up areas" in your legend, which is generally how it's called in English. Your "areas of high-density" are not fully reflecting the extent of the "unité urbaine" of Paris, in particular in the Yvelines département. If you can't find a map showing the "unités urbaines" in Île-de-France, let me know I will give you some links to find it.
3- You should use the same color for the whole unité urbaine, instead of having a separate color for the city of Paris as you have done. The city of Paris is already distinguishable by the black boundary of its département. Hardouin 03:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally seeing you make improvements on this page is very nice but a) why are you not putting all this into a context suitable for a greater viewer audience, b) why is it only you that you "allow" to make changes and c) why have you left this page in an unfinished state suitable only for a sandbox? What's the hurry? You could very well work off-page and bring your improvements later. We should be working on this together, on the page I have set up to this purpose for example, but you seem to be alone in dictating any changes to this page. Make an interesting and accessible Paris page please, and stop just citing figures. As for my plan, your suggestions are noted but the plan as it is serves its simple purpose; yes it would have to be adapted to suit your purpose (in this light: no, Paris should not be indistinguishable from the suburbs) but this will take some time. Excuse my lack of candor but as you must understand I am doubtful about your motivations vis-à-vis this page and find it hard to work towards aims not in the interest of the page itself.

ThePromenader 08:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC) (aka "Josefu")

I have had a closer look at your Economy work and see that you have simply added it to your earlier contested yet still-unchanged version. Your addition cannot in itself cannot be seen as an "improvement" to your earlier writ. All the same, concerning the rest, I have all the same figures you do, yet in your rather hurried addition you neglect to give your numbers a space, a place that people can understand. Where is all this happenning? In what density? In what quarters? How much land does each occupy, and where? Where are the places you indicate for those who don't know the area? And where are your sources?

Concerning that little tidbit, Paris' economy measured with the AU statistic "isn't available" simply because the insee doesn't use the AU to measure economy. More than likely for reasons of administrative utilty. You will find nothing more than estimations concerning the AU's weight, and for sure they will be bigger than the île-de-France's, but posting unofficial, unverifiable and unsourcable numbers is not a good Wiki practice.

ThePromenader 09:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ADDED in all your "Economy" addition is definitely not an improvement as it contains many unexplained terms, locales and general ambiguities incomprensible to the uninformed user. Your mention of tourism is frankly misleading and obviously aimed at me - yet it is an essential and major element (and source of income) to the city proper and should be mentioned as such. Forget me, write for the readers. Unexplained and uncited lists of statistics cannot quantify as accessible article content. Finally, you left the page in a very untidy state. Your incomplete addition merits a revert, but I will give you the chance to fix your own error until later today. This situation has gone beyond silly as you now are quite frankly ruining the page.

ThePromenader 11:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It is near impossible to discuss things calmly with you, as you seem always hot tempered and always find flaws where there are none. Of course my figures are sourced, it's written inside the section, re-read, they come from the census 1999. I don't know how I can be more clear, the census, C-E-N-S-U-S, RECENSEMENT GÉNÉRAL DE LA POPULATION DE MARS 1999. The results of the census are available to all on the INSEE website. Your assertion that we have no economic data for the aire urbaine is also wrong. All census data are available at the aire urbaine level, and many of them are economic data. What you say about tourism is also plain wrong, I'm afraid to say. Even if we assumed that all the 183,196 people working in the tourism industry (a figure coming from an INSEE study about tourism industry in Ile-de-France) worked in the city of Paris alone (which is far from the case), that would still be only 11.4% of the 1,600,815 workforce of the city of Paris. So tourism is really not that important overall. Finally I don't understand what you mean by my "unexplained terms". All the terms that I have used are the ones used in economics litterature. Hardouin 13:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• the only discussion ever taking place here is after your constant reverts; That alone is a good indicator of tone.
• cite your sources.

I did. It is clearly stated the sources are the 1999 French Census (for workforce data). Hardouin 14:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You citations in this article are very few, and never linked to their sources. ThePromenader 15:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• people cannot situate the places you speak of if they don't live in Paris, nor can they place the numbers you lump together.

Which place in particular are you talking about? Any geography level that is mentioned, such as Hauts-de-Seine, is linked to its own article for people who don't know what it is. Hardouin 14:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

People reading a page don't want to flip around for information, so a "space-relation" description is enough. If people want more detail they will go to the more detailed main article. Even my edit as it stands is too complicated. ThePromenader 15:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• one in four jobs in the île-de-France is related to tourism and tourism is a very important source of Paris' revenues. INSEE. Your overall choice of statistics is very selective.

You see, this is typical of you. You don't understand what you read, which is not surprising since you are not an expert in economics it seems. The INSEE study that you linked to above is exactly the one I have used, but you didn't understand it. It DOESN'T say that one in four jobs in Île-de-France are related to tourism, it says that one in four jobs in the French tourism industry is located in Île-de-France. This is totally different. Do you understand? Hardouin 13:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Here again we play "fog of details" in ignoring the principle reason for editing. I phrased my post very badly, but nowhere will you find this claim in my edit. No need for personal attacks. ThePromenader 15:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• many people don't "speak economics", let alone "French economics". Who are you writing this article for?

I am not using any French economic terms. I have used English and American economic terms, instead of merely doing a copy and paste translation of the French terms. This has necesitated a lot of time, to try and find the exact Englih and American terms that corresponded to the French terms. Hardouin 14:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Many Americans do not understand American economic terms. Go figure. ThePromenader 15:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ThePromenader 13:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Section Moved - Instead of eliminating the more statistical part of the of Economy section left for more than a day in a state of unsightly incompletion (see above), the entire section has been placed onto a new Paris_economy page. (note - this information is indeed useful, but hors-propos here. It is best that it have its own page, that way it can retain its language better-understood by those interested in the subject.)

ThePromenader 09:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that some people are having strong feelings about how this article page should look like. Without going into the details, here is my feedback: the Paris article is way too long and a substantial part of the information contained in this article should be moved to sub-articles.

The rationale is quite simple: think about the reader. Who is the typical reader of such an article? Probably 2 main types: 1- someone browsing Wikipedia and looking for an overview about Paris, and 2- someone looking for specific details.

The article as it is today is absolutely discouraging for the first type of reader, and most people won't read anything in this article and simply zap to another one. Period. So I guess that it misses the point of informing readers about Paris at all.

The second type of reader will most probably browse and look for the section of his/her interest and will click on the specific sub-article. The current Paris article makes it quite difficult for such a reader to quickly find information.

Information architecture is a key aspect of any readable article or website. Look for instance at the Hong Kong article. Hong Kong is a city about the size of Paris. There are literally hundreds of Wikipedia article specifically dedicated to Hong Kong topics, yet the main article itself remains readable and detailed information does not appear overwhelmingly in the main article.

A few examples about the Paris article:

• does the history section of the main article need to be so long?
• does such a long section about the population growth belong to the main article?
• does the long section "Workforce and sectors of the Paris economy" belong to the main article?
• does the list of mayors belong to the main article?

I hope this can help. olivier 14:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Olivier! Please help here if you have the time. ThePromenader 14:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just had a look at the Hong Kong page - vendu! It's great down to its footnotes and references. Thanks for the example.

ThePromenader 17:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There is truth about what you say. At the same time, one thing I have noticed over the months on Wikipedia, is that as soon as we start trimming an article by creating sub-articles, there are always new users over the months that come and add new info into the trimmed sections, so that in the end we end up with a main article that is as long as before it was trimmed, and sub-articles that are redundant with the main article. It's very hard to coordinate people.

Also sometimes it's just very hard to make a concise summary for the main article. Take the Paris economy. As you can see from the workforce by economic sectors, the Paris economy is very diverse, and it's very hard to summarise it in a few lines, as there are so many different economic sectors involved. If you put the long list of economic sectors in a sub-article, how would you summarize the Paris economy in the Paris article? That list in particular I added yesterday because of Josefu (aka ThePromenader)'s complaints that the article said nothing of what exactly is produced in Paris.

The Paris mayor list we can easily move into a sub-article, that should be no problem. Population growth we can also easily put it into the demographics of Paris article, as it will be easy to make a short summary. History section is quite hopeless, as it is the section most edited by people, who constantly add new info, most of the time irrelevant (such as Paris lost the 2008 and 2012 Olympic games, irrelevant in a quick summary of Paris history). Perhaps we could simply translate the Paris history section of a Larousse dictionary, which is both quite thourough and short. What do you think? I don't think translations of our own would expose us to copyright complaints, no? Hardouin 15:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin, again you are attempting to "stall into the details" to delay change. You asked for opion, you got it, and what needs to be done is clear. There will be no "coordination of people" and you certainly will not be attempting to do anything of the sort. Nor is there any "my writing" or "we who wrote the article" writing responsibility to perpetuate. What is written is the only thing of importance here, and if you want to protect your work from scrutiny, criticism and change, best write a book and get an editor. People are free to contribute to this article in any way they please, and it is only normal that there will be a "maintenance cycle" of new additions, cutting, moving, rewriting followed by more new additions. Your blocking this page in this cycle is most probably the very cause of its sorry state.

ThePromenader 15:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Tourism

Again: "Tourism, of course, is the icing on Paris' economy cake. From its first Universal Exposition years, themselves fuelled by the very beginnings of transport technology, Paris has risen to become the most-visited city in the world. The capital seems to be between two trends today: most of its Paris monuments and establishments famed for their history or "Parisian nostalgia" have been preserved and restored, and millions invested to this end; on the other, Paris has had many new "chain" restaurants, hotels and stores catering to a tourist's already-established tastes." Do you see the problem? It lacks actual information and "waffles" too much. Also information on new restaurants, hotels and stores is meaningless as is - *every* city in the world that has tourists has that. It's only information if there is a point to be made: have these restaurants ruined the cities character? etc.

Yep, it's more Belgium (waffle) than France for sure. Again, as everything you read on that page, keep the spirit, toss the text, as it's me trying to say everything in the same phrase again. The above was in regard to an earlier "muséefication" of Paris comment that, while actually being true, does not paint a complete picture (Paris' problem is its becoming mired in the low-labour-high-profit sectors of the service industry - and yes tourism is a big big part of this...) ThePromenader 19:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This should be cut massively: "Since the World Expo of 1896, Paris has become the most visited city in the world, with more than 50 million visitors each year [cite] coming to visit its carefully preserved art galleries, museums and theatres and to experience the unique Paris atmosphere". Keep it tight.

Me again. Again, forget much of what I wrote on that page as it was written by rote and slightly "against the light" of some of what's written here. Doing an English Paris page in a place such as Wiki is no easy task, namely for the reason that there will automatically be conflicting views (subject choice) between a) English-speaking French nationals with an education or experience of Paris and its relation vis-à-vis the rest of its country (and the POV can go to extremes depending on where he's writing from) who will write about it much in the same way as, say, you would write about your own city or country, and b) Foreigners knowing much about Paris' "reputation" but little about its actual workings. Lean too much to the former, you'll have a French encyclopaedia entry; lean too much to the latter and you'll have a gushingly descriptive tourist guide. On that note, I'm an English-speaking ex-pat living here since 1989 so I thought myself a good enough bridge (between the two) to swallow the task. All the same, these past weeks have been educating to say the least. ThePromenader 16:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Good points. Basically, Paris is *not* just any other city, and its article should reflect that. It would be inappropriate to have endless facts like who its administrators were over the last hundred years, how the citiies borders keep being redefined, what proportion of workers are of Portuguese origin etc. Definitely somewhere between gushing tourist guide as you say (not too hard to avoid as long as we avoid "a multitude of", "a wide variety of", "rich cultural history" etc etc) and a staid "facts and figures". Fwiw, I'm an Australian spending my second year in France, in Lyon. I know precious little about Paris, so my interest is more in the writing/copyediting/presentation side of things. Stevage 17:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My "forte" is in image, layout, design and overall communicability. In short, I chase the "click factor". And you eat better where you are : ) ThePromenader 18:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I must take the above "English-speaking French nationals with an education or experience of Paris and its relation vis-à-vis the rest of its country (and the POV can go to extremes depending on where he's writing from)" as addressed to me? I think it is time to make a few things clear: a- I am not, repeat NOT, French (although I could obtain citizenship if I asked); b- I do not live in France; c- I am trilingual, I lived in many different countries, including France for a long time. Ever heard of children raised by parents from two different countries? For all the weeks and now months that Josefu (aka ThePromenader) has been active on this page, I have been time and again the subject of personal attacks, which haven't stopped even after expressing how sick and tired I was about it. It seems it's not enough for ThePromenader to attack someone's writing, he also has to attack that someone's character and motives ("your motives are utterly transparent" and all that crap).

I really, but REALLY don't like the tone "this article shouldn't be a French encyclopedia entry written by French nationals" and all that "I can be a bridge" bulshit. I was educated at Stanford University, California, so I think I know a bit about what's written in American academic literature and can be as good a "bridge" as anyone else, Mr. Josefu. It is really no surprise that Wikipedia has no recognition at all in academic circles, given the shallowness and gossipee nature of so many articles. Over the months that I have been active on Wikipedia I have been trying to improve the content of many articles (not just Paris mind you!), giving precise facts and data, debunking a few myths and clichés, organizing things in a more academic way, etc. I don't pretend to be perfect, but I try to do as best as I can.

Now about this article here, I have this to say: true, it should not be just a dry collection of statistics, but on the other hand, if it's going to be only an entertaining presentation of Paris, you might as well write for the Lonely Planet Guides. The article needs to contain hard data and figures if it intends to have any informative use for more than just tourists or curious bystanders. I think it is a mistake to write the article with people planning to come visiting Paris in mind. After all, if they are going to be looking for information for their trip, they are more likely to open the Lonely Planet guide than Wikipedia. Hardouin 00:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't read ThePromenader's post as an attack on you or anyone. Everyone's opinion is equally valid here and the main benefit of an exert (which I am not) is someone who knows sources and who can quickly spot errors. Let's try and leave our egos out of things and just work on what makes the article better. We seem to all be in agreement that the article should be a mix of hard facts which would be useful to someone beginning research on Paris, and a qualitative indication of what makes Paris Paris. Travel information is inappropriate - that belongs in WikiTravel. However a sentence or two on the Louvre seems appropriate - Paris is renowned for it, after all. Anyway why don't we get on with making some edits and see if we can move in the direction of that goal. Stevage 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't take any offense at any of what you wrote, Hardouin, as you have quite obviously missed the point in much of what I said. I never said what should or shouldn't be, I said "what could happen", and frankly you weren't even in my thoughts as I wrote it. People who already live in France will write a "useful information" article and people who don't will write a "why we think Paris is great" article. I was the latter, now the former, so there you go for my feeling "up to the task" of contributing to a "how it is yet interesting" article targeted at (disassembling) the many "idées reçus" many foreigners may have. This is English Wiki, open to more than the "already educated" such as yourself. As for the necessity "hard facts", copying textbook figures states truth but cannot in itself make an article because, presented as such, they will lack the "background" context needed to make them understandable to uninitiated readers. Have you never heard the term "pédagogique"? We won't go to extremes though.

There is no "me" or "you" or "background" or anything of that matter present in these pages; only the credibility and accessibility of what's written will resist or suffer to change. Now it would be kind of you to remove the more aggressive portions of your post as not to spoil the mood for others who have something to contribute. In fact, it would be kinder if you removed it altogether. ThePromenader 09:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

- Removed my hors-propos text formerly here to Hardouin's talk page - sorry. ThePromenader 17:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

- Replaced it here after archiving section because Hardouin saw fit to remove it. again sorry. ThePromenader 22:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There is now something you've done that could quantify a much harsher tone in your egard, Hardouin, and that is what I saw while visiting David.Monniaux's talk page. I had written him directly over a week ago, and after your little contribution to the Paris talk page I thought it timely to see what's up there. Not only do you quote me out of context (even inserting your own interpretetations to better "make your case"), you tell him that I make "over twenty edits a day" in neglecting to include that none of these are to the Paris page itself, but to the talk page or my own. I do in no way want to speak "only of the city of Paris" and this also is quite clear even in my "work edits" themselves. You tell him that I will replace everything in the article and this is totally untrue, and the truth is evident a) everywhere in the Paris talk page and b) the box I created to the head of my "work page" to debunk your earlier false accusations. You also vaguely insinuate that I am hiding behind a pseudo(-pseudo)nym when I have done nothing to hide the fact that I changed my name (signing "aka 'Josefu'" in a method that you yourself later parodied). I have criticised your unwillingness to engage in any improvement dialog, and chastised your hiding the fact that you and you alone are the authour of most all this page contains (although I do regret my using the term "dishonest" even if it wasn't hors propos), but nowhere have I made any personal attack of any sort and your asserting the contrary to an administrator, in addition to all the above is... lest I not digress.

Hardouin, over these past weeks you have employed most every type of "when in doubt" stalling tactic and weaved a web of vague assertations only to keep a page you think is yours from changing, and frankly I am quite embarrassed at my own naïve reaction to it all. It is your silent stalling and refusal to dialog that obliged me to work in the only place I could - my own talk page - and it is your unwillingness to "allow" any changes to your texts, and your subsequent reverting to your own unedited version without even considering improvements proposed, that wasted the time, in addition to my own, of others whose aid was sought to break the standoff. In short, this situation has become so apallingly overblown and ridiculous that I can't blame anyone for not wanting to touch it with a ten-foot pole. All the same, some have had the courage to do so, the deadlock is broken, a current of improvement has begun, and in all I consider all your shadow-sparring to be of no further consequence. You're welcome to help, but hinder no longer.

ThePromenader 17:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, in light of the "forehead slapper" I posted earlier above, I will be removing the links to my "work page" later today as, now that things are moving forward, discussion and work can take place here on a sub-page to this one. Also going will be any rifraff having nothing to do with this page's improvement, but it will be stored in an archive page for the sake of arbitration.

ThePromenader 13:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the heated arguments exchanged in the past weeks, and I think a lot of it has to do with a problem of definitions. The name "Paris" has different meanings. In a strict sense, "Paris" refers to the city proper itself, the Ville de Paris. In a broader sense, "Paris" refers to the whole metropolitan area, the city and its suburbs. After pondering this, I am more and more enclined to think that we should create a City of Paris (or Ville de Paris) article, which would give information concerning strictly the city proper, while the Paris article would deal with issues concerning Paris in the broader sense, the city and its numerous suburbs. This idea I didn't just make up myself, it slowly matured into my mind after reading articles about several other cities. Please check the Brussels, Sydney, London, and Melbourne articles. These articles are concerned with whole metropolitan areas, while there are the more specific City of Brussels, City of Sydney, Greater London, and City of Melbourne articles which talk about the administrative cities proper. We could do like what they did at the London article, we could create a "Defining Paris" section that we would put at the beginning of the Paris article. In this section we would give the different meanings of Paris, the different limits, and link people to a City of Paris article if they wish to know more about the administrative city proper. Then we could also move the infobox to the City of Paris article. Waiting for your comments. Hardouin 12:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think your comparisons apply. Paris is too big to be anything comparable with the "square mile" that is the city of London, nor can it be the quite modern and unbroken urban/suburban sprawl that is Melbourne. Paris is distinclty separated from its suburbs and has been for almost 150 years now. Paris is united with its suburban departments only through a distinct "île de France" apellation and administration. Therefore I suggest, should you want to speak of the entire region as a whole, that you start a new "Île-de-France" article. ThePromenader 17:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not talk about the City of London. I mentioned the Greater London article (the municipality) vs. the London article (London in a broader sense). Even Brussels has two articles, so I don't see how we can avoid to make two articles for Paris, especially given the need to clarify definitions of Paris. Hardouin 22:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, a lot of energy is being wasted comparing cities. At the end of the day - who cares? Presumably given any two cities A and B, you can define an area of each of them, f(A) and g(B) such that for any comparison c() you care to make, c(f(A)) > c(g(B)). Don't like the result? Redefine the areas! Really this isn't important - everyone knows that the "great cities" around the world each have their own strengths and weaknesses, and it's just not worth getting upset over. This article is about Paris. Some parts of it will be relevant only to the core centre. Some will be relevant to Ile-de-France. There is nothing wrong with that, and absolutely no need to duplicate all the information. Stevage 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's not oversimplify and try to apply "general" principles to all cities. Paris is particular, and its connections with its suburbs are particular and must be explained as they are. Of course "we can avoid" making two separate articles where there is no call to. It is only with a great stretch of the imagination and a very selective (and unofficial) choice of statistics that we can group Paris without distinction as one with its suburbs, so let's not take POV to disinformative extremes here. ThePromenader 23:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"very selective statistics", "POV to disinformative extremes", the usual verbal violence of ThePromenader, on a daily base now. I wish I weren't the only one to point out to you how your aggressive prose may hurt other users. Hardouin 00:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think anyone can see that over the past weeks we've gone over this enough times to exasperate anyone, yet the language I is anything but "violent". Attack the fond, not the forme. The statistics you use are officially applied only to a "reach of influence" analytical end, and cannot be used to constitute a jurisdictional and administrative theme for this entire page. Nor in this article can you ignore or give second priority to particularities Paris has. This is what anyone would call being selective, and the writing resulting from such a choice would indeed be disinfomative. ThePromenader 03:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This article doesn't have a "jurisdictional and administrative theme", since it is not a City of Paris article, but a Paris article, in the broad sense. If you want to have an article with a jurisdictional and administrative theme, again we should create a dedicated City of Paris article. Besides, your attacks are totally unjustified: the statistics for the metropolitan area of Paris do not apply to a "reach of influence". The reach of influence of Paris extend to about 70% of France, yet the metropolitan area is much, much smaller than that. You are confusing metropolitan area and reach of influence. Hardouin 12:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You've misunderstood again. And please do not accuse me of making attacks when I make none. Yet I will repeat myself one more time: The "aire urbaine" statistic was created precisely to determine Paris' direct and indirect reach of demographical influence. You cannot take this data and say that "is" Paris, nor can you take this statistical area and say that everything within it somehow "belongs" to Paris. INSEE is explicit in its explanations about the use and function of all its statistics, yet none of them even begin to show the Paris you present. Even in the face of this lack of support you add a note to the bottom of your article saying that the statistics you need to support your theory "are not available," when the truth of the matter is that they in fact do not exist. ThePromenader 14:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

ADDED: I see also that you've gone from suggesting "that we make a City of Paris article" to stating that "this is not a City of Paris article". Will you please accept the fact that Paris as it exists today can in no way merit this sort of ambiguous treatment? Perhaps in another twenty years.

ThePromenader 15:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you're both quibbling about something which just doesn't matter that much to the article. GDP and population are pretty small points when you're talking about Paris. Your definitions of what is "in" and what is "out" of Paris are worthy footnotes when giving statistics, but no more. Please spend your time (both of you! :)) on some other part of the article...I notice there is no "famous Parisians", no mention of famous artworks stored in Paris, no description of "Parisians" in general (cf: New Yorkers) etc etc. I think we need to basically trim what's there already, and broaden the scope of the article. Stevage 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, would you mind if we got rid of this "proposal" section altogether? To the archives! ThePromenader 12:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)