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 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Putting the 'museums' in 'education', 'religion' in 'demographics' and 'media' in 'economy' didn't even make sense, so I've regrouped them into a "Human resources" section (that also can be found in the New York City article, if appeals like this must be made). It just makes sense. Firefighting and Police are other possible additions to this section sorely missing from the article. If you have any issues with this, please leave them here. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 07:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I've left the more statistical part of religion in the demography section - the information about Paris' churches had no place there. Cheers. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 07:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful to rewrite "Religion" as "religion" and not "churches" - as it is, it wasn't suitable under the "religion" title in the architecture or the demography section. The "religion" in the statistics section is quite correctly titled, as it is but statistics on the Paris agglomeration's religiosity. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 08:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Also also, the "Media" in the New York City article is about the economic sector (it makes a sizable part of the city's economy, and many of the nation's network's head offices are there); this article's 'media' was not at all written in that context (even after its move), although 40% of the Paris region's industry is in printing and publishing [1]. If you want to talk about it there (if it isn't talked about already), rewrite it first (and don't just move it for the WP:POINT of it). THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 08:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the general sense of what Promenader has done; media doesn't really belong under economy, nor museums in education. I would create, as Promenaders suggests, a different group that could also various urban services, such as the police. I would give media its own section, and put museums and libraries under culture. I think sports should probably have its own place. SiefkinDR ( talk) 09:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the name of the section is debatable, it's just the logic of it all that I'd like to 'bracket': "centres of human activity" or perhaps "human services". I'm not suggesting titles (those are awkward at best), I'm just trying to describe it. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 10:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Human resources" and "Human services" are actually about the same thing, although the first is 'taking' and the latter is 'giving' ; ) THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 10:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@ SiefkinDR:, 'Sports' is in its own section now. Not so sure about the rest... if media were to have a section of its own, I think it should be expanded a bit, there's a lot of press in this town. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

And I'll get to work on a "Police" and "Firefighting" section tomorrow - a Paris article without the Sapeurs-Pompiers? Righto... THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Human resources designate workforce or manpower. There is simply no logic to group under such a label things as different as healthcare, education, media and a second religion section, different from the one of demographics. I don't understand at all how we can think otherwise, there is just no rational here. This just looks like a lazy catch-all section. Metropolitan ( talk) 15:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That's one use of that phrase; there are others. What it's called is not important as long as the name fits the logic of that grouping. See the New York City article for another example of this logic - especially since that article has been cited here as an example for everything else. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 15:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@ SiefkinDR:, I've just completed a map (shown here) I'd like to add to the Demography section, but with the section the way it is, it's going to be more of a mess. Do let me know when you're going to move your recent additions. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 10:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this map would be better in the economy section where there is a part about incomes. Minato ku ( talk) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That would work, too. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 13:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Here I used it to illustrate how the city's socio-economic distribution/makeup extends well into its suburbs as a unique urban tissue/trend. It could be useful in many places, that's why I made it. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 13:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I second Minato Ku. The map should be in the economy section. But wasn't the "income" subsection in the "economy" section? Also, the name of the region is "Paris Region" in English (various references for this are given in the lede of the article). Der Statistiker ( talk) 14:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Two other comments: the map is very interesting, but too large (I mean it covers a territory too large), so it's hard to see the exact dividing line between rich and poor at the center of the metro area when the map is seen as a thumbnail (most people won't bother to open the map in a separate window). 1. In my opinion, it would be better to zoon in the map, i.e. remove the rural fringes outside the urban area proper, which are not really interesting anyway because many rural communes there have no data. So it would be best to crop the map at the limits of the urban area (unité urbaine). 2. Also, the "75 Paris" text in the center hides the colors inside the city of Paris. It's impossible to distinguish the colors inside the city of Paris when the map is viewed as thumbnail. It would be best either to use different (and smaller) fonts, or to put this text elsewhere, with an arrow pointing to the City of Paris. Meine zwei Pfennige. Der Statistiker ( talk) 14:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I made it to be looked at at about the size it is (or larger), as a visual reference that it would take paragraphs of text to describe. A petite couronne map would require a more detailed dataset; perhaps at a later date. "Paris region" is fine in a colloquial or vague or in-text reference to the region, but its Île-de-France name is best suited for maps about the region itself, like this one. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 14:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I tried to make a zoomed-in version, but the result was too... chunky. Cheers. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 14:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

File:PRincomes.png

Ideally, I would crop the map like this. Also, are you sure about your figures? Fontainebleau should have a rather high income per inhabitant, but it appears with a low income per inhabitant on your map. Last but not least, INSEE has now published the 2011 income figures, so the map should be updated and use the 2011 figures: [2]. Der Statistiker ( talk) 14:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem comes from your color code. You've used 3 colors for above the median, and only 2 for below the median, so its gives the wrong impression that some communes above the median are actually poor. Der Statistiker ( talk) 14:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

[3] THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 15:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

So you've copied an outdated map from INSEE. Interesting... First of all there are copyright problems. You CANNOT copy a map from INSEE. This will be reported to the admins at Wikimedia Commons if the map is not changed so as not to use the same color code and scale as INSEE. They are very very strict with copyright over there. The map should be made entirely by you, not copied from INSEE. Problem #2: the map is outdated. I pointed out to you with a link that we now have the 2011 set of figures for incomes at the commune level, something that you have disdainfully ignored. Problem #3: already mentioned above, it makes some rich communes appear as poor. If INSEE used such a crappy color scale, that's no reason to slavishly copy them and do as bad as them. Der Statistiker ( talk) 02:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WTF? How can one accuse me of copying and at the same time 'not copying correctly' (aka 'to my taste')? I made the data and colors match theirs to show what they wanted to show - I make maps, but I am not a statistician. You can see in my second version that I already changed the colours to make the poor less obvious (as per the 'orders' given). But sure, disrupt everyone just because it is not to your taste. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 07:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And that data is public domain, yet all the same sourced in the map (and otherwise how could you have it?) - this accusation is disingenuous on so many levels. Yet I will modify the colour scheme, since that is monsieur's only possible point of contention. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 08:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And you have obviously misunderstood the map - there is indeed a huge disparity in the Paris region. I'm not going to mask that. I already did by making the colors more gradual. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 07:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to cut out the poorer departments and frame the map just to show the richer ones ; )

This centres on the petite couronne (and who cares what it's called, only the visual area covered is important), and advertising for the metropole du Grand Paris, to boot! THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 17:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why limiting the map to the petite couronne? (the borders of the Métropole du Grand Paris won't be those of the petite couronne in any case) The colors should be clearly visible on both sides of the petite couronne "border", as in my example above. Der Statistiker ( talk) 01:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and why have you once again removed the table of countries/territories of birth? Your insistence on hiding the ethnic diversity of Paris is suspect, to say the least. I must warn you that a further removal of this table will lead to a notification at AN/I. Fair is fair. Der Statistiker ( talk) 01:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not? I'm sure someone can use it, and, after thought I'll be uploading versions without titles, too, so that other languages can use them. "Your insistance on hiding the ethnic diversity of Paris is suspect" - what does that even mean, am I being called a racist? The reason for its removal was in my edit commentary. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 05:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And "Better placement of maps and tables" [4] isn't an edit comment that announces that the table was replaced. And, again, reverting a contributor's work (in this case, mine and Blue Indigo's) just after they do it is a stalking form of bullying. If you don't like a just-made edit, take it to the talk page; the editor who made the changes is sure to be still around, so you'll be sure to get an answer. Just reverting and complaining (in accusatory tones) post-revert is counterproductive and disruptive. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 06:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I was sourcing the 'Urban Sociology' and 'Paris and its Suburbs' sections I'm working on in my sandbox (already mentioned mainte times above) when I looked at the demographics section I had pasted there (from the article) for flow/structure purposes: Much of its English was repetitive, over-wordy or simply didn't make sense, its writ often didn't correspond to the sources provided, unneeded linguistic acrobatics to highlight a certain term almost doubled the text volume, many of its affirmations were unsourced, and a graph there (made by a certain Hardouin ; ) didn't have sources either (there was no aire urbaine in the 1970's!) and is probably WP:OR. I speak in past tense because I made a first wave of corrections: I didn't look to see who is the author of this, but whenever I get around to inserting the rest, if it is not corrected, I will be inserting the corrected version too, please find it here. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you've mentioned them "many times" doesn't mean they are accepted by other editors. Every city article has a "Demographics" section, and now suddenly you want to downgrade this section as a sub-section in an "Urban geography" section of your own. That plus some vague insinuations of original research, threats of removing charts and tables from the article. Promenader, you're at your worst again! With reams of edits here and elsewhere every day that other editors don't have time or patience to follow. I swear I will open a complaint at AN/I if you don't stop with your antagonistic and bullying attitude that is most of all detrimental to this article. Der Statistiker ( talk) 02:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about something in my sandbox; I was done with it and about to delete it when I noticed it. What's with the inventive tu quoque accusations? Please do open an ANI ! THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 05:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And why no comment about the revisions I called attention to and linked to? Oh, a "have a look here" would have been more inviting for sure. I'll fix that. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 05:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. I'm not in the habit of eliminating other contributors work without announcing my intentions well ahead of time - that's what the talk page is for, and personal accusations disrupt it - if it's personal, take it to ANI. And again, please do. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 05:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to observe that Der Statistiker a few days ago removed all of my text about the current religious life in Paris from the section where I had written it, and moved it, without notice or discussion, to his section on demography, though it was not about demography at all. I respect the very much the work of both Der Statistiker and Promenader to this article; both have made great contributions. I hope we can bring dispute to an end without any more name-calling. Please, everybody, do not make major changes without previous notice and chance for discussion by other editors. Respect the work of others, stop the name-callling and lets get on with improving the article, SiefkinDR ( talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@ SiefkinDR: none of the religious content you wrote was deleted, and you know it. Promenader DELETES content from the article, and intends to delete some more, including useful tables and graphs that nobody else has a problem with. This is a major difference. There would be no "dispute" if he didn't display such an antagonistic behavior. Der Statistiker ( talk) 15:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to make such direct accusations, that's for ANI, not here. Not only is that not true, that's disruptive. But please, go ahead. Please. Really, please.

In a normal editing atmosphere, a lack of reply to a proposition means a lack of opposition, especially when past contributors have been invited to the discussion if it is a major major rewrite.

Only in a twisted, corrupted bully-ruled editing atmosphere should contributors fear having their work deleted/reverted "because it's still being discussed" (after no reply to their talk-page proposition) AND fear having their work reverted "because it wasn't discussed first" - people who make proclamations like "The fact that you've mentioned them "many times" doesn't mean they are accepted by other editors" are creators of that type of atmosphere... especially when they don't partake in talk-page discussions for reasons other than to "justify" reverts (and add insult to the anger at them) and to attempt to slander other contributors who 'dare' question them.

That observation, aside, I have yet to see any answer to the very real problems that I outlined. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 15:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker: I never said you deleted it, I said you moved it without notice or discussion to a completely different section, where I didn't think it belonged. but I'm not going to get into a long and pointless argument with you. I just wish this kind of bickering and accusations would stop; no more of this: "you do this, and you know it..." I just want to work on the article in a calm atmosphere, update outdated statistics, add new information and sources, links and sources, and improve the quality of the what we're giving our readers, without fear that anything I write will suddenly be deleted or moved somewhere else without any notice or chance for discussion. I don't see why we can't do this without all the bickering and accusations. Respectfully, SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Promenader and Statistiker: stop it, immediately. I ought to have been blocking you both by this point, for the renewed climate of hostility that has erupted again over the last two-three days, but I still thought I'd hold off to see how things develop. Now, you need to stop hacking on each other again and just work out how to solve the content issue. Just do a freaking RfC, will you? Or better still, two seperate RfCs. (And then, for heaven's sake, stand back from debating the issue yourselves. After you've posed the question to others, let others answer it and then go with that.) So, what are the questions? I see one very simple editorial one for which opinions ought to be easy enough to gauge: How should the demographics section be structured, where should it stand in the article structure, and where should the treatment of religion be? The other one, judging from what Promenader says about his planned re-write of the remaining demographics parts, seems to be another reiteration of that private POV feud between just you two, which few other editors have shown much interest in but which appears to keep bringing you two to the edge of war continuously: the conceptural question of what the term "Paris" stands for. If I compare the most recent version of the Demographics section here, and Promenader's sandbox version, I see that the most salient differences (apart from some added refs and unfortunately also some added grammar mistakes and poor diction) mainly consist of Promenader omitting several instances of the qualifier "city proper", as if to drive home the point that the term "Paris" alone can only be understood in that sense. So, are you two going to disagree about that? If yes, I expect you two to do nothing else but to work out a mutually acceptable wording for a question to be asked about this in another RfC, from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand. I'm not proposing a rewrite of anything, I'm pointing out problems to be corrected, and inviting whoever wrote that section to fix it and provide sources - this has to be done, one way or another, and if my motives were any other, I wouldn't have announced it here for discussion. I was even about to eliminate the one I had put in my sandbox (I had put there to avoid repetition in the section I am working on) when I noticed those problems and half-assed highlighted them (it's my sandbox, not the article!). My contention is with editing behaviour, and I'm not the only one to complain. Please, by all means bring content issues to the talk-page - that's what everyone is asking!

My edits to the article (remaining) are next to nil [5], and my intervention here has been practically talk-page only, and yes, complaining about the treatment of other contributors. Perhaps after years of flame wars (most of them during my absence) and two topic-ban reqests from different contributors and several ANI cases to examine, there's something worthy of investigation here? But right, it's my fault for sticking up for myself and other contributors. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 17:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction: actually, it's nothing but sticking up for other contributors at this point. But for my pains I've been called an elitist intellectual wannabe racist plagiarist just over the past few days - please find any similar accusations or behaviour from me. And isn't it odd that these come from the very person who would come running for you for you to apply your rule against that (even when it wasn't broken)? There's something very very wrong here, Sunshine, and you won't see it if you just judge everything on its 'noise level'. The complaining is about something. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@ Future Perfect at Sunrise: Believe me when I say I generally couldn't give a hyena's left nipple about what Der Stat chooses to spend his time on on here, and believe me when I say I'm completely neutral on Paris, it wasn't an article I even chose to develop, it was helping out Gilderien. My main concern really is quality. Sniping on here asideand any POV issues you perceive between the others, can you genuinely say that certain interests in this article are improving it or degrading it? I trust you as an experienced editor here to know what quality writing entails.You can't honestly believe that Der Stat is being entirely productive here. There's an argument for perhaps a little more detail for demographics, but merging religion and splitting into unsourced half stub section is completely unacceptable. The article is a shambles. The best solution would be to restore to the version where it was at least technically fairly decent and lock it until editors can mainly agree on changes. Even Tim riley has said this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I fully respect your concerns about quality, but I see it as something mostly orthogonal to the fights I'm trying to contain here. We just had the timeline of events listed up a few sections above; not much of what you describe as "merging religion and splitting into unsourced half stub section" was done by Statistiker, was it? The quality issues could easily be worked out if people weren't at each other's throats all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

[6] THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 19:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This talk page - even the comments just above - is filled with complaints about the removal/modification of just-contributed edits without/in ignoring prior discussion. Often those edits were the result of talk-page discussion. I have contributed practically zero to the article; my role here has been only seconding those complaints. The issues that you are making central are not central - it is the lack of respect for/bullying other contributors that is, and this disrespect has nothing to do with me. I've been offering nothing but talk-page support, but even this is being treated as an 'invasion'... I've been article-absent since years, and I only come here only after there's a problem, and always the same one... really, you don't see a trend here? THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 19:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To get back in the content of the article, almost every cities have a section about demography but few have a separate sections about religious. Rome has a separate section about religion because it is the mother city of catholicism, home the vatican. but I don't see why Paris should have a section about religion, especially if this section is mostly a summary of religous buildings.

This shows one of the major flaw of this Paris article, it look like too much like a summary of landmarks than a real explanation of the working structure of Paris (too touristy). Minato ku ( talk) 19:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

French Wikipedia Paris on religion, refers to it, not as "Religion", but as "Culte":

In section n° 6 titled: Population et société, containing 8 sub-sections, Culte is 6.7:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Cultes

French Wikipedia Rome: special section on Religion, subdivided in two because of the importance of Catholicism.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome#Religion

Italian Wikipedia on Roma: religion referred to as Religione, within section 4. titled Società, is in sub-section 4.4 Religione, and treats subject very much like that in fr.wiki.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma#Religione

What I am driving at: could not there be two different manners to treat the subject and both be acceptable? It thus becomes a choice between the contributors to pick the one the majority rather have, the one that flows better within the article?

We often say here that we should not copy others, but we keep on referring to fr.wiki, as if it should be followed exactly. Then we turn around & criticize the size of some of its sections & amputate ours.

Also the argument that Rome has a special section on religion because of the importance of Catholicism there: Catholicism has been as important in France, said to be La fille aînée de l'Église. It is not anymore, but the buildings remain, and it is tourists who are filling the catholic churches, not so much the French dutifully going to church on Sunday. However, religion in Paris, and in France in general, is very important to those who are not Catholic.

So, the subject cannot be ignored or summarized to a point that it becomes meaningless. It has its place either in its own section, or as a sub in a main section, with mention of most important lieux du culte. The material is here!

As suggested/ordered earlier, this should be discussed & decided upon right on this page - every detail of it.

Fut.Perf., please be patient: you can't keep putting members of our crew under house arrest... while the rest of the gang watches the show.

Regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 01:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Blue Indigo's comments above. Religion falls under demographics in several other articles because those articles have specific demographic information about church membership, complete with tables, which the Paris article does not. As Der Statistiker rightly points out, there is no current reliable information on church membership. This section is about churches and religious life in Paris today. A church, not a museum, is the most visited monument in Paris today. They play an important role in the life of Paris today, and I believe merit a separate section of the article.

If we are going by fr.wiki article which, I imagine, uses INSEE as reference, statistics on religion & race are not going to be found, because, among others, questions on religion, race & ethnic background are not allowed in census (recensement de la population), which is done by INSEE. However, such data can be obtained from organisms such as the CSA, Ifop, INED, in France, and the CIA, State Department & Pew Research Center, in the US.

Also to be noted, fr.wiki on Religion in France begins with the sentence: "La France est un État laïc depuis la loi de séparation des Églises et de l'État du 9 décembre 1905." This might be the reason fr.wiki does not have a section on religion per se, but transfers the subject to subsection "culte", with list of religious buildings (lieux de culte), treating it more like it would a list of monuments, museums & exotic restaurants found in Paris.

Religion is a personal matter. In case it needs to be recalled, throughout its long history & up to a very recent past, France has experienced harsh moments because of its imposition of one religion and discrimination against others with the use of indiscriminate profiling.

-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 11:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with Minatu Ku's insistence that the article should have less about this and less about that. I don't see how taking information away improves the article. Much of the information in the article on contemporary life is out of date. If you think it needs more about modern Paris, don't criticize, please contribute! SiefkinDR ( talk) 06:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with Minato ku and Der Statistiker who both, throughout this Talk page, have used the term tourist, tourism, or touristy pejoratively in their description of the contents of the Paris article, implying there is too deep an interest in the culture or locations visited, and therefore similar to a "tourist guide" as opposed to representing the "real Paris". This was the same diatribe used above in relation to the disputed photomontage of the lede. This article remains, in my opinion (even at the present time), one of the best encyclopedic articles (GA-Class) here at Wikipedia. Coldcreation ( talk) 10:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I was going to leave a comment here about Minatu Ku's opinion that this article is too touristy. However, both Siefkin & Coldcreation have expressed my view much better than I could :)

With his impeccable sense of History & Tourismus, von Choltitz, even at the risk of being court-martialed & worse, refused to "remove" the great monuments of Paris.

Food for thought... -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 12:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The "tourist" section is short enough for now ; ) On the other hand, the Demographics section problems I opened this section for have yet to be corrected or commented on. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 13:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Many of those answers are representative of the tourist's view, it is important to speak about religion, not because of the population religiousness but because the most visited monument is a church. Notre Dame is a major place of Paris just because it is the most visited monument by tourists. All of this reflects the idea that it is tourists who define the city of Paris and not its inhabitants and as a Parisian, I strongly desagree with this idea.

Nowadays Notre-Dame don't play a more important role than Italie 2 shopping mall or a district like Barbes in Paris' life. Minato ku ( talk) 20:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

0.o THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

ThePromenader

• Translating 'Urbanism' (now architecture - done), 'Urban sociology' [7] and 'Paris and its Suburbs' [8] sections from the French Wikipedia article.
• Maps - Paris housing (done) [9], Median IDF income (done) [10], Median Greater Paris income (done) [11], Paris' hills and hydrography [12]and a map of Paris' successive walls and fortifications (and perhaps urban evolution too)
• The Demography section [13], if someone else doesn't get around to it first.
• I said earlier that I'd do a 'Police' and 'Firefighting' (perhaps together) section for the 'human resources' section, didn't I ?

Updated: THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 19:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC) -replace this with your Paris tasks-

SiefkinDR

I have been updating some of statistics in the economics section, both for the City of Paris and for the Paris Region, from INSEE. After that I would like to work a little on the section on restaurants; and at some point I think we need a section on the environment.

---

*if you would like to discuss anything above, please start a new topic

After having read the Economy section, a question popped in my mind: What land area is this article supposed to cover?

Sticking to my "marotte" that this article on the city of Paris, should be on Paris intra muros, not on its suburbs, not on Île-de-France, not on Paris region, not on Grand Paris, not on Paris Metropolitan Area, why is so much information on those? Most of the statistics on economy concern the Parisian region - which encompasses a lot of land beyond the périphérique. In addition to Paris, that region contains 412 communes. Most people working in that ring around Paris do not live in Paris intra muros, but in the banlieue, in these 412 communes.

The section begins with the sentence:

• "The Paris Region is France's premier centre of economic activity, and with a 2012 GDP of €612 billion (US$760 billion)[9][116] In 2011 its GDP ranked second among the regions of Europe,..."

Its last two paragraphs are:

• "In the Paris Region, the major industry is the manufacture of materials for transport, mainly automobiles, aircraft and trains. In the region 800 companies and 100,000 salaried workers are engaged in aerospace; though this number has been falling in recent years as jobs moved outside the Region. Automobile manufacturing engages another 100,000 workers in 400 firms, though this number has also been declining in recent years; a major Citroen assembly plant in Aulnay-sous-Bois closed in 2014, with the loss of 3,300 jobs. Another important employer in the Paris Region is a new sector, the eco-industry, which also employs about one hundred thousand workers.[122]"
• The Department of Hauts-de-Seine, where La Defense is located, is the major center for finance and insurance, as well as scientific research. 144,600 employees are concentrated in La Defense alone. the The audiovisual sector is centered in the Seine-Saint-Denis department, with 200 firms and the ten major film studios. In the Yvelines Department, automobiles are the main industry, with 33,000 employees and major plants of Renault and PSA-Citroen. The Essonne Department specializes in science and technology, while the main industry of Val-de-Marne, where the wholesale market of Rungis is located, is food processing and beverages.[122]"

Same with "Income": with opening sentence stating: "The GDP per capita in the Île-de-France region... ", details are given both for Île-de-France & Paris.

My question: Is the article with title "Paris" on the "city of Paris" or on the "Paris region", "Paris Metropolitan Area", "Île-de-France", while all of those have or should have their own article?

I have no objection of mention being made of activities beyond the périphérique in this article, but this is really too much off, too much "Paris extra muros".

Please, do not take this as criticism; just explain:) -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 23:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell you how many times this has become an argument before. But I'll try to put it simply.

• This is an article on the city of Paris. The city of Paris has precise administrative limits; France's interlocked commune system makes any alternative impossible. And the 'city of Paris' is Paris. But...
• Paris' urban tissue is one with that of its surrounding communes, but this urban tissue is referred to, as a whole, as the Paris agglomeration (it is an expression very commonly used here, and the INSEE often refers to it too), or, more statistics-technically, the urban unit, or if we would like to appeal to other-country usage, urban area. There was a French agglomération Parisienne article, but now it redirects to unité urbaine... correct, but odd.
• Outside of that is the Île-de-France, or more familiarly, the 'Paris Region' ('région Parisienne') called that because it actually was called that until 1968, and the name stuck... it is most commonly used to: describe the administrative région itself, or as a vague 'somewhere near Paris' (but not in the agglomeration) or 'the entire Paris area beyond its agglomeration'. Anyhow, for things like economy and employment, Île-de-France (Paris region) statistics are cited because it would be silly to say that suburban industry, finance, etc are not part of the Paris economy. And communes, départments and regions are where all data is gathered. Yet for demographic studies, commune numbers are rearranged into an area called an...
• Aire urbaine, an INSEE-institute tool (or 'concept' as they call it) that measures the influence of an agglomeration on its surrounding area: it is an urban tissue surrounded by a commuter belt. Very few people here outside of statisticians know what it is.

(rant) It is similar to a metropolitan area, and in this article it is called that, but since no-one here knows what it is, it cannot be presented as a commonly-referred-to 'thing' (like it is NA countries). And there is the fact that the INSEE translates their term to 'urban area' (or 'larger urban area', and the upcoming 'Greater Paris Metropole' which is going to cause confusion with that inventive translation... anyhow this article is one of the only places on the web (and perhaps the world) that translates "aire urbaine" into "metropolitan area" [14] or vice versa [15]. I won't hide that I've always disliked how this term is pushed here, especially when it there is no need for it to be. Yay, rant over.

So let's just say this article is about Paris until it can't be. When we're talking about things like demography (especially commuter patterns) or urban growth, it's silly to stop at the péripherique, but nor is it necessary to go into too much detail, nor can we talk about the entire urban tissue like it 'is' Paris (that's a cognitive dissonance that fails as soon as pen hits paper, and it is unreferencable). To avoid confusion, there's nothing wrong with using a correct, constant English terminology that closely resembles common usage here; Paris, Paris agglomeration, and 'Paris region' to refer both to a vague 'Paris area' and the actual administrative (Île-de-France) region would do just fine, with no added invention needed.

Is that clearer? Already it's bad news for the article that you have to ask that, normally it should make this clear. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 00:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@ all: this article is not and has never been about the administrative 20 arrondissements of Paris intra-muros. It's about the functional city as a geographically defined urban area. If you wish to restrict it to the 20 arrondissements, then as Fut.Perf. already said above, open a Request for Comments (RfC) to ask the opinion of other editors. In this case the article will probably have to be renamed City of Paris, and the namespace Paris left for the wider functional city. In any case, it's totally bad behavior and disrespectful of other editors to delete content from the article without first opening a RfC to decide what the article should be about and how it should be named. Der Statistiker ( talk) 01:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That description is an opinion that defies every reference in existence.

Perhaps English-wikipedia general ignorance about the subject will work in its favour, so please do open an RfC. But this is is a referenced encyclopaedia, not a bar-room conversation with ignorant foreign tourists. But it's your call.

Who removed anything about this - what? And that's a pretty good description of your behaviour... or is it a threat to everyone against removing anything 'unless there's an RfC'? That's just disruptive. Since it is you both providing an alternate opinion and making threats against people who don't accept it, it is for you to present it to an RfC - and don't forget to cite your sources in your case. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 06:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Blue Indigo's comment was a question, not an opposition. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 07:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

PPS: If you want to argue your case further, then open an RfC. Anything else would be disruptive. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 10:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓, for taking the time to explain. Putting myself in the seat of a reader who expects to read an article on Paris = the city itself, I still maintain my question concerning the extent with which the subject is treated in this article, i.e. way beyond the limits of the city of Paris intra muros. It hits me as strange to see the opening paragraph begin with The Paris region..., followed by Industry and Employment, Tourism and Income, all beginning with mention of either Paris region or Île de France. My first reaction was: "Is this article about Paris?" I understand that Paris as a city must be put in the context of its surrounding area; but here (and it is my opinion as a reader, hence my question) upon reading the section, I am left under the impression that it goes beyond the subject of Paris & treats mostly the Paris region.

As stated in my previous comment, this was only a question, which I maintain: If the section is to be kept as is, then it should begin with a sentence explaining why the economy of Paris intra muros cannot be treated without referring to that of the Paris region, but not with the words The Paris region: as is now, it throws the reader off.

Regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 09:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! I just left you a comment on my talk-page as to not muddle this page further - a writing-method explanation about 'section context' that would perhaps be useful here, but I don't have the time to pare it down right now. Wordy wordy me. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 10:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And yes, you're right, there could be more thought given to an objective (and Paris-unaware) reader point of view. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 10:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's an either-or question here. I believe the article has to be about both the monumental Paris and about the modern city which sometimes spills outside the center. The great bulk of the article should be about the center; because that's where the monuments, history, culture and government are; the region comes into play when talking about economics, population, and some issues such as transportation. But I would say 75 percent on the city and twenty-five on the region. SiefkinDR ( talk) 18:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Very well put, Siefkin.

I agree. -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 18:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no 'decision' to make, it's like that anyway! It's the sources (economy, demography, transportation, etc) that lead us outside the city, that's not our 'choice' or 'opinion' - we're not writing an essay here ; ) THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 19:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything, but just wondering 'why people go to (or 'hire') Paris' - I know about Tourism (and congresses), Expositions, education, medical research, printing (although it's fading fast) and media... Cinema... Fashion (duh)? Any others? There are aerospatial company headquarters here, but the actual research is elsewhere... I think. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 16:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait, aren't I just decribing the 'Culture' section? THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 17:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Start by the beginning : Capital of France. That is the key for power decision, place to be to negotiate o almost anything that is done in France, from wheat to perfume (mostly done next to Grasse). Aerospace r&d are mostly in Toulouse & Bordeaux. v_atekor ( talk) 17:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't 'Capital of France' a given, and covered in the Adminstration section? And for the latter, thank you. What else is Paris 'attractive' for? Cooking schools - nah, that's so trifling I wouldn't even count it. Fashion schools, for sure! THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 17:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(scratching head) True though that Paris has schools for all of its specialty trades. And for cooking I'd go to Lyon ; ) THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 17:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What people do in Paris first is decide & negotiate for what is done in France, not only at administrative level, & for other part of the world, former colonies for ex... There are a large panel of not french administration in Paris (starting by embassies). France is a heavily centralized country, with state counting for more than 50% of the PIB : then half the activity of France is decided in Paris... Then,the second activity parisians best do is to leave Paris. v_atekor ( talk) 17:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No the state don't count for more than 50% of the GDP (PIB=GDP in English), fortunately. Don't confuse the level of public spending with the economic activity.

The specialities of Paris, banking, insurance, cars sector, energy sector, retail sector and etc. Paris home to the hq of companies from all the sectors of the economy. This could be described as corporate business and this is the leading economic sector of Paris economy.

This is not unsurprisingly that Brooking ranks Paris as one of the city with the largest share of business/Finance sector in its local economy (second highest after London). London: 47.8% - Paris: 47.4% - Frankfurt am Main: 42.0% - New York: 40.3% http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3 Minato ku ( talk) 18:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks! I wouldn't call 'having head offices in/around Paris' a 'specialty', though... especially for Finance sectors. But why are they here, for that matter? Easier business meetings? Playing the innocent here just for the sake of the question. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 18:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You are right. But I think it is very french to have most of decisions centers (public or private) concentrated in the political capital of the country. Milan, Franckfurt, Barcelona, Anvers... Guayaquil, Rio, Shanghai, NY, LA... are not political capitals and count with several major decisions centers v_atekor ( talk) 18:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

v_atekor There are many centralized countries are all over the world, Russia, Japan (the importance of Osaka is fading in favor of Tokyo), UK, South Korea, Argentina, Belgium (even with a relivative importance of Antwerpen because of its harbor and linguistic difference, Brussels is by far where happen most of the important things) and many others.

ThePromenader because Paris is the most important city of one of the most important European country and it has a good location. Minato ku ( talk) 18:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So perhaps 'head offices' and 'business transactions' would be that 'attraction'... almost a given, but worthy of mention. Ottawa is the capital of my country of origin, but one can hardly say that it is a magnet for business - that would be Toronto. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 18:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Minato right, and for mot of these countries, what is important is to have economical centers next to political centers, just as in Paris, Moscow, Buenos Aires... v_atekor ( talk) 18:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "What is Paris' international acclaim" would hone that question down a bit?
A lot of the above could go into the economy section (as sub-sections?) - at least something about the leading company names in each sector, that's pretty high information-value. IMHO, of course. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 22:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

International renown? Jeez. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 06:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

By international renown you mean tourists cliché instead of the real sectors of the economy? Because for the moment this article is trying to make the tourism more important than the financial sector in Paris economy. Minato ku ( talk) 08:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Now you are two to be disruptive. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 08:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I think we need a new section on environment, which can give a brief summary of where Paris is on air quality, water quality, traffic, energy, green space, and other similar issues. A lot of good information on this topic is contained in the European Green Cities Index, and the city also has good information. Help is needed to find sources and put this together. The question is, where would this go? Any suggestions? SiefkinDR ( talk) 16:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, yes, great idea! Wouldn't it go well in the 'Geography' section? (Land, hydrography... air?). There's something to be said about the Seine water quality - or is there already? There was, but I contributed that years ago. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hm, there's numbers available every year [16] and I'm seeing much different numbers [17]. And of course tourism revenue seems miniscule when diluted into the entire IDF GDP! THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 19:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The 18.4% of jobs linked to "tourist" industries includes all the transportation jobs, all the restauration and retails jobs, this gives an exagerated picture of the size of the tourism into Paris economy and employments. It is not the tourists that make most of the restaurants income neither for transportation or shopping or even leisure. This is not also good to see the data from agencies which is their jobs to promote a sectors, they tend to exaggerate their impact.

The section about tourism fails to speak about business tourism, a large share of Parisian tourism is not about visiting monuments but about doing business. Minato ku ( talk) 01:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So where do the existing numbers come from? If there are different sources, okay, but this isn't an essay, we can only cite sources here. And I think that if 'tourism-related' is made clear, that should be fine... 'tourism employment' is a hard thing to quantify... and I see that in past years they didn't count transportation (that brought the 'tourism-related' numbers to ~13%. Anyhow the numbers in the cited article phrase are -way- different, and they only seem to be sourced. This is odd, but if they just need to be updated, fine. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 02:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Things are odd and can be completely different from one source to an other because there is no strictly defined tourism related jobs, it depends of what people consider as tourism related jobs and how they calculate it.

The source from Paris tourism office did it easy, they have just taken the all the jobs of sectors where tourists spend money. By example, according to this source a metro driver has a job related to tourism. This is not untrue in some ways but the metro driver jobs are not more dependant of tourism than they are on banking sector, IT sector... and to every other kind of passangers who are likely to take the subway. Minato ku ( talk) 03:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

We can theorise many things, but on Wiki we don't have that privilege - the text here has to reflect the sources. If those sources reflect more 'realistic' numbers, fine, but the numbers in the cited text don't come from anywhere at all! THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 03:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That's why I think we should not go to much into details and not put those numbers in the economic section of Paris article, especially with conflicting sources using different calculation methods. There is the Economy of Paris and Tourism in Paris articles for more detailed information. Minato ku ( talk) 03:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ - I think the economy section needs more information (even sub-sections) about Paris' biggest industries (media, etc - and tourism is among them!). Perhaps not in the economy section, but somewhere. I still want to know how those numbers came about. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 06:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Promenader; since tourism is a major industry in Paris, it should be discussed in some detail in the economic section. The larger number cited by the Visitors Bureau seems reasonable to me, since it includes a broader range of activities, even if those (like restaurants and transport) are of course not exclusively for tourists. We just need to explain what the statistics include. As to business tourism, I believe it is included in these numbers, since business travelers use hotels, restaurants, transport, etc. and they might even take a little time to visit the Louvre or Notre Dame. SiefkinDR ( talk) 06:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

MasterCard 2014 Global Destination Cities Index reports Paris as the 3rd largest earners on tourism worldwide. $17.0 billion. Source. Coldcreation ( talk) 07:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

To me, the most reliable sources for data on tourism in Paris itself (number of tourists) are not those linked to advertising/promoting Paris worldwide, with a tendency to inflate numbers, but those who base their findings on obvious tourist & business presence, as Siefkin noted above, and the businesses most concerned are... the hotels (and chambres d'hôtes), because visitors to Paris have to sleep somewhere - a businessman from New York, Berlin or Lyon is a hotel client just as a tourist is -, and hotels know the exact number of clients who sleep under their roof: one, two, a family of four, five etc. The official agency that takes this into consideration is the one to rely on - if allowed by Wikipedia, naturellement. What is that agency?

-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 08:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be the Paris tourism board, yet even they have difficulty discerning the jobs that 'touch tourism' - if they were to exclude any job that touches a single tourist, or include any job that does the same, the numbers would be much different. Hotel numbers are very indicative of both the tourism and business (congrés) industry in Paris, and the tourism board publication has a section dedicated to this. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 09:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Minato ku brought up a good point, though: Paris' tourism numbers (GDP, etc) could be but a line with the rest of the economy figures (and the detail of each industry could be in the Economy of Paris article), but a good place for Tourism info for this article would be... this city's 'specialty trades', there's nothing about this here! Tourism is obviously one, but what other specialties does Paris have? I know of a lot of biological research institutions (around Kremlin-Bicêtre, and Louis Pasteur would fit into that section too)... will think about it as I work today. Cheers! THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 09:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please, don't forget to include Becquerel, Pierre & Marie Curie and their offsprings, and other great French scientists who did their work in Paris. Would there be an Institut Pasteur in Paris without Pasteur? There should be a section or subsection on science, with the name of scientists who have as much right to be in this article as bal musette or Rock en Seine (held in Saint-Cloud), or even Monet & Picasso.

As a part of the population that should not be ignored, there should also be a few lines on the people who camp (are they tourists or Parisians enjoying the outdoors?) on the quay of the Canal Saint-Martin in the winter.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Enfants_de_Don_Quichotte#mediaviewer/File:Tents_along_the_Canal_St_Martin_by_aleske_in_Paris.jpg

That is also Paris, as much as the skyscrapers of La Défense.

-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 12:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(raising hand after looking at edit history) Um, I think Statistiker and Coldcreation are both right - the tourism part could be part of the economy section (as a, like, sentence) but not written how it is. Tourism is definitely one of Paris' 'specialties' - and for the time being, deserves to be elaborated and in a section of its own. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 16:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Minato ku, someone just added that and it is not in error - au contraire - it is sourced, unlike than the unsourced text it replaced. It is very rude to revert just-contributed good-faith edits, especially to the person who just contributed it, and there is no call for that revert, either. I just don't like it is not a motve for reverting. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 17:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Tourism is not more important than financial activities or "services to businesses" (service au entreprises as it is translated here) in Paris, so I don't know why it should be treated differently.

Keeping the 18.4% just mislead the reader who will believe that 18.4% of the jobs are dependant to the tourism which is not true, a metro driver is not dependant of tourism.

We should use only the data from the national statistical agency INSEE which is independant and not prone to exaggerate the importance of one industry. Minato ku ( talk) 17:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

We can't use our 'favourite' sources, either. And there's no 'hurry', either. True that in the Economy section context (IDF), it is true that tourism written as it is doesn't fit in with the rest - yet another reason to move it into a section of its own and elaborate it (especially the fact that those numbers also include trades that only partly deal with tourism... @ SiefkinDR: just contributed it, so what do you think, sir? THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I would do the opposite, we don't need to go too much detail in Paris article when there is already an article about the Tourism in Paris where everything can be described in detail. Minato ku ( talk) 17:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You'd really like this article to say that Tourism is not important to Paris, or make it seem so? That's quite a reality-defying opinion. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 17:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a "reality-defying" opinion. Tourism, despite its prominence among... tourists, is a very small sector in the Parisian economy, and the city would barely be affected if tourism disappeared. You want a city where tourism is really important to its economy? Take Lourdes, or Provins (closer to Paris), or Las Vegas in the US. To pretend that tourism is as important to Paris as it is to Lourdes or Las Vegas is what's "reality-defying". Der Statistiker ( talk) 18:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I also note that once again Coldcreation edits this article only to revert other editors. When was the last time I saw Coldcreation coming to this article not to revert other people but to actually contribute to it with some content? Hm... never I think. Der Statistiker ( talk) 18:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Say the phrase "Tourism is not important to Paris" to anyone and they'll look at you like you're crazy. And comparing local tourism (well, hôtellerie, restaurants, catering) profits to those of companies who only have head offices in the Paris area (and generate their income all over the world) is ... I commented this below. And when a section is being discussed, it is quite rude to ignore discussion and edit it anyway. And can it with the disingenuous accusations. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If reverting edits, Der Statistiker, contributes to the quality of this article then I will revert edits whenever I feel the need. Coldcreation ( talk) 18:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not say that all these jobs depend solely upon tourism; obviously restaurants serve both Parisians and tourists; and Metro drivers wouldn't lose their jobs without tourist passengers (they never can lose their jobs, they have a great union) but without tourism tens of thousands of people would be out of work. Tourism is a much larger sector than manufacturing, and second only services to businesses. And the Tourism bureau is of course using INSEE statistics, combining those sectors (hotels, catering, leisure, transport) which are most directly affected by tourism. SiefkinDR ( talk) 17:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

To examine globally Paris' economy, one would have to include all of the surrounding departments that contain Paris-dependant industry (in the French sense of the term), and those departments are all eight departments of the IDF - therefore the IDF itself. What the tourism board has done has tried to narrow down the tourism numbers ('un-dilute' them from IDF economy figures) by taking data from Paris and the innermost departments - we as Wikipedians don't have the right to do this (it would be WP:OR, but we can cite an organisation that has done this, and what higher and more concerned organisation than the Paris tourism board?). Still, again, their numbers should be accompanied with an explanation of how those numbers were calculated - and they do this themselves in their publication, so that would totally be legit, too. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 17:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Minato Ku, do you really think that having five lines about tourism in the Paris economy is too much, and that it's role in the Paris Economy is exaggerated? Please, go the Champs-Elysees, or Galeries Lafayette, and tell me who you see there. You can't pretend that tourism isn't important to the Paris economy. SiefkinDR ( talk) 18:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The role of tourism is exaggerated, there are maybe many tourists in the Champs Elysées but their contribution in the economy is pretty limited (Paris has a huge economy, this is a not a small city). Note that the upper floors of the buildings in the Champs Elysées are made of office with more jobs than the shops located in the ground floors, it is same around the Galeries Lafayette (there are even office space inside the GL). Minato ku ( talk) 18:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I second that Minato ku. The importance of tourism in the economy section is exaggerated. But this is a well-known pattern in this article now: : tourism, monuments, cliché montage in the infobox, and so on. The economy section should devote most lines to business services and R&D, which is the largest sector in the Paris economy, then to Public Administration and Education, which is the 2nd largest sector in the Paris economy, then to real estate which is the 3rd largest sector, then to commerce (wholesale trade & retail trade) which is the 4th largest sector. Tourism is a minor sector, sorry to disappoint. Der Statistiker ( talk) 18:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any exaggeration, and that's only your opinion. This is an article about the city; take the insurance company and service sector head offices and move them to Lyon, and no Parisian (excepting those who work there ; ) would even notice. Where are the head offices of AXA? Oh, neither do I. Well, I do, actually, thanks to here ; ) THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@ SiefkinDR: "Tourism is a much larger sector than manufacturing". That's absolutely untrue. How can you even write such a thing, it's baffling. Manufacturing accounts directly for 7.8% of the Paris Region's economy according to INSEE's 2011 regional accounts, and indirectly to much more than that if we also add business services provided by service firms to the manufacturing sector, finance services provided by financial firms to the manufacturing sector, etc. (business services alone make up 17.7% of the Paris Region's economy). Hotels, restaurants, and all the accommodation/catering industry, on the other hand, account for only 2.6% of the Paris Region's economy (and not all of it is generated by tourists, far from it). Even if we add the bits of other sectors that are generated by tourist demand (for example bits of retail trade, transport, etc.), I don't see how we could find a figure higher than the direct and indirect share of the manufacturing sector. PS: Wouldn't it be best to leave the editing of the economy section to people who know something about the subject? This is becoming ridiculous. Der Statistiker ( talk) 18:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Tourism isn't a sector. Hôtellerie is part of the Hébergement et restauration sector, but, as mentioned earlier, it is hard to calculate the exact 'value' of tourism. And this is a pretty good indicator, non - here, the last table [18] seems to confirm Siefkin's statement. Lighten your tone, you can't belittle someone for not sharing your opinion. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 19:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And wtf does business services have to do with 'manufacturing more than tourism' - again, you're just going out of your way to belittle/dissuade someone. Stop. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 19:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait a sec - I see what you're doing there. You're not counting 'importance' by employment, you're counting it by GDP. Well, diluted with with the astronomical profits of the insurance and service sectors who only have head offices in the IDF, of (expletive) course tourism is going to be next to nothing. That's a pretty convoluted way of 'proving' that tourism isn't important to Paris.

But surefine. Keep your GDP statistics, or the profits generated by world-wide businesses whose offices are in the Paris region, for the economy section, and move the Tourism to a section of its own where it can talk about employment and people, or in other words, its real importance to the city. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 19:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(sigh... looking with befuddlement at the ceiling) Promenader, with comments like these, you're just making a fool of yourself. This is why:

a- business services as defined in the national accounts are technical and professional services (such as legal services, accounting, architectural and engineering services, computer systems design, data processing, scientific research, etc., etc.) which a tourist is barely ever going to need. So yes, they have much more to do with manufacturing than with tourism. It's the whole process of outsourcing that has been going on in the Western world since the 1970s and consisted in replacing in-house services (inside the manufacturing companies) with services provided by external providers ("prestaires" in French), thus statistically decreasing the share of manufacturing and increasing the share of the services in the economy, but I'm not going to start an entire economics lesson!

b- there is no "I see what you're doing there". This bit is typical of your crazy antagonism for the pure pleasure of antagonizing other editors! Judging from your comment, you apparently have no understanding of how GDP is calculated. Profits have noting to do with GDP. GDP is the sum of added values, not the sum of profits. Besides, GDP is calculated where these added values are generated (that's the D in GDP, otherwise it would be GNP). So whether a region has lots of head offices or none is irrelevant. GDP is not calculated in the region where the head offices are located, but where production actually takes place. If Total, with wold headquarters at La Défense, creates some added value in its oil fields off the coast of Angola, this will go into the GDP of Angola, not the GDP of the Paris Region. Same within a country (added value generated by the Lacq gas field in Aquitaine goes into the GDP of Aquitaine, not the Paris Region).

Best advice: avoid to talk (and even worse, edit) about a subject where your expertise is apparently very limited. I wouldn't go into the Astrophysics article and tell the people there what should be given more or less prominence in that article, or explain to them how wrong they are with nuclear fission. Would you? Der Statistiker ( talk) 20:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's always disappointing to watch someone knowledgable in a subject using that knowledge to condescendingly flummox (and berate) less knowledgable people. But it's obvious to anyone that you're judging a sector's 'importance' to the city by its share of the IDF GDP - that's both convoluted and wrong, especially where tourism is concerned. And when the INSEE titles their table "Les dix principaux secteurs d’activité"... should they be judging 'principaux' by GDP too? They don't, and there's a damn good reason why. Anyone saying "tourism is not important to Paris" needs to have their head examined, and anyone convinced they can 'prove' it is living in another reality.

We were actually discussing this until your disruptive intervention: in a few comments you've managed to condescendingly berate one contributor, accuse another of WP:POINT, and berate at third with 'knowledge' whose entire goal was telling them 'how stupid they are', all without even addressing the central point made. Tourism is important to Paris, and anyone begging to differ is of course entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to publish it as 'truth' here. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And what kind of edit summary is "Oh Gosh, he actually bolded it." ? THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker, please stop insulting and making personal attacks against me and other editors. If you disagree with something in an edit, please discuss it, please don't be condescending and please don't attack me. That's not what the talk page is for. SiefkinDR ( talk) 21:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The same user gratuitously attacked me above too. Something needs to be done about that before it get worse. Coldcreation ( talk) 22:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the WP:BATTLEGROUND is all too apparent, and that behaviour is a guide for others brought to Wikipedia for the same WP:BATTLEGROUND purpose. And since we're 'allowed' to complain about bad behaviour again (running to admins with disingenuous complaints isn't working anymore, I guess), we're right back at the 'usual' condescending, combative WP:OWN behaviour. Something will be done. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 06:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And now Minato ku just tried to revert again. Those numbers are referenced and explained, and that revert was contested, by me, for starters; I made a proposition to move it, not remove it. Again, I just don't like it is no reason to revert. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 00:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Minato ku we get your "Tourism is not important" WP:POV. Now you're just being WP:POINT. Read both of those links, please, you obviously have a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 00:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is explained, what readers understerstand by reading it is that 18.4% of the jobs are linked to tourism which is not true. Tourism-related industry is very unclear title because it include the whole sectors which are for most part not dependant of tourism and this source is contradicting the number from the INSEE.

According to the Paris tourist office there were 1 434 628 emplois salariés in the City of Paris but according to the INSEE there were 1 742 215 emplois salariés in the City of Paris. [19] (difference of more than 300,000). Odd isn't it? As I said data from those kind of agencies (office du tourisme) are dubious because they tend to exaggerate their importance. Minato ku ( talk) 00:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter as long as they're a reliable source, and they are [20]: created jointly by the Mairie de Paris and Paris Chamber of Commerce in 1971. They explain how they came about those numbers, so does this article (but this could be elaborated were tourism in a section of its own); If you want to say that they're liars or wrong or cheating, it's better to write them and have them change their publication. Similar coverage just isn't (publicly) available through the INSEE. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 05:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously this big difference matters (over 300,000 more, more than 20% more. it is not a small difference). When two sources give very different numbers, it is obviously the neutral French nation statistical agency INSEE which should be given priority over a source from the Paris' tourism office (which is not neutral and get funding according to this and hence has the interest to exaggerate the importance of its mission). There is 1.7 million salaried jobs according to the INSEE and not 1.4 million as claimed by the office du tourisme. So the 18.4% would be wrong by taking the more reliable INSEE data. Minato ku ( talk) 07:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

After research (thanks for making me do that), it seems those numbers come from the ACOSS (URSSAF) [21] that count only private-sector jobs. That's pretty official, and that's even more precise. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 07:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Read better your sources because it is clearly written in the PDF Paris Convention and Visitors Bureau- Tourism in Key Figures 2013 that datas include public sector jobs. Minato ku ( talk) 08:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoop, my bad, apologies: including public sector. But the source remains the ACOSS (URSSAF) indicated in the Tourism board document, not the INSEE. We can't just pick our 'favourite sources' - and the city (this article) is the reason for Tourism, not the entire IDF. A purposeful skewing of context seems to be at work here to 'prove' tourism's 'unimportance' - or 'moving the goalposts', as we say ; ) In any case, the POV being pushed is quite clear. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 09:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not getting into an edit war over this (as Minato ku seems to want to). And yet again, the reverted-to number isn't even in the document cited. And yet again, that document is in the context of the entire Île-de-France economy, not the city itself. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 08:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(after examining document) The only number cited is a (rounded) 6%. Where (or who) does 6.5% come from? Also to note that the INSEE calculates 'tourism' in exactly the same way as the Paris Tourism board (including transport - perhaps the latter organisation updated its methods to reflect the former's); the only difference is the tourism board's calculations are on Paris and its three surrounding departments, which of course is logical. "Tourism is preponderant in the departements towards the capital" would be a precision to be made in the IDF/GDP context of the economy section. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 09:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, Anyway, I think it would be a good idea to move Tourism to a section of its own for now, I don't think it fits into the context, as it is, where it is now. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh! la! la! Since when is en.wiki to decide = be judge & jury, which of the French sources is right or wrong? Which organism "which is not neutral and get funding according to this and hence has the interest to *exaggerate the importance of its mission*" blows its numbers? If this is indeed our mandate, would not it be proper at this point to invite to this discussion the top representatives of the Mairie de Paris, Office de Tourisme, Chambre de Commerce de Paris, INSEE, URSSAF and ask them point blank why the difference in the numbers they arrive at? Because when we do not imply but say that such & such blows its numbers, we are accusing such organism of lying. Is that the role of Wikipedia? This is more than political incorrectness.

-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 09:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

<tongueincheek>

Oh no no no - didn't you know? Wikipidian opinion of course trumps authoritive sources! Wikipedia should be used to publish "other realities" that consider authoritave sources 'substandard', 'misleading', 'exaggerated' or 'wrong'.

</tongueincheek>

But seriously, I think a reading of WP:CHERRYPICK is in order here ; ) THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 09:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Prior to reading wiki's article on cherrypicking (thank you, The Promenader), I was going to suggest that we give all sources & all of the same date, (not published in different years). It would be then up to the reader to figure out the "why" of the differences & go to more developed articles.

Since this article is supposed to give only a general outlook - hence the shortening of most sections - why make an essay out of the sections on economy & tourism? We should only give numbers from official organisms, not judge the assumed motive(s) of some of these organisms.

-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 10:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• "In the Paris Region, tourism expenditure accounted for 6.5% of the GDP in 2011." This is provided as the source: Insee, Les dépenses des touristes en France, yet that figure seems to appear nowhere in the source. If this data cannot be confirmed it will be removed from the article. Coldcreation ( talk) 10:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. 11:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Maps in the INSEE link are interactive, you need to put the pointer on them and you will have details by region.

Data about tourism expenditure on the GDP are in the last map called Rapport entre la consommation touristique et le PIB régional en 2011, put the pointer on the any region of this map and you will have the ratio like in this screenshot I have just made [22] Minato ku ( talk) 11:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As ThePromenader points out above, that data could be included in the Île-de-France article. It's irrelevant here. Coldcreation ( talk) 11:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No it is not irrelevant here because the GDP given in the article is the GDP of Paris region. I see a case of WP:UNDUE (Not giving undue weight to a view, by omitting information that shows that it is relatively unimportant).

ThePromenader unlike what you are claiming the INSEE doesn't calculated the tourism expenditure on the same way that the jobs for Paris office du tourisme, Paris office du tourisme takes all the jobs of the sectors no matter if the majority of them never deals with tourists. INSEE only calculates the expenditure made by the tourists in those sectors. Minato ku ( talk) 12:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE - HaHA, kettle, black!  ; )

What's going on here is a 'tourism is not important to Paris' WP:POVPUSH attempt to drown Paris tourism numbers in an Île-de-France context with the rest of the IDF ('Paris') economy from a strictly GDP 'importance' without making any mention of Tourism in the rest of the article.

I say move the Tourism written in a city context and importance (and numbers) to a section of its own, and leave the 'negligable part of the IDF GDP' text as it is (with its 6.5% 'reference' - there has to be better than an interactive map highlight) in the Economy section. And be done with it. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 12:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Minato ku, I think you just broke the WP:3RR rule... are we in some sort of 'hurry'? No, I'm not reporting you. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 12:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The following section from the Insee link is the only section that (to some extent) deals with Paris:

Ainsi, l’Île-de-France perçoit 39 milliards d’euros grâce au tourisme. La région capitale offre une très large palette de sites culturels : le Louvre, Notre-Dame, mais aussi, hors Paris, Fontainebleau, Provins, par exemple. Les touristes viennent également pour les parcs d’attractions et les spectacles. Le tourisme d’affaires y occupe aussi une place importante : première région économique française, l’Île-de-France centralise bon nombre de centres de décision. En outre, selon les professionnels, Paris est la première ville pour le nombre de congrès internationaux. Enfin, l’Île-de-France bénéficie aussi des revenus générés par ses aéroports, et des dépenses de touristes qui pour partie n’y font qu’une étape de leur voyage. Source

Coldcreation ( talk) 12:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to say that there is tourist industries, I am saying that the tourism industry is smaller than what the article is trying to claim with the 18.4% of jobs in tourism related sectors which include the whole catering, the whole transportation Job and etc. This means that a fast food worker at the KFC of Château Rouge or a bus driver of the line 62 are included as tourism jobs even if no tourist put the foot there. The majority of catering and transport jobs don't depend on tourism but the article suggests otherwise. (By using the same criteria even a city with very few tourists will have a large share of employment in tourism business). Minato ku ( talk) 12:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yo, Minato, you have tried to remove that perfectly legitimate and sourced phrase no less than six times since yesterday because ' I just don't like it'. That is way over the WP:3RR limit. Enough.

If you look at both the INSEE and Tourism board documentation, their choice of 'sectors affected by tourism' is exactly the same. The INSEE takes the IDF GDP perspective (and nothing smaller is available), and the URSSAF takes a per-departement (and larger) 'jobs' perspective. Apples to oranges, IMHO. So, leave IDF GDP to the economy section, and move the URSSAF 'jobs' to a section of its own. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 13:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Full agree... Insee is saying Paris is a nice touristic place, nothing else. Including airports within touristic revenues should be clear enough. Btw reading between the lines, insee is saying exactly the same than Minato and myself 78.227.131.149 ( talk) 13:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In 2012, Paris accounted for 51% of the 515,887 jobs in tourism-related activities in the Île-de-France region. The Inner Suburbs accounted for 23%. Salaried employment in jobs directly related to tourism in Paris... represented 18.4% of the total employment in Paris, which numbered 1,434,628 salaried employees in 2012. Site officiel de l'Office du Tourisme et des Congrès de Paris, Le Tourisme à Paris - Chiffres clés 2013 (édition 2014), Parisian Context, p.6

Coldcreation ( talk) 13:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You 'tourism isn't important to Paris' guys are fighting a hopeless battle just a waste of everyone's time. Give it a break. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 13:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

How tourism isn't important to Paris ?(and to France in general, btw)

->->-> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-05-05/news/0305050180_1_franco-american-relations-french-president-jacques-chirac-french-government-tourist-office

Excerpts from that May 5, 2003 article in the Chicago Tribune, with title:

French pucker up to woo back U.S.

"Officials have embarked on a kiss-and-forgive campaign, hoping to mend fences with a longtime ally and its tourists after the rift over war in Iraq:

"The brochure is this year's official travel guide for France. The French government Tourist Office's publication may fall as flat as a cold souffle for Americans who remember all too clearly Secretary of State Colin Powell and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin "getting into it" with blunt exchanges at the UN Security Council in the days leading up to the Iraq war.While diplomats concentrate on mending high-level relations, other French officials are working on maintaining cultural ties between the two countries and shoring up the sagging tourism business.[...]

"Push on for U.S. tourists

"The same is not true of the French tourist industry, already pummeled by the weak American economy and concerns over international travel in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. From a high of 3.8 million American visitors to France in 2000, the number plunged to about 3 million last year, and a further 10 percent decline is predicted this year.

"This month French tourism officials plan to launch a $600,000 campaign to promote their country as a tourist destination.

"As part of the tourist office's stepped-up efforts this year, it has launched Club France, which for a $25 sign-up fee qualifies France-bound travelers for promotional rates on hotel rooms and other discounts.

"Some tourist-dependent businesses are taking matters into their own hands to lure Americans back to La Belle France.

"The four-star Victoria Palace Hotel in Paris is offering a discounted three-night package for Americans who stay in the Left Bank hostelry for the Independence Day weekend, including free lodging the night of July 4th."

The French were frantic at the loss of the 'tourist' business. And since most tourists from foreign countries (except Belgium?) land in Paris, tourist-business in Paris was very first to suffer... then came the rest of La Belle France.

-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 14:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@ColdCreation. office du Tourisme usually sum all activity that can be related to tourism. Almost half of the activity of Paris, for sure. But a big big joke in practice. Yes, metro is used by tourist, and then summed to this activity. if you use office du tourisme grade sources, I can easily demonstrate, with the same sources quality Paris is located on the moon. v_atekor ( talk) 14:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC) @coldCreation : more generally : dont excpect an administration to be neutral about his own activity. Insee is OK. ministery of economy too. Office du tourisme is false by construction, it has to justify its own existence. v_atekor ( talk) 15:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are we to judge? Is the role of Wikipedia=Wikipedians to (using your construction image) demolish the reputation of such & such bureau, office or administration in favor of another, because such would be our appreciation of them?

-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 15:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. At least we can point out different administrations have different POV on the topic. v_atekor ( talk) 18:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's a question of language and context. if we said that "18.whatever jobs in Paris are tourism-related", that would give a false impression. Yet if we say "18.whatever jobs in paris are affected by tourism", that would keep the number 'open-ended' (almost hypothetical sounding... as it is, really, we could technically say that every supermarket and shopkeeper and kiosk and peanut salesman is affected by tourism). Normally the IDF figures should make the same distinction because they use the same sectors, but they don't have to because the tourism numbers are so overwhelmed by suburban services, industry, etc. 'preferring' IDF figures (and excluding Paris-PC figures) is both moving the goalposts and tilting the table. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 15:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And this is an article about the city of Paris, not the IDF. I say (again): leave the INSEE IDF GDP statistics inline in the economy section, and move Tourism to a section of its own where we can elaborate on the industry's relation to Paris. Does anyone else see sense in this? THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 15:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree to move Tourism in a dedicated section, with a clear presentation of the CURRENT DEBATE. museum can be considered as touristic for ones and cultural for the others, probably both for thirds. I wont call people going to Paris to a conference on art a tourist. Why people say they are going to Paris as tourist, to forget stress & to rest some days, is a great mystery, something to do with sadism and masochism. And, still the same point IdF is what it is because Paris is what it is. Main decisions centers on economy are near Paris because they are near the political centers of a centralized country. Hard to split IdF from Paris from this POV, but it can be presented correctly. v_atekor ( talk) 21:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys,

I've noticed problems/lack of sources in this article. Sources are a PITA for sure, but there's a few useful tools out there. Generally book sources are preferred for FA-quality articles: just type whatever you're looking for (or the ISBN number of the book you're referencing) into Google books, choose the book you're looking for, then copy/paste its URL into this tool; it will concoct the reference you need. There's other tools for web/pdf documents, but I'll add those when I find them. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 09:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a more general tool for all types of references; [23]. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 09:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to begin updating some of the statistics in the Economy section with more current data from INSEE. Comments and help are most welcome! SiefkinDR ( talk) 08:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no more recent figure than 2012 for regional GDP stats.

Comparing the GDP per capita of Paris region with the one of Hamburg or Brussels is comparing apole with oranges. This is comparisons of a metropolitan area compared with inner part of two others. GDP are calculated at work place, smaller is the area you take around the city center and higher is the GDP per capita because of the high influx of commuters. Same about comparing Paris region with North-Rhein Westphalia, Paris is just one big metropolitan area (the rest is nothing) while NRW is a big région made of several big cities.

I have also seen that mention of Paris economic importance have been deleted. Paris has one of largest metropolitan GDP in world, we should see this information instead of apples and oranges comparisons with other European lands. Minato ku ( talk) 20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The Paris region has one of the largest GDPs in the world - statistics for economy are taken in communes, départements, and régions, not in any aire urbaine. You have to state where the figures come from, otherwise the claim is not verifiable. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

But I do agree with the other-country-comparison not-very-usefulness; only someone familiar with statistics would understand that. I think there was a "if it were a country, the IDF would be the 'x' biggest country in the world' phrase in there; it's rather trumpety (but information value?), but understandable. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Minato Ku; I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear enough: The comparison between the economy of the Paris Region and North-Rhine Westphalia is not my invention, its made by INSEE, the recognized source of statistics for France. It is not "apples and oranges," it is regions in Europe. the GDP figure from INSEE in the article refers to the Paris region, that is, the Ile-De-France, not to the Metropolitan Area. There is no GDP figure for the Paris Metropolitan Area. I hope this is more clear. SiefkinDR ( talk) 08:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Actually, I'm happy to take out the comparison with North-Rhine Westphalia if other editors don't like it. As Promenader says, there's more than a little hint of boasting to compare the Paris region with different countries; it isn't a country. I just put in in because that was the comparison INSEE used. Thoughts? In or out? SiefkinDR ( talk) 18:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The difference between Paris region and Paris metropolitan are is quite light (IDF: 11.85 million, Paris AU: 12.3 million). Few hundred thousand inhabitants, a difference of 3.8%. The difference will be even lower for the GDP because the far-flung areas have low number of jobs and thus a low GDP (GDP are calculated at work place). This means that the GDP of Ile de France and Paris metropolitan area is almost the same. So yes, the Ile de France GDP is approximately the GDP of Paris metropolitan area.

North Rhine-Westphalia is a big region (34.084 km², larger than Belgium) made of several distinct cities, Cologne, Dusseldof, Münster, the Rurh area, Aarhen, Wuppertal... Ile-de-France is nothing more than a big centralized metropolitan area. Comparing Ile de France with North Rhine-Westphalia is like comparing apples with oranges. It is not because both share the same "region" distinction that they are comparable, at least not in this section and not without serious explanation. It is better to have no comparison than a flawed comparison that will mislead readers.

PS: Note that I have deleted the mention of the GDP per capita in the income part of the economic section. The GDP per capita is not the income of the population, it is the economic production divided by the total population (higher GDP per capita does not necessarily means higher income). Minato ku ( talk) 02:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Minato ku ( talk) 02:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how 'similar' they are, they're two completely different things. The thing to be noted here is that Wikipedia is not an essay and has strict rules against WP:OR (theorising) - just make the text terminology match the sources, that's the entire point of Wikipedia.

That aside, I think statistical comparisons are best understood by statisticians ... and if the compared-to city isn't known to the reader, that doesn't help much either. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 03:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, my point was for this discussion in the talk page about removing the mention of North Rhine-Westphalia because it was not comparable with Ile de France. It was not about writing in the article that Ile de France GDP is the GDP of Paris metropolitan area.

While Wikipedia is not an essay, I think that it should not be a just a simple copy past of any information found all over the web, not matter the relevance. Editors must use their brains to use correctly the information and see the relevance of sources. Minato ku ( talk) 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what editors 'must' not do, please read WP:NOESSAY.

It's boring, I know, but there are strict rules about this because there are too many people trying to use Wikipedia's popularity to make personal opinions or hypothesi seem 'true'; anything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable and from a reliable source. And yes, the web can be a piss-poor source, that's why GA articles can use web citations but FA article criteria frowns on them. And the Paris article just lost its GA status, by the way. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 06:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And cherrypicking sources is also frowned upon as a form of bias_in_sources; the rest of the page is pertinent, too. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 06:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reorganized the economy section by economic sectors, based on INSEE's 5-branch aggregation of Eurostat's NACE 2.0 and ILO's ISIC 4.0 nomenclature (it's the same nomenclature).

• Agriculture, sylviculture et pêche = A
• Industrie manufacturière, industries extractives et autres = B, C, D & E
• Construction = F
• Commerce, transports et services divers = G to N, and R to U
• Administration publique, enseignement, santé humaine et action sociale = O to Q

Detailed correspondence tables can be found here: [24]. Der Statistiker ( talk) 16:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, We have spent several thousand lines above in discussion of the tourism section which generated much passion, but resulted in almost no new information, additions or changes. I think we agreed that tourism is indeed important for Paris (though evidently we don't agree on how important) and that it therefore deserves to have its own section, either in Economy or elsewhere. We should mention how many people are employed in tourism in the city, citing the source and who is counted, so people can decide for themselves if its credible. (Personally, I think it is). We should mention how much money tourism contributes to the economy- no one yet has questioned that figure from Mastercard. Is there anything else that needs to be said here? If not, why don't we close this discussion, which i believe is actually longer than the article itself, declare this section done, and move on to another topic. SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I second that very diplomatic motion ; ) With all that info, it does indeed deserve a section of its own where we can talk of the trades involved (and other details). THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 16:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(pointing up) v_atekor seems to agree as well. One note: Mastercard also seems to get a lot of its numbers from the Tourism board. I'm not questioning them, because this discussion has shown that the Paris Tourism Board gets its numbers in the same sectors as the INSEE. I've got enough of a workload (the sections in my sandbox - I'm staying out of direct contributions until things are calmer) - does someone want to work on elaborating? THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 22:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose this canvas for the paragraph, I think it will explain better the debate :

"L’évaluation de l’impact du tourisme sur l’économie parisienne varie radicalement selon les points de vus adoptés et les indicateurs utilisés.

Si d’un côté l’office du tourisme de Paris évalue à plus de 50% les emplois potentiellement impactés par le tourisme, et à plus de 18% du PIB, l’INSEE et le ministère de l’économie et de finances marginalisent cette mesure.

L’office du tourisme se focalise sur le nombre d’emploi impactés au sein de Paris, c’est-à-dire le nombre de personne, dans Paris intramuros, ayant un travail qui peut les amener à travailler pour le tourisme.

Les autres organismes d’état considèrent Paris dans son environnement, et lient l’économie d’Île de France à l’économie parisienne, marginalisant de facto le poids du tourisme, non seulement en termes d’emploi, mais surtout en termes de PIB.

Si la position de l’office du tourisme est administrativement correcte, celle des autres administrations ont une plus grande pertinence pour l’évaluation économique. Paris étant la capitale politique d’un pays fortement centralisé, il existe des intérêts partagés entre décideurs publics et privés à rapprocher des centres de décisions politiques et économiques, voire militaires et diplomatiques : l’île de France travaille en étroite relation avec la ville de Paris."

Yep, that explains it pretty well, but it's a bit outdated (the tourism board only counts 18% of jobs these days) - is it from the French Paris article? THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 15:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I just write it based on previous debates. It may be enhanced v_atekor ( talk) 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's damn well written. Unfortunately we're not allowed to make synopsises or theories of our own here (even if they are true) - strict WP:NOESSAY rules - BUT, if you can find a reliable source saying the same thing, you can 'echo' that here and use it as a reference, as long as the context matches up. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 16:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Tourism does indeed deserve a section of its own, for the reasons mentioned above. Right now, it doesn't even appear in the index. Coldcreation ( talk) 19:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone: I see that Der Statistiker has made some significant re-arrangement of the economy section. Much of it is very clear and makes sense, but I think some questions can be (and have been) raised about whether tourism should be put under market services. I think a good case can be made that it should be a separate section under economy, or even completely independent. It combines workers from several different sectors, including hotels and catering (classified as services to individuals), transport, leisure, commerce, and government (museum employees, for instance). Also it has statistics on the comparison of Paris against other tourist destinations, which other economy sections don't have. What do other editors think? SiefkinDR ( talk) 19:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tourism isn't even a sector (it's a 'use' of many sectors), and it's rather out of context where it is now: it concerns more the city itself than IDF economy statistics. Several have already voiced support for moving it to a section of its own; we can elaborate later. It's one of the city's 'international magnets' and the why and how of this deserves to be explained in more detail. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tourism does indeed deserve a section of its own. As it stands now the Tourism section is lost in the muddle. Coldcreation ( talk) 20:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@ SiefkinDR: then why don't you move "tourism" to the "culture" section? That's what they've done in the Rome article. What would be improper would be to have it in the economy section as a subsection separate from the "Economic sectors" subsection, as if it were somehow something different. If you put it in the culture section, you should add a line or two about cultural aspects of tourism in Paris (on world culture I mean), so that it's less economy oriented (and the currently economy-oriented content should be shortened/summarized more, as this subsection is already quite long for a general article like this one). Der Statistiker ( talk) 20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There is some confusion here with the use of the terms "metropolitan area" and "uban area"; in addition to the Paris region and city of Paris. it would be useful to explain what those cover. I like the table of top companies, but I note that the link for Fonciere Euris redirects to Casino, whose headquarters is in Saint-Etienne; I don't think the metropolitan area of Paris extends quite that far. SiefkinDR ( talk) 05:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The redirect is wrong. Foncière Euris owns half of Casino, but it is not Casino. It owns many other things besides Casino, and it is headquartered in Paris (Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré). Actually you could work on that and create an article about Foncière Euris, instead of the current redirect. ;) Der Statistiker ( talk) 10:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The confusion is apparent even in your comment. The aire urbaine is an INSEE statistical creation (known and used practically only by them) that measures population dependency on an urban centre - it is a re-mapping of data at a commune level. 'Where people work' (and in what trade) is part of this - all of this should be outlined in a summary before the figures if the figures are going to be cited, because economic figures are taken only in communes, departements and regions, here the IDF. So each section (aire urbaine figures, region (IDF) figures) should have an explanatory summary, otherwise there will be confusion. An explanation of why IDF numbers are used (instead of just Paris numbers) would bring clarity, too. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 08:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me, in reading the above discussions Tourism, Tourism II - Summary and this one, Economy Section and Tourism II, that there is a general consensus among editors to move Tourism to a section of its own. Some of the ideas to expand it slightly are good, including more about its cultural context. Coldcreation ( talk) 06:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand why it hasn't moved yet. I thought Siefkin was working on it. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 07:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving it where? To the "culture" section? Der Statistiker ( talk) 10:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong in "culture" ; it's not comparable to music, literature and theater. Probably a stand-alone section, at least of now, until we figure out what else can go into it SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wherever it is put, like it shows now, it should be a section of its own, not a sub of any other section.

-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 14:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Siefkin took care of it! Great, that's done. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 14:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I added that short explanation that should bring some clarity and context to the Economy section's statistics. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 18:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice. I just simplified it a little for clarity. Feel free to tweak it some more or revert if you feel the need. Coldcreation ( talk) 18:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oy, it's important to differentiate between GDP calculations (IDF) and employment calculations (the methods indicated before your edit). THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 18:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think I touched that part, or did I? Anyway, you can always change it again. Coldcreation ( talk) 18:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing much to change, thanks for your added concision. I also had to indicate that not all sources consider the entire IDF GDP to be Paris' - many only count Paris and the IDF's inner departments. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 18:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Ref inside a ref doesn't work. Superfluous in this article anyway, since there already exist sub-articles for each concept."
Again, none of these 'points' is valid. Those refs led to a full explanation of each area, straight from the organisation that created them. 'Superfluous' is an opinion that should be voiced in a talk-page comment, not as a revert summary to a just-made contribution. Those were proper, valid working refs that had no reason to be removed. Again again again again, that is the sort of behaviour that starts edit-wars. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Der Statistiker, you turned the entire just-contributed paragraph into a note (that may or may not be consulted!) before even making a mention on the talk page! The opinion of one wikipedian does not 'rule' the just-made contributions of others! Jeez. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well if you can find a way to make these references appear, feel free. I can't. It seems it's impossible to have references inside a note. In any case, these references don't really belong to this article, but to the sub-articles. Let's not lose sight of what this article is about: it's about Paris, not about statistical methodology. No other city articles write paragraphs about the methodology behind the stats used in the article. Der Statistiker ( talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's just your opinion - I'm sorry that 'it doesn't work as a note', but it shouldn't be a note in the first place! And someone just complimented (and refined) that contribution just above! Put it back the way it was, please. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

And Paris region is just a colloquial reference to the Île-de-France region - it is not to be used as though it is an official name. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you don't put it back, I will. Let the others (in addition to the person who already voiced their support) decide whether it is an improvement or not. You alone can't decide for all. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That will have to go to RfC then. I doubt people there will approve of your edit, since they'll probably find it way too technical for such an article. As a simple note, on the other hand, few people can argue against it. But then it's your call. Der Statistiker ( talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Others have already expressed their support, and I will be putting that edit back if you don't put it back yourself. But by all means, open an RfC all on your own. And it's the contribution that will be judged, not your reduction of it. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 22:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget that you yourself will be judged, too. But, please, by all means. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 22:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I put it back to the supported version for further comment myself. One can't decide for everyone like you tried to, but by all means, open an RfC. And no, don't revert in commenting 'in awaiting RfC'. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 23:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Clearly, at the outset of the economy section, it is quintessential for the reader to understand what is meant by the terms Paris, urban area, urban unit, if the text and figures are to be understood. These differences have been discussed here in Talk (above) and have now been reflected in the Paris article for the benefit of the reader. These points are stated briefly in a simple and concise manner, with reliable references. Any further changes should be discussed on this Talk page prior to modifications in the article. Coldcreation ( talk) 05:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@ Coldcreation:, can you use your concision talents here too if you have the time? Better before than after ; ) Just the one section indicated; the rest is there just for reference. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 07:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the above editors that the article should explain up front what's meant by the City, the Metropolitan Area, the Urban Area, and the Paris Region. Otherwise it's very confusing. SiefkinDR ( talk) 09:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

SiefkinDR, quick question; is there any particular reason why you reverted

Main article: Tourism in Paris

at the outset of the Tourism section? Coldcreation ( talk) 10:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it because it contained less information than the few sentences of statistics on tourism which I wrote for the main article, and a list of links to monuments and sites in Paris, more or less identical to the list in the Paris article. What I deleted was mostly my own work. I thought no article was better than one that gave no information other than that found in the main article. If you think it should be restored I have no objection, but it really needs to have some additional content. SiefkinDR ( talk) 11:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I had a feeling that was the reason, and I agree, so I didn't insist (after the second time). Coldcreation ( talk) 12:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I just remembered that the "human resources" section was reverted. I'd like to create it again, grouping Healthcare, Museums, Libraries, Religion, and eventually Security (Police, Firefighting) and Gymnases (piscines publiques), and perhaps Sports too... It would make for less sections, more logic. Again, the New York City article can be an example if an example is needed. Please let me know of your thoughts on this. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 10:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I see the New York City article splits it up like this:

5 Human resources

5.1 Education and scholarly activity

5.1.1 Primary education

5.1.2 Higher education and research

5.1.3 Public library system

5.2 Public health

5.3 Public safety

5.3.1 Police and law enforcement

5.3.2 Firefighting

5.3.3 Social Services

Coldcreation ( talk) 10:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm glad to help with police and firefighting; I have some good sources on both. SiefkinDR ( talk) 11:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Human resources in the NYC article deals with human resources of the NYC city hall. Neither education nor police nor firefighting nor even public health are administered by the Paris city hall, and they are not resources of the city, but of the French state. It's the French state who administer education, police, and firefighting in Paris. Public health is administered by an independent body, APHP, funded by national taxes. Such a section makes sense for NYC, not for Paris. Der Statistiker ( talk) 14:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Au contraire, it makes sense. These and other issues can easily be covered in this article. See for example Prefecture of Police of Paris, or Paris Fire Brigade and Education in Paris. There is no reason not to include these topics in a section entitled Human resources under the pretext that they are not under control of the Mairie de Paris. Coldcreation ( talk) 14:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I added Siefkin's homelessness section to that list as "Social Services" (but if there's a better name... Social protection?). THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 15:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Bien sur it makes sense. And the 'city hall' claim is simply not true, Statistiker: NYC's human resources are even private corporations and State-run (like some of Paris'), and are just as complicated (if not more so) than Paris' are. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 15:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not against a "Human resources" section per see if it can contribute to reduce the number of sections but I think it would need a better name than "human ressource". I don't think that the place of the religion is for this section. It would be better in demographic with maybe less detail about the buildings and museums should stay with culture and this not a good section to put the sport and media.

About the place to put sport and media, as noted higher the cultural section of New York is called "Culture and contemporary life", it covers a broader view and allows you to add all the recreations and the medias.

Anyway even if a lot of emphasis is put on the organisation of the article, the major issue is more about what is inside. I think that there too much details about the history. In example, a part about the police should be about the current police force but not the history of the Paris police and its buildings. Less on history and more about current the current function and form. Minato ku ( talk) 20:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Public services" would be another (vague) name possibility. The history section is short enough already ; ) THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 22:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

One editor has just deleted all the work of all the other editors for the last several months, without any notice or discussion with other editors. The article is now once again full of outdated statistics and stale and inaccurate information that had been updated by other editors on almost every topic. This is vandalism on a colossal scale and is the worst and most irresponsible behavior possible by an editor. It should be reverted immediately. SiefkinDR ( talk) 10:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

By the comments it seems as though the modifications were inserted too, but I haven't looked yet (and haven't been keeping track of the changes, either). All I'm seeing now is lots of "citation needed" tags (including stuff I had already provided citations for), and that the City Mayor was Delanoë again. I'll stop for now until you guys check what's changed. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 10:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

" This is vandalism on a colossal scale and is the worst and most irresponsible behavior possible by an editor." Um no, you've proved that you cannot edit in a way in which sourcing is sound and write in a way which is concise and well-structured. I restored a version which Promenader had worked on combining my July 2013 with updates and I thought it was a progressive update. I was tempted to fully restore to the July version but I want this to be seen as a progress and think Promenader made a lot of great additions. I warned you a week or two ago that if it didn't pick up I'd be restoring it. Even a few days ago you were adding unsourced content Siefkin. That's completely unacceptable. Some of the content you've added without sourcing and in poorly structured paragraphing is in all honesty a major part of the reason why it's got so bad. You edit it obsessively every day and the end result is poor. Any competent editor here such as Tim riley, SchroCat, Cassianto would agree that the article had been made a hash of. You're not the only one, but until you learn how to write concisely and support what you write with correctly formatted citations then you shouldn't be editing this. No article needs to be pushing 200kb. If I've restored any outdated material it pales into comparison to the mess which you caused. I know you mean well but seriously, you create a big mess from a technical viewpoint. This has been festering for months now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please let's find a way forward which is positive. If we can try to get citations where needed and some of the errors fixed and bring about a general improvement of the prose and try to keep it relatively decent technically then things should start to get back on track. I'm not going to let this fester again. I could not believe how bad it got to the point that there were even bare source urls and entirely unsourced paragraphs and one line paragraphs. You need to stop editing it excessively every day for starters and try to follow the formatting and consistent sourcing as closely as possible if we are to progress. You have the habit of bloating it back up to 200 kb which really is excessive, even for Paris. If not then I'll keep restoring it until you and the others can learn how to work together in a way which improves the article rather than making a hash of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It must be noted that this was probably the motivation for today's change. I hope not too many toes were stepped on, but it does look as though certain updates were included - yet I don't have time to go through the entire article history. Let's hope that this was not just yet another effort (not by Blofeld) to dissuade and distance article contributors. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 11:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I not say that I would restore it if the article didn't pick up soon? Frankly I care little for the reasons of why Der Statistiker suddenly supports the restoration and see the bigger picture. This has been festering for too long. If it was indeed Der Statistiker's "plan" to "dissuade and distance article contributors" then it doesn't change my outlook on the article and Siefkin one bit. I've long been critical of his editing of it. But for you Promenader it certainly brings up the issue of whether you care more about the article developing or conflicts with certain editors here. I believe you care more about the quality of the article, I hope I'm right. I've given it a chance to be restored to GA status with the restoration. Take it or leave it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your approach to editing the article. For example, after these edits, here are a few of things missing from the article.

Mayor Hidalgo was deleted. She's no longer mentioned.

Mayor Delanoe was deleted.

There are no longer any statistics at all about tourism in Paris, the number of visitors, number of hotels. number of rooms, All deleted. Apparently there's no tourism in Paris.

There are no longer any statistics about poverty and homelessness. Evidently these don't exist in Paris.

There is no mention that a Paris writer won the Nobel Prize for literature this year- that was deleted, along with the text about French writers in Paris.

There is no description of the city government, parties represented on the City Council, and how it works. That was deleted.

There is no mention of the Regional Government and how it works. That was deleted.

There is no mention of employment in the different neighborhoods of Paris. That was deleted.

There is no current information about restaurants in Paris, such as number of 3 star restaurants in Paris in 2014; that was all deleted. It's mostly now a collection of outdated dead links, and promotion for restaurants.

There's no description of the Metropole of Grand Paris, or the new transit system. That was all deleted.

The current number of Fortune 500 Companies in Paris was deleted

Updated and sourced facts statistics on the Paris Commune and other historical events was all deleted.

All of the above were sourced. If you had a question about the sources, I wish you had discussed it with me when they appeared, rather than simply deleting everything at once now. I don't think you would be pleased if all of your work simply vanished one morning. All of the outdated statistics and stale information is right back where it was. What is the specific length limit for an article on a major city? It would be helpful to know. But if the article is to be massively cut, it should be cut after discussion with other editors, not before. Thank you. SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you highlight what got deleted during the restoration in your sandbox and I'll try my best to ensure that the current article is updated with the improvements. I did think your hotel content was OK but it was poorly sourced and had an unsourced paragraph. You need to ensure most facts are sourced. Obviously I don't want to reintroduce errors but from a technical viewpoint can you at least see why I restored it (rather than bending down to Der Stat). I think 150-160kb is really as big as it needs to be, 170kb was already pushing it, near 200kb is massive. Ultimately we need to come up with a version we're pretty content with and stop this daily editing of it. The best thing we could possibly do is produce a GA again and try to get it fully protected and changes then made with discussion first/. OK I've created User:SiefkinDR/Paris, please add the sentences which you wanted restored and the sections they're in under each one and I'll find a way of sorting it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Blofeld: I think the real problem with this article is something else. I admit that I don't always get my citation formats correct; luckily for me other editors have been kind enough to fix them. I don't think I'm such as bad editor as you say I am; I've worked on over three hundred articles, and was Wikipedia Editor of the Week in February; but you're entitled to your opinion. I think the problem is the lack of civility and respect among the editors on this pages; the insults, the attacks, the sudden deletions without discussion, the language used by some editors, I've not seen that in any other article I've worked on. Some editors (and I don't think you're one of them) seem to want to drive off any other editors from what they consider their article. No wonder Wikipedia is having difficulty retaining new editors, if they have to face that. I think we need to improve the way we talk to each other and do business here before we worry so much that the article is too long. Wouldn't you agree with that? SiefkinDR ( talk) 13:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I did give this a big chance to improve though. The general quality overall I think is worse at least from a technical/prose viewpoint, but I accept at least it has become more comprehensive/and updated in some parts, not always to the improvement of the article though which we need to sort out. If we can try to cling onto the original more from a technical viewpoint and move forward in stages to try to merge article versions without sacrificing quality then I think we're onto a winner. I've emailed as to what I think we should do next. Ultimately for the sake of the article we really need to come up with a highly thought out stable article version which at least a few of us here are fairly happy with and which meets GA guidelines. I think it's possible, I'm giving it one last shot anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reading and seeing what has happened today. Let's start somewhere: the first paragraph of the economy section. I argued above that it was way too technical (and poorly written to boot) for such a general article, especially considering that we are trying to contain the size of the article. At the very least, this paragraph should be turned into a simple note, as I had tried to do before being reverted, if not entirely deleted from the article, since there are sub-articles anyway (with links) where those statistical technicalities could be placed for those wishing to find out more. What do you think Blofeld? Der Statistiker ( talk) 20:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing's changed, Statistiker. That phrase still explains the mess of complication that is the statistics after it, and others have commended its usefulness. There's only your I just don't like it here, and there's hardly a sea of complaints flowing in about it. Nothing at all was mentioned about that phrase in the comments above (so how can one fixate on that here?) - but they do denote many other much much more important article things to improve. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the size of the article need to be reduced. Providing to much technical details on a general article don't really help to the comprehension of the subject. Too long and many reader will not read it. You must put yourself in the shoes of the reader when when you wrote the article. What do you understand and what you might understand the readers. After reading the article the good question to ask to yourself is "Have I understood how Paris works? Obviously on a simplified way becuase you can't detail every all aspects of Paris. Minato ku ( talk) 22:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(after reading) 0.o You were awarded 'Editor of the Week', SiefkinDR? I didn't even know that existed. And you -do- have a helluvalot of edits under your belt! THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 07:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If the article gives figures the city of Paris, the Paris region, the Paris Metropolitan Area and the Urban area, I think these terms need to be briefly explained; one sentence can do it. Otherwise readers will be confused. SiefkinDR ( talk) 09:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If you give too much or too technical information,s the reader will be ever more confused. In example I don't see the need of this first paragraph in Paris economy, it is incomprehensible and leave the reader more confused than it would be without or if you give too much information about historic events, the reader will loose the track of Paris history. This article is a general overview about Paris, the reader just needs to have the essential information. Give him too much and he vill be confused or worse mislead because when you put too much details, those details are often badly explained and therefore misinterpreted. Minato ku ( talk) 21:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be much simpler to use IDF statistics to describe the Paris Economy (as the INSEE does), and not insist on pushing a demographics concept that describes but one aspect of the Paris economy, but since this is the case, than it must be explained. Another solution would be to have the GDP figures in its own section and context (IDF), and Paris-area employment in another (aire urbaine), both with respective descriptions (this is needed), but the two are inexorably intertwined throughout an Economy section that reads like someone narrating a statistics table. In its present form, it is clear for many here that the existing description is useful.

I really don't understand the coordinated focus on one clarification when there's tons of other issues to fix in the rest of the article. Obviously article quality is not a concern here. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 08:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Give too much technical information, and the reader will be confused. Give too much historical information, and the reader will be confused. Give too much architectural information, and the reader will be confused. In other words, give too much Paris information on Paris, and the reader will be confused.

On the other hand, don't give enough information on anything, and the reader will really be confused, bored, will have learned nothing & will wonder why he bothered.

And I am not sure the condescending (I was going to write "denigrating") tone by which a "reader" is described as being confused or unable to make anything out something that is a little meaty fits all readers who turn to Wikipedia. It does not describe me, and I don't think to be a unique case. Many turn to Wikipedia to learn something quickly from an article that is not left to a skeleton & so washed down that they have to turn to a thousand articles in order to get the information they were looking for. And the hilarious part is that a few of them will add the information they believe should be there. So, let's schedule a rendez-vous for next year at this time, or even earlier!

Following this discussion, one gets the impression that the utmost concern is not the quality of the article, but its length. Section by section, it is reduced to a "peau de chagrin". Cut! Cut! Cut! Are we paying for paper & ink?

By the way, I am curious to know how we have come upon the profile of our dear not-too-curious reader, on whom we seem to have so much data regarding likes & dislikes, and when the highest peak of his/her confusion or boredom is reached. Out of the millions who have access to this article, is there only one profile that fits all? Out of which crowd have we chosen the "reader" who fits to a T into our profiling mold? With the shrinking information we are preparing to give him/her, it must be a first grader... although first graders can be pretty sharp & usually ask many questions.

All I read here is that there is too much information on everything. Why bother writing an article? Why not limit it to titles of empty sections with blue linking to real articles?

We don't want this article to be "touristy", but if we remove everything that is not, in addition to everything that is, what are we going to be left with?

Surprised to learn that this article on Paris is supposed to be only an "overview". Only this article on Paris, or ALL articles in en.wiki? I thought an article was supposed to be something interesting to read, and in the redaction of which every editor was expected to put his/her best on the subject he/she is best at.

Again, what are we going to do when readers, innocently thinking they are bringing something interesting to this article, add details? For instance, the musée Marmottan Monet? Are we going to hire a watchdog to immediately remove any addition? That is really something to think about, because it is going to happen, and the first to be hit will be the history section & that of monuments.

Paris is Paris, and we are working against the current trying to reduce it the way attempted now.

An anecdote:

"Joseph II, emperor of Austria, commissioned the creation of The Abduction from the Seraglio, but when he heard it, he complained to Mozart, 'That is too fine for my ears, there are too many notes.' Mozart replied, 'There are just as many notes as there should be'.  (Quote from en.wiki article on Die Entführung aus dem Serail")

Best regards, -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 22:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT paper, true, but that doesn't mean that every article on a broad topic should contain every scrap of info known to man. I'd say that's the beauty of wikipedia in that we can have dozens of sub articles containing detail about sub topics which readers can click. A general article on Paris should really be an outline sketch of the city, most visitors will not want to read a 150kb article fully let alone a 200 kb one. Quality is the most important, and a quality article on Paris would be fairly comprehensive but as concise as possible and impeccably well-researched and sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Blofeld,

We (you and I) have no disagreement regarding the impeccability we want to attain in research, references, subjects covered & redaction of this article, and I am certain others who have been working relentlessly on it are d'accord with us. The main difference in our way of thinking seems to be the length. The article on New York City is 264,209 bytes long & we, here, on the city of Paris, which is at least a thousand years older & has a history like no other city in the world, and where the only features missing are a black lava beach & a year-long snowy peak, are aiming at 180,000. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: each subject covered is linked to a well-developed article of its own, and that is splendid, but in my own little humble opinion, that does not mean that the main article should be so amputated that one has to go on reading dozens of articles in order to get the information he/she is looking for. Many readers do not have all day to spend researching Paris, and a good summary of its history & description of the town itself belong in the main article. Because you & I and others here know much about Paris does not give us the right to sit as judges as to what those who do not should be fed. This is being pretentious on our part. I maintain that a reader who does not have all day to read an article should come out with the feeling that he has learned something, at least enough for the day, and not have to take the week off from work to search every article to become an expert on Paris. He/She can do that later if interested to do so. I also believe that when a point in the article is lacking source, "source missing" or "citation needed" could be added instead of reverting the day's work of an editor. A source 'lacking' does not mean the information is not correct, so just point at it & contact the editor, do not remove/revert the work. Editors such as SiefkinDR and THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ are not vandals or second-class editors, no more than Der Statistiker. They may not see eye to eye, but their work is as valuable. When source is lacking, anyone of us here, in the spirit of teamwork, can look it up & add it.

May I also remind you that we are still 'working' on the article. The last editor does not think that he/she has brought the article to an impeccable conclusion yet. Work is still in progress, with its imperfections.

And I am going to repeat my question to you, personally: what are you going to do when an innocent reader who has not been involved in this discussion adds a monument (for instance) to the article? Are you going to automatically reverse/revert? After the article has achieved GA, are we going to post an armed guard at its door?

Wishing you a good day. -- Blue Indigo ( talk) 09:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Blue Indigo; I am glad to fix citations and sources, but I don't really see that our goal is to have the shortest possible article with the minimum acceptable amount of information about Paris. It will be great to have a universe of sub-articles, and some are underway, but we don't have them yet. I don't see it as exactly a virtue that the history of Paris section is shorter than the history section in the New York article, despite the difference in age. The article is not going to be frozen after this edit; it will need annual updating of statistics and additions as the city changes. It's not an outline, its a portrait of the city for people who don't know much about Paris and want to know more. I think you should come away from this article, without having to read sub-articles, with a good knowledge of the major institutions of Paris, the major sights, and how it got to be what it is today. SiefkinDR ( talk) 11:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If the article being shorter starts to affect quality then it is going too far. But there's also no need for a 200kb or even near it.. It shouldn't really be much over 160 kb, that's hardly a short article now is it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Described above are the very reason I dislike 'other-article' comparison: two articles can only be alike if their subject matter is alike. Paris' history is so ancient that even a brief outline of it is already long: it has to have a history sub-article; I could even say that the New York article has commited a fault by trying to cram all of its short history into the main article. Nor is there a 'magic bullet' optimal section/article length - each section has its own particularities from article to article. Paris' history and particular administrative situation makes certain sections longer than 'the norm'. I've seen calls for 'descriptions of different architectural styles', yet Paris is so homogenous architecturally that this section will be shorter than 'the norm', unless we overly focus on as many as possible individual buildings that break with this tradition (which would give a false impression of what Paris really is).

So, in short, a 'perfect' article should be a harmony between those who know 'what's right' to mention in article content, and those who know 'what's right' for wikipedia and readers in general. Choose just one of these and the result will be either long and overly-detailed, or short and un/misinformative. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 12:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a time like pre 2008 on here when if you exceeded 32 kb for an article a warning used to come up suggesting splitting into different articles!! Now you can't possibly write a good article with it that short but I do think you can write a fairly comprehensive and concise article under 150kb. It's finding a balance I think, the most important thing is that it highlights the basics and is digestible to the reader. 264,209 bytes long is absolutely ridiculous, New York City or not. I'll be raising a concern on the talk page about that. Honestly I like articles to be comprehensive, in fact one of the reasons why I haven't taken Clint Eastwood to FAC is that I know I'd have to chop out a lot of material which in my opinion would make it a lesser article. That's 148kb and very long really for FA. But I don't think any article on wikipedia really needs to be 200kb, let alone 264 kb, even on global cities. If the article is difficult to read comfortably in one sitting and within half an hour then it's too long. We are an encyclopedia at the end of the day, not a book. Our strength lies with the room to venture into hundreds of sub articles covering topics in detail.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

See what you did there? A few of us here are just as endeared to Paris as you are to that Clint Eastwood article - cutting large swaths out of it 'just ain't right' ; )

And that's an article on a single person, not and entire city. But still, with a bit of effort the Paris article would be about 'right' at 170-180k. The TOC -must- be comprehensive though, as readers will find what they're looking for there more than they'll scroll down and read/scan the entire article. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 14:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Just had an edict conflict with the The Promenader above.

Here we are, working on an article with each one of us aware of the fact that some details do not belong to a general article, but to a related sub article to which there is a link. For instance, the Eiffel Tower is mentioned, but not every step of its construction should be in the Paris article, and we stick to that concept. When each is done with his/her section or whatever he/she was working on, we take a look at the article, see if the sections are well balanced with none overflowing in comparison to others etc. At one time we are going to agree (hmm!) that the article is saying exactly what it should, not too much, not too little, and THEN we look at its length. It may be under 160,000, which I doubt very much, and it may be 250,000. But will the length matter if we are satisfied with the content of the article? In the end, isn't the content what really matters? What I am driving at is that right now we are so concentrated - or made to concentrate - on the length of the article that nothing else matters: someone cuts here, someone skips adding a necessary detail in fear it is going to be reverted, someone comes with a measuring tape, some contributors walk away & the rest of us freeze. I salute those who keep working at it, trying to please everyone, but are still criticized because a divine hand has set in stone the byte limitation of Wikipedia articles, at least that on Paris.

Again, Paris is different. It is different because it is the old capital of an old country that has gone thru political turmoil & changes all its life, while Washington D.C., (sorry The Promaneder for the comparison) is the capital of a country that has had the same constitution since its birth, and has remained set in the same decor in which it was built with not many changes. Compared to Paris, that is a capital really "set in stone", with the huge number of 25 old historical buildings since 1674? And again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia & has not business decapitating the history or amputating any part of a city or a person because it has set certain numbers of bytes per article - has it? The article on Michael Jackson has 242,041 bytes, that on WWII 221,157, Elvis Presley 188,843, Hitler 155,212 bytes. And now it is suggested that 160,000 bytes for Paris are sufficient?

-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 14:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Indigo, my judgement is a 'finger in the wind' one based on a) my knowledge about this city (and the events that made it what it is today), b) my remembering as a foreigner what I didn't know about this city (and what I had assumed (as a NA foreigner) to be true but later found out different) and c) remembering what I came here for and how I came about it (and where I went to read more in-depth after). I see a few things missing, but it seems more or less 'right'... but you don't have to take my word for it, it's just my opinion. ; ) THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 14:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is way too long because of sections such as "Poverty and the homeless" added recently. This is making a joke of a general article like this. Anyway, if this section is not removed, I will add a "Wealth and the rich people" section this week, to balance things a bit (why a section only about the city's poor and not its rich inhabitants?). End result: the article will be even longer. Brilliant. Der Statistiker ( talk) 18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This article has several sections or subsections on population, richer neighborhoods according to value on square meters, on salaries, size of apartments or studios, etc. Included in

Housing:

Two-thirds of Paris's 1.3 million residences are studio and two-room apartments.

Only 33% of principal-residence Parisians own their habitation (against 47% for the entire Île-de-France): the major part of Paris's population is a rent-paying one.

Social housing represents a little more than 17% of Paris's total residences, but these are rather unevenly distributed throughout the capital:...

Demographics:

...the main features of the Parisian population are a high average income, relatively young median age...

Income:

The average net household income (after social, pension and health insurance contributions) was 36,085 euros in Paris for 2011.[132] It ranges from €22,095 in the 19th[133] arrondissement to €82,449 in the 7th[134] arrondissement. The median taxable income for 2011 was around 25,000 euros in Paris and 22,200 for Île-de-France.[135] Generally speaking, incomes are higher in the Western part of the city and in the western suburbs than in the northern and eastern parts of the urban area.

So, why not speak of homelessness? It belongs - or at least needs a mention - in economy, housing:

Those living in tents do live somewhere, and it happens to be in tents on the quay of the Canal Saint-Martin in Paris.

-- Blue Indigo ( talk) 20:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not about not speaking of homelessness, it is about having a specific sub section about it. We don't need more than one small sentence mentioning it. Minato ku ( talk) 20:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Parts of this article do nothing but trumpet how great and powerful Paris is. And about the rather pointed tagging, one of the citations is to a map of the aire urbaine covering the IDF. And the entire sections trumpets "The Paris economy is really the IDF economy" although many sources don't agree with this (they consider the Paris agglomeration instead), but if you insist... these were not done with article quality in mind, especially when they come from someone in the habit of linking to excel tables as "sources" for numbers of their own concoction. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Page 180 of the book in your reference does not say that "the Paris region (Île-de-France) GDP is often considered Paris' own". A reference is supposed to back the sentence it references, otherwise it's original research. The previous sentence is also quite obscure ("commuters to and from their Paris area workplaces live in an area covering primarily the Île-de-France region"). The two references listed do not contain this sentence. It needs to be reworded in a much more simple and matter-of-fact way. Der Statistiker ( talk) 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed that phrase, so it's much simpler now. The 'green index' reference was just after your tag - clearly you are here just to target other contributors. Stop. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If a concept with no obvious definition such as a "green city" is introduced in the article, it should be explained in the same sentence and not left to readers to go check the definition in the reference. That's common sense. Otherwise what's the worth of putting this sentence in the article if the reader has no idea what that concept means?? As for the first paragraph, the "commuters to and from their Paris area workplaces live in an area covering primarily the Île-de-France region" is still there, extremely badly worded, to the point that the average reader has probably no clue what is meant by this sentence (not to mention that the two references listed afterwards do not contain this sentence and its strange wording). Der Statistiker ( talk) 21:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That's rather pointedly nitpicky, especially when there are tons of other article problems outlined clearly and many times above. All the same, the 'hated explanation' is über simple now. Happy? THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's much better now. Clearer, and less confusing. But in my opinion it's rather unnecessary, as it's only stating the obvious (all the cities of the world have their economy stretching well beyond their administrative limits, unless they are large Chinese municipalities; and I'm not sure the fact that INSEE collects employment statistics in the communes adds any value to the reader in this section or indeed in the article; in fact you could also have mentioned that INSEE collects employment statistics at the census tract level, called IRIS in France... commune statistics are only the aggregation of IRIS statistics, but is the reader frankly needing this sort of details in such a general article??). Der Statistiker ( talk) 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Obvious to you, because you know about such things! But if statistics are expressed in two different methods, they both have to be explained (as this clarification was useful even to other contributors here). And no, we don't need another level of confusion added to this ; ) THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 21:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There are... links: Paris Metropolitan Area, Paris Region. Readers are not stupid, they can click on the links when they see those terms (as opposed to "green city" which is neither linked nor explained), and see what they mean if they don't know already. On the other hand, I'm not sure mentioning INSEE's complex alchemy of communes and departments and urban areas and aires urbaines (a non-English term) is going to help their comprehension. PS: And accusing me of not having the article quality in mind is below the belt. I remind you Fut.Perf.'s rule: 'comment on content, not on contributors'. Der Statistiker ( talk) 22:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone would agree that my observations were quite accurate. But concerning the article, when one can read in a single phrase what's going on in the rest of the section (the context), it's much better for the reader. Obliging readers to open new pages and windows just to understand article content is a bit much. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 22:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: And those backwards, fixed, compicating demography-ignoring communes, departments and regions are France's, not the INSEE's, and they can't be ignored. The INSEE tried to spatial-analysis deal with this with their statistical tools (that the public neither refers to or knows about), and this adds yet another level of 'confusion'... if it is not explained. So, all the reason more for this. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 07:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm just opening a question. The 'culture' section kind of bothers me titled as such... it's neither here nor there. It doesn't reflect modern culture very much (and for me, culture is the mix of ethnicities, music listened to, favourite city outing habits, etc.)... what it seems to describe now is a vague 'gathering of the arts (over time)'.

In the past, Paris drew communities, local and foreigners alike, of painters (Dadasim, Montparnasse, etc.), music (Chopin, Debussy, Satie, Ravel, etc.), Cinema, Photography, Fashion, Expositions (technologies and research), congresses, and foreign students (schools) of all these trades. Only Expositions (and are these all international?), business (congresses), Fashion and tourism seem to have passed the test of time. In short, I guess I'm asking "what makes/made Paris internationally famous/attractive as a city?". And every city has/had its own specialty. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Industries of a more national nature (export) are already/could be described in the Economy section. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 14:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

In looking at the New York City article, I see the editors have developed these topic within the Culture section (that's not to say we should do the same):

6 Culture and contemporary life

6.1 Arts

6.1.1 Performing arts

6.1.2 Visual arts

6.2 Cuisine

6.3 Accent

6.4 Sports

Coldcreation ( talk) 10:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's just things like Cabarets that are prominent in Paris' past, but they are not part of modern local culture (they should almost be part of the Tourism section). The NYC 'culture' section seems a bit of a compromise, too. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 15:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Parisian culture, c'est mon fort. Perhaps I should revamp this section and post it. Coldcreation ( talk) 15:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Like, from a modern-only point of view? Sure, that's what many have been asking for ; ) THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 17:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You are true. To avoid that, I think cultures & passed artistic movement should be put in them contexts. Hard to speak about internationals expos & art nouveau in now a day Paris. Or of the beginning of the Gothic movement in the same paragraph we would speak about surrealism and end with glass based architecture. Gothic is what it is because Paris was capital of France when of king were involved in crusades, not really to be painted by Monet. Sainte Chapelle is, because Saint Louis got the Crown of thorn.

I think this paragraph should be centred on contemporaneous culture. About expos : there are way too much to mention all them. We should be (very) synthetic. v_atekor ( talk) 08:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am working on a canvas of paragraph for history, using the same rules than for biographies, then putting the art/sciences/architectures main event for Paris for the concerned century, in them context. I am only adding items directly related to Paris as town, Paris because it was Paris, and not only because people making it was living in this city, but it would have happened elsewhere if people were not living in Paris. For example in Science, definition of the meter and metrical system but not Lavoisier research on water. For architecture : Gothic movement ; and for plastics arts the main movement that happened in Paris after Paris replace Rome as capital of arts in the XIX century (reference to be copied from French articles about Art nouveau). Use this draft if you want. It wont be ready quickly because I have too much work IRL. v_atekor ( talk) 08:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been three of us working on this (seemingly) seperately - perhaps we could set up a 'history' sandbox and work on it all together. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 08:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)