This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I've had a mull over the last week's doings and it's obvious that I was going way overboard in dealing with the details. This page must improve: Its structure must be cleaned up, redundant parts removed, a central in context "modern Paris" theme imposed ( removal of the long history with an inclusion of in context "greater Paris" info) yet without the "bigger than ___" statistical comparisons that offend such.
As usual the replacement page can be found Here and, as indicated at its head, all comments and edits are welcome (and expected) there; In using that page we can keep this talk page clean and get more work done without worrying about over-editing the original Paris page. Added - to ease discussion I've set up the Talk page into different sections attributed to each subject.
Over the past months I have taken great pains to make all this clear and I'm sure all concerned have had more than their fill of education in the matter, so from here I can only consider a lack of response as a consensus to change. I am in no hurry; what is destined next for change is very clearly marked on the Paris Work Page, so any edits, opinions, criticisms or suggestions should be made there before the topic in question is completed and brought to the main page. As my restructuring and "making accessible" certain parts of the Paris article will involve rewriting subjects not my specialty, I only expect that those who do know better will later bring their knowledge, corrections and improvements to the newer version.
In light of the above, a revert without a prior show of interest in the editing will be inacceptable. I ask all concerned to please allow this page to improve.
Cordially,
ThePromenader 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (aka "Josefu")
To see "live" what's going on below, please look here. Any edits, comments and suggestions are welcome (and should take place) there, and the details of what's being changed (and why) can be found on its Talk page.
That's it for the reverts today; as it stands this has gone too far and anything more can only be considered as vandalism. Not only are the intentions of both parties clear to all, so are the changes that need to be made. I hope we can move forward in a more mature fashion as I find this all quite demeaning. ThePromenader 15:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
ADDED - I'd spent my lunchtime reading, as earlier this morning I came across the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities page and found much useful information about situations similar to the "suburb-city" problem we have here. I have also looked at the pages of the world's other capital cities and - LOL - Hardouin, I see you have your finger firmly planted into the London pie as well.
I am not in such a hurry anymore. I have re-read much of what I have (most recently re-) written, and have indeed found factual errors due mostly to my cut-and-paste insertions into phrases I had written from rote. My ire has abated. I will be more careful, less hasty, and will continue to give full warning about anything I intend to do. If I recieve no comment from the authour then I will seek opinion elsewhere if the need be, but an I will consider the absence of any feedback as permission to go forward. Let that be clear.
My apologies if "my" Paris page seems for now to be a total rewrite, but my proposed changes are a result of a gradual accumulation of writing over the time I waited (in vain) for a consensus that turned out to be... one. I need not impose the whole in one throw, and if we manage to get a constructive dialog going, I may not need impose anything at all. Most of the texts you see there are but a from-memory recital fleshing out the headings and order I think would work well for this article. What I am working on for insertion I will find a way of highlighting, and most probably will note it at the top of the page.
In all civility, I remain in the opinion that this page is a mess. It is head-holdingly dull. It is a compilation of statistical extracts (some from contested sources it seems) that together convey a meaning both dry and erronous, and has a tone that is obviously offensive to some. The flow from subject to subject is incoherent, and the whole of the article, down to its "custom" city box tailored for "extra" populations, is unlike that of any other major city save London's - for obvious reasons. Paris does trade much, but neither its skyline nor its breadth is as imposing as the choice of statistics presented here would like to make us think. This vague "teeming and mighty metropolis" impression is only doubled by the a) plans presented b) skyscraper images chosen and (most importantly) c) absence of all information about how Paris lives today.
I will work my "city life" texts, as a replacement for the "Economy" section, until they are in a truely publishable state - with references. I now will remove my reams of posts below, as my aims are clear enough here so that I can spare unconcerned readers the entire story of how they evolved to this point. For sake of reference (or should you fancy some stonewalling and impatient ranting) I will store them all here.
Here's a compiled list of what I think could be improved on this page. Please comment.
CONCLUSION - In short this page contains often incoherent and ambiguous information, is arranged in an incoherent way as we can't get a grasp of what the page is trying to say about Paris. I can't begin to look into the motivations of whoever wrote most of the above (and, no coincidence, evidence shows that most of this was the work of one person), but it is a message a complete other than "what is Paris", a message telling us that Paris' suburbs, population, growth and economy confounded, are Paris itself. I cannot see that changing a thing here or there will fix anything, as making compromise with incoherencies has at best half-coherent results. Thus I proposed a total re-organisation, and a total rewrite of some sections. Please be reminded that I am under no circumstances questioning the accuracy of any fact that's been contributed to this page; my doubts are more with which facts have been chosen to represent Paris, as together they paint a false picutre of a teeming, sprawling, horizon-covering skyscraper'd metropolis that Paris is not.
I have been working on a such rewrite (as I have already mentioned "mainte fois" in this page) that you can find at --> Paris Recap. I am open to any and all discussion, and will be proceeding (short of any other propositions) with much-needed rectifications.
Doesn't the broken star at the top of the edit page mean anything? This page just can't stay the way it is, and I've taken more than just a bit of my time to see to it; to see about setting it on a straight track we can see the end of. That done, I'll feel that my job here is too.
As usual, shoot anything that's on your mind on the talk page. And, by the way, once this is sorted out my reams of (useless it seems) posts here will go. They stay for now just in case this case may need any further arbitration. (ADDED - all is here now.)
Cordialement,
Josefu 15:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This entire section is worthless drivel. It's basically a longwinded Paris-promoting diatribe. It goes to great lengths to hammer into everone's heads how mighty Paris is economically. It continues on and on comparing Paris with other major world cities. It spends an entire paragraph diminishing London's economy to come to the conclusion that "London is not richer than Paris." It even includes a little table at the end that lists Paris' economy as larger than London's. All that BS is irrelevant and the motive behind it is utterly transparent.
What are Paris' major economic bases? Industries? What is its GDP per capita? Are there any major banks located there? No one knows, because this section only serves to aggrandize Paris.
Not the case. Accents can be omitted or used on all upper-case letters. It is more common to use accents on upper-case E because of more common differences in meaning (e.g. AIME vs. AIMÉ). Now that we have computers that can put accents on uppercase letters more easily than (say) a typewriter, it is much more common to do so. - montréalais
An interesting geographical feature of Paris is that it is one of only two cities in the entire world to have its governmental offices on an island, the second being Cedar Rapids, Iowa in the United States.
I've seen this before, but I lend it little credence. Which of Paris's government buildings are on an island? City Hall isn't; it's on the Right Bank. The Parliament buildings are on the Left Bank. - Montrealais (whose city's government buildings are also on an island)
I'm fairly sure that le Raincy is not one of the main attractions around Paris! David.Monniaux 23:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I removed the statement about traffic in Paris being notoriously dangerous. I live in Paris and very seldom see traffic accidents. Simply, in most areas there are too many traffic lights and other impediments for people to really go speeding. David.Monniaux 16:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've added
History of Paris - see what you make of it... --
ChrisO 23:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My knowledge here is a little sketchy at best, but my understanding was the Statue of Liberty that was gifted to the United States by the French was an enlarged copy of the original in Paris. I'm not saying this article is wrong as I don't know. But can anyone provide citations to prove the reality? -- Colin Angus Mackay 00:44, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"The name Paris could be originated from the phrase "par-isis" (ancient french for "near Isis") because in ancient times the town was consacrated to the homonyme Egyptian God"
I suspect this is nonsense. The name derives from the Gallic tribe of the parisis. David.Monniaux 08:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
True or false: someone can explain what advantage of having this article at Paris as opposed to Paris, France. 66.245.125.9 21:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the picture is not as detailed and neat as I would like it. However, this is the case of most pictures I have seen on Wikipedia. Nice pictures are made by professionals, and they are copyrighted, therefore it is not surprising that the pictures found on Wikipedia are not very great in general. Of course, if you have a better picture of the Parisian skyline of La Défense, then replace the picture. BUT, in the meantime, I think we should leave this picture at any rate, because it is important that people can have a look at the real face of Paris in the 21st century, instead of the cliches to which we are always treated (Notre Dame, Montmartre, Eiffel Tower, etc.). For the majority of Parisians in 2004, living in Paris is not fancy tourism in quaint historical districts. The reality is big commutes, fast pace life, and an environment of concrete, asphalt, steel, and glass so typical of major metropolises; and I think this picture, although not perfect, gives a sense of that. Hardouin 22:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Skyscraper pic would be good in the suburb section, it seems. WhisperToMe 05:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
While editing the article, a so-called "spam filter" blocked the following links, for no obvious reasons:
An administrator needs to do something about this!! Hardouin 13:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm doing a bit of research on Paris for a fictional purpose. For the incident I'll be portraying, could someone familiar with the city tell me if there's an open air or street market that I could set a scene in? Also, if it isn't an additional burden, the location of the hospital that would be nearest there? The former is more important than the latter, and if you assist me, I wish to extend in advance my profound thanks. -- Mr Bound 02:55, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
In English, the correct term for Paris is actually "City of LightS" (plural), but this has been corrupted by writers over the years. Must Wikipedia propagate the error?
Paris is a beautifull city and to walk... -- Adelepuc 18:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In here, Northern Portugal it isnt summer yet and yesterday and the day before and the other the temperature was above 28ºC at 2 A.M. Nobody died... o_O when some body is about to die they just go to the beach and cool down in the water. LOL. - Pedro 13:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pedro, your thermometer must have a problem. According to the Portuguese Meteorology Institute, the temperature in Porto yesterday was 26 maximum during the afternoon, and 17 minimum during the night (
[1]). In Vigo the Spanish Meteorology Institute says the minimum temperature was 17.3 last night, and in Ourense it was 15.3. Maybe you measured the temperature inside your flat/house, but that's quite different. Meteorology institutes measure temperatures in the outside. Also, 2am is never the lowest temperature at night.... usually the lowest temperature is reached between 4am and 7am. The 25.5° C temperature that I wrote down in the article was recorded inside the Parc Montsouris at approximately 4am (at 2am the temperature was still 28-29). The temperature in the streets was higher than in the park, and inside flats/apartments, it was even higher than in the streets. In many Paris apartments, temperatures never went below 30° C at night during these days, which is extremely high. A 25.5 minimum at night as recorded by meteorology institutes is extremely high, even for southern Spain where daily temperatures reach 45 in the summer. Usualy it's the kind of night temperatures you find in Madras or Bombay in the summer, but not in Paris.
Hardouin 17:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the Spanish Meteorology Institute website they say that yesterday the temperature in the Sevile area reached 36.5 in the afternoon, but the minimum at night was only 17.5. So you see that 25.5 is indeed very high.
Hardouin 17:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK... the weather is colder today than yesterday, I'm going to see the temperature better, in a better place. BTW Galicia is traditionally very cold! At least for us here. So you cant compare. When I go to Galicia I normally use a lot of cloths. Unfortunnaly even in here the temperature reached 40ºc in the last summer, I hope it doesnt occur again this year! But 25ºC is a very pleasant temperature.-- Pedro 23:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
after a lot of time measuring correctly, and today the night is much more pleasant than yesterday. Much more. The temp is: 18.7 at 1 A.M. (so you are correct, although the temp. today is much lower than yesterday).
in August 2003, I had IN my flat a temperature of 38°during the day, and a lowest of 33° in the night (at 6AM) during 3 weeks ! You can imagine what these temperatures can do to ederly and ill people...
Where is the source for Paris being the second largest stock exchange in Europe? Surely both the London stock exchange and German Stock exchange are far larger. I would also dispute that paris is alongside London as being the major financial centre of Europe. Again London, Frankfurt & Berlin are far more developed in this respect
The introduction is correct.
There are different ways to measure the size of a bourse. Data below as of Feb 2001.
One way is by the number of comapnies listed. London had 2,921; Paris 1,437 and Deutsche Börse 988.
Another common method is by market capitalisation. London with close to 2.5 trillion dollars, Paris with over 2 trillion and Deutsche Börse with over 1 trillion.
So by market capitalisation, which is the most common measure of size, Paris is twice the size of the German bourse. However, it should be noted that turnover in the German bourse may be higher. The reported figure is higher but reporting rules and calculation methods differ among the bourses. Parmaestro 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem in the introduction is not the size of Paris, or the size of its stock exchange. The problem is the frame of reference. While one could argue which, out of Paris and London, is the largest business centre; the statement that Paris is the most urban in the European Union is not. By most measures, London is a larger city - and is part of the European Union. This can be corrected with a simple change from "European Union" to "Euro area". In that frame of reference, Paris is undoubtedly the largest urban area.
...has with Paris? It's not even in it, nor does it have anything at all to do with French culture. Is Wikepedia forwarding "sponsored" links to its users now in addition to real encyclopedic resources? Actually only the top few links (besides the Disneyland URL) provide any real Parisian content.
This page seems to be open to all so I hope I didn't overstep the line by eliminating a spam link or two I found these past days. There's still one or two there IMHO but I draw the line here - also I don't seem to be very good at it (according to the page History, I somehow "spam linked" to the "old" version). The reason I did the above was out of a frustration at finding little in the English language of value or even relevence about Paris on the web - anything "Paris" is literally swamped with spam by tourist-fleecers. I do like Wikepedia and it has been a great help in my research - it is sad for me to see the same happen here.
I do have some link suggestions but now I hesitate to post them. The utter democracy of Wiki is indeed puzzling to one not used to it (smile). If anyone is interested please leave word here - and sorry for any problems I've caused, if any!
This is a much-visited page, and many who post links here have motivations very (*cough*) un-encyclopaedic. If one commercial link appears and stays then the flow will never stop. I have a website of my own concerning Paris that I would love to post here, yet I can't for the very same reasons. The only "Touristic" link here is the official Ville de Paris tourism website which itself is the limit of this logic. Please show some understanding.
ThePromenader 16:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Just my two cents here. This is a great page start for someone starting a research on Paris but let's keep it in that theme. Disneyland definitely has no place here, as anyone looking for "Disneyland Paris" will type - disneyland paris - and be taken to or shown the link to the corresponding wikitravel page. Putting Disneyland on the "paris" page is an attempt to hook someone interested in Paris who might be coming - and this is certainly not an encyclopaedic practice. "Amusement parks" should go as well. Actually I think the Wikitravel link should go up near the top as an immediate reminder for those actually looking for travel information.
(added) In that light there are a couple other "non-encyclopedia" items that should go as well. If no-one has anything further to say on the matter I will see to it later today.
Sorry for all the edits but I'm new at this. I'll try it "all in one go" next time with the help of a text editor. Josefu
The section on the area of Paris is a little misleading. It says that the commune of Paris has an area of 105.398 km² compared to Greater London (1,572 km²) and New York (786 km²). Only further dowes it mention that Paris is a metropolis which contains smaller communes. The commune of Paris is more comparable to the cities of London and Westminster or the borough of Manhattan.
International comparisons are useful and should not be removed. Raw figures in themselves mean nothing if they cannot be compared with other data for other cities. As for the reader above, I'm not sure what she/he does not understand. The city of Paris (an administrative area with arbitrary limits set in 1860) has an area of only 105 km², which is much smaller than the administrative territory of the city of New York or the Greater London Authority. On the other hand, the metropolitan area of Paris (a statistical area with limits expanding year after year as people build houses further and further away from the center of Paris) is much larger than the administrative city of Paris and includes many small suburban communes. Sounds easy to understand. What exactly did you not understand? Hardouin 23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
So you actually are suggesting that we put "all of Paris' onto one page? I'm sorry but I must strongly disagree, mainly for a reason which forms the fundament of your argument: Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia. It does not have its space limitations, nor does it have its "a-z" hierarchical organisation. There is an astounding amount of publishable information on Paris, as Paris has engendered many inventions and movements over the centuries and today has yet another importance as a financial centre in the makeup of the world economy. How do you propose to put all of this on the same page? I fully understand now this page's hodgepodge of selective information, as well as why it is bloated well past the suggested size.
If you want to cite Britannica, Universalis or why not Quid, go to those sites to see how "Paris" is organised. None of them contain "everything" on one page, but even there, there is no reason Wiki should not do better. We should be contributing ideas, not territorial markings and idealogical limitations.
As I see it, the only way to expand is to reorganise this page into several "primer" subjects suitable for those uninitiated to the subject or those following leads (geolographical situation, demography, history, culture, etc) and have a link to a more elaborate page on each subject (if it exists). This leaves room to expand. A "Paris Culture" page, linked to from this one, could lead itself to different aspects of Parisian culture such as "Paris Fashion" - a page that, by the way, doesn't exist in English wiki. Anyhow, if someone is looking for "Paris economy" or "Paris fashion" he will type exactly that into the search field and be taken directly there. One can assume that one typing only "Paris" is either uninitiated on the subject or is looking only for very general information.
Wiki should not only be informative, it should be efficient.
Josefu 08:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
"This page is 44 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."
I think the above says it all - for starters. I don't get the comparative either - just because other "city" articles are bloated doesn't mean that this one has to be too. Other than that you totally ignored every one of my arguments; exactly how much "valuable information" do you intend to put on one page? How much can you put?
Your stance on this page is quite clear to me now. I would like to hear from the others before making any changes though.
Josefu 15:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I do agree with you there, but I still think that even 100k page would not be enough to hold all the information needed for a complete and informative "all-in-one" Paris page.
Josefu 20:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
There's more than photos that need to be removed or moved to other pages, there is a lot of over-specialised, redundant or pompous information on this page. Need I make a list? And why are you the only one answering? Where is the "page consensus" I've been told that I must apply to? It can't be but one person. If I don't hear anything I will go ahead with my changes and "be bold" as I was first advised.
I would like an end to this seeming stalling and an open discussion, but I have posted my aims here to no reply for long enough.
Josefu 08:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I am reverting once more Josefu's edits about Paris economy, and pretty much for the same reasons as before. Josefu's edits deal only with the administrative city of Paris, exluding the rest of the metropolitan area from this article. This is silly and makes no sense at all as I have already said before, and it is also quite misleading. For instance, one of Josefu's conclusions is that industry is a small and declining component of the Paris economy, based on the fact that indeed inside the administrative city of Paris there are few industries. But this leaves totally aside the industries in the suburbs, which make the metropolitan area of Paris one of the largest industrial base of Europe (car industry, Ariane rockets, satellites, Dassault fighter jets, Falcon business jets, optics, among others). Josefu, since nothing that I can possibly say seem to convince you, please check some serious encyclopedias, maybe you will listen to them. Go to your local library, and check Encyclopaedia Universalis, Edition 2002, Volume 17, page 393. There you will find the article about the Paris economy. Check also Encyclopaedia Britannica, Edition 2002, Macropaedia Volume 25, page 444. There also you will find the article about the Paris economy. Both these very serious and reputed encyclopedias talk about THE WHOLE METROPOLITAN AREA, not just the administrative city of Paris, because it makes no sense to discuss the administrative city without talking about the very extended suburbs beyond the city limits. Please be reminded that most of the Paris economic activitiy is happening in the suburbs, and not inside the administrative city proper. You can also check Encyclopaedia Britannica, Edition 2002, Micropaedia Volume 9, page 152. There you will find their Paris article, which talks about the whole metropolitan area, and not just the administrative Ville de Paris. Some of Josefu's edits are interesting and should be incorporated into the economy section, but first we need to rewrite the section to discuss the whole metropolitan area, and not just the administrative city. Hardouin 16:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)\
Josefu, I am sick and tired of your constant personal attacks. I try to explain rationally why your edits are flawed, using encyclopedic references, but you always come back with personal attacks, "this page is yours and you don't want to change a word of it", that sort of language. No, this page is not mine, and I didn't write the entire article, far from it. What's more, if you check the article's history, I have never reverted people when they add new information. You constantly stress the fact that at some point in the past there was ONE anonymous user who left a comment on the discussion page complaining about the economy section, but that is just ONE user, ONCE. So stop saying PEOPLE have complained about the article. In fact, if you had thouroughly checked the history of this article, you would have realized that the real complaint about this article was about a year ago, when the article presented a very cliché picture of Paris limited to its administrative city, and to touristic clichés of Amélie-esque Paris. Some users like David Monniaux, me, and others, said that this representation of Paris was a misrepresentation, and that's when I started to give facts and statistics to the article. That's also when David and I started to upload pictures showing skyscrapers and towers to show that Paris is not just the touristic core that tourists only visit. And by the way, since when is it a crime to add data to an article? Now your new proposals to this article would have us return entirely to the 2004 version that was complained about, the version of a Paris limited to its administrative city and a very cliché image of Paris. When you state that Paris industry is limited to the Sentier clothing industry, I'm sorry but this is a total cliché and you are mirepresenting what Paris really is. Your understanding of the aire urbaine concept is also quite shallow. No, aires urbaines were not "invented" recently. Aire urbaine have existed for several decades already, but it's just recently that INSEE measures them. The phenomenon of extended suburbs and satellite cities has existed since the 1960s mind you. And the aire urbaine of Paris does not include "much other growth from different poles" as you wrongly say. The aire urbaine contains only suburbs and cities that are totally satellite of Paris, such as Fontainebleau. But cities like Chartres, Orléans, or Beauvais, are not included in the aire urbaine of Paris. Please be reminded that there are about 20 million people who live within one hour train from central Paris, and yet the aire urbaine contains only 11.5 million people. This is why I am reverting your edits, not because of a supposed sense of ownership. So please stop personal attacks. Hardouin 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
More in detail, these are the points, precisely, that explain why I am reverting your economy edit:
In all, in your economy edits I find only two good points that should be re-used when we write a decent economy section:
Please understand that there are so many flaws in your edits that it must be reverted for now. If you want to reply my message, please do not use personal attacks and answer the points that I have detailed above. Thanks. Hardouin 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Following the very many messages of Josefu (aka ThePromenader) above, I have searched for some data to improve the economy section, and clearly list the main branches of the Paris economy, instead of having just an explanation of the size of the Paris GDP. Thus, I have trimmed the Paris GDP discussion, which has its own article, and I have added workforce data, with the distribution of the workforce across economic sectors in the Paris metropolitan area. These figures are hard to find outside of France, and I think people interested in the Paris economy will be glad to see them. I have outlined what the rest of the section should talk about (manufacturing, business services, commerce and finance), but unfortunately (or rather fortunately) I have a life besides Wikipedia and I don't have time to write about these at the moment. I have access to very good data though, and as soon as time allows I will add the data I have access to. Josefu if you want to add some of what you wrote on your Paris work page, please do so in the subsections I have outlined.
Your map of Greater Paris is also very good and it would be great to put it at the beginning of the economy section, just below the italicized note. I just have three suggestions of improvement for your map:
1- you should give a specific color to the boundary of Île-de-France, say red (whatever), to distinguish it from the boundaries of the départements. Then in the legend you would say that the red line (or any color you choose) is the limit of Île-de-France, and that the black lines are the limits of the départements inside Île-de-France.
2- Instead of having "Areas of high-density inhabitation", you should instead use the limits of the "unités urbaines" that exist within Île-de-France, and call them "built-up areas" in your legend, which is generally how it's called in English. Your "areas of high-density" are not fully reflecting the extent of the "unité urbaine" of Paris, in particular in the Yvelines département. If you can't find a map showing the "unités urbaines" in Île-de-France, let me know I will give you some links to find it.
3- You should use the same color for the whole unité urbaine, instead of having a separate color for the city of Paris as you have done. The city of Paris is already distinguishable by the black boundary of its département.
Hardouin
03:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
ThePromenader 11:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It is near impossible to discuss things calmly with you, as you seem always hot tempered and always find flaws where there are none. Of course my figures are sourced, it's written inside the section, re-read, they come from the census 1999. I don't know how I can be more clear, the census, C-E-N-S-U-S, RECENSEMENT GÉNÉRAL DE LA POPULATION DE MARS 1999. The results of the census are available to all on the INSEE website. Your assertion that we have no economic data for the aire urbaine is also wrong. All census data are available at the aire urbaine level, and many of them are economic data. What you say about tourism is also plain wrong, I'm afraid to say. Even if we assumed that all the 183,196 people working in the tourism industry (a figure coming from an INSEE study about tourism industry in Ile-de-France) worked in the city of Paris alone (which is far from the case), that would still be only 11.4% of the 1,600,815 workforce of the city of Paris. So tourism is really not that important overall. Finally I don't understand what you mean by my "unexplained terms". All the terms that I have used are the ones used in economics litterature. Hardouin 13:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Section Moved - Instead of eliminating the more statistical part of the of Economy section left for more than a day in a state of unsightly incompletion (see above), the entire section has been placed onto a new Paris_economy page. (note - this information is indeed useful, but hors-propos here. It is best that it have its own page, that way it can retain its language better-understood by those interested in the subject.)
ThePromenader 09:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand that some people are having strong feelings about how this article page should look like. Without going into the details, here is my feedback: the Paris article is way too long and a substantial part of the information contained in this article should be moved to sub-articles.
The rationale is quite simple: think about the reader. Who is the typical reader of such an article? Probably 2 main types: 1- someone browsing Wikipedia and looking for an overview about Paris, and 2- someone looking for specific details.
The article as it is today is absolutely discouraging for the first type of reader, and most people won't read anything in this article and simply zap to another one. Period. So I guess that it misses the point of informing readers about Paris at all.
The second type of reader will most probably browse and look for the section of his/her interest and will click on the specific sub-article. The current Paris article makes it quite difficult for such a reader to quickly find information.
Information architecture is a key aspect of any readable article or website. Look for instance at the Hong Kong article. Hong Kong is a city about the size of Paris. There are literally hundreds of Wikipedia article specifically dedicated to Hong Kong topics, yet the main article itself remains readable and detailed information does not appear overwhelmingly in the main article.
A few examples about the Paris article:
I hope this can help. olivier 14:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Again: "Tourism, of course, is the icing on Paris' economy cake. From its first Universal Exposition years, themselves fuelled by the very beginnings of transport technology, Paris has risen to become the most-visited city in the world. The capital seems to be between two trends today: most of its Paris monuments and establishments famed for their history or "Parisian nostalgia" have been preserved and restored, and millions invested to this end; on the other, Paris has had many new "chain" restaurants, hotels and stores catering to a tourist's already-established tastes." Do you see the problem? It lacks actual information and "waffles" too much. Also information on new restaurants, hotels and stores is meaningless as is - *every* city in the world that has tourists has that. It's only information if there is a point to be made: have these restaurants ruined the cities character? etc.
This should be cut massively: "Since the World Expo of 1896, Paris has become the most visited city in the world, with more than 50 million visitors each year [cite] coming to visit its carefully preserved art galleries, museums and theatres and to experience the unique Paris atmosphere". Keep it tight.
I suppose I must take the above "English-speaking French nationals with an education or experience of Paris and its relation vis-à-vis the rest of its country (and the POV can go to extremes depending on where he's writing from)" as addressed to me? I think it is time to make a few things clear: a- I am not, repeat NOT, French (although I could obtain citizenship if I asked); b- I do not live in France; c- I am trilingual, I lived in many different countries, including France for a long time. Ever heard of children raised by parents from two different countries? For all the weeks and now months that Josefu (aka ThePromenader) has been active on this page, I have been time and again the subject of personal attacks, which haven't stopped even after expressing how sick and tired I was about it. It seems it's not enough for ThePromenader to attack someone's writing, he also has to attack that someone's character and motives ("your motives are utterly transparent" and all that crap).
I really, but REALLY don't like the tone "this article shouldn't be a French encyclopedia entry written by French nationals" and all that "I can be a bridge" bulshit. I was educated at Stanford University, California, so I think I know a bit about what's written in American academic literature and can be as good a "bridge" as anyone else, Mr. Josefu. It is really no surprise that Wikipedia has no recognition at all in academic circles, given the shallowness and gossipee nature of so many articles. Over the months that I have been active on Wikipedia I have been trying to improve the content of many articles (not just Paris mind you!), giving precise facts and data, debunking a few myths and clichés, organizing things in a more academic way, etc. I don't pretend to be perfect, but I try to do as best as I can.
Now about this article here, I have this to say: true, it should not be just a dry collection of statistics, but on the other hand, if it's going to be only an entertaining presentation of Paris, you might as well write for the Lonely Planet Guides. The article needs to contain hard data and figures if it intends to have any informative use for more than just tourists or curious bystanders. I think it is a mistake to write the article with people planning to come visiting Paris in mind. After all, if they are going to be looking for information for their trip, they are more likely to open the Lonely Planet guide than Wikipedia. Hardouin 00:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I have been thinking about the heated arguments exchanged in the past weeks, and I think a lot of it has to do with a problem of definitions. The name "Paris" has different meanings. In a strict sense, "Paris" refers to the city proper itself, the Ville de Paris. In a broader sense, "Paris" refers to the whole metropolitan area, the city and its suburbs. After pondering this, I am more and more enclined to think that we should create a City of Paris (or Ville de Paris) article, which would give information concerning strictly the city proper, while the Paris article would deal with issues concerning Paris in the broader sense, the city and its numerous suburbs. This idea I didn't just make up myself, it slowly matured into my mind after reading articles about several other cities. Please check the Brussels, Sydney, London, and Melbourne articles. These articles are concerned with whole metropolitan areas, while there are the more specific City of Brussels, City of Sydney, Greater London, and City of Melbourne articles which talk about the administrative cities proper. We could do like what they did at the London article, we could create a "Defining Paris" section that we would put at the beginning of the Paris article. In this section we would give the different meanings of Paris, the different limits, and link people to a City of Paris article if they wish to know more about the administrative city proper. Then we could also move the infobox to the City of Paris article. Waiting for your comments. Hardouin 12:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I've had a mull over the last week's doings and it's obvious that I was going way overboard in dealing with the details. This page must improve: Its structure must be cleaned up, redundant parts removed, a central in context "modern Paris" theme imposed ( removal of the long history with an inclusion of in context "greater Paris" info) yet without the "bigger than ___" statistical comparisons that offend such.
As usual the replacement page can be found Here and, as indicated at its head, all comments and edits are welcome (and expected) there; In using that page we can keep this talk page clean and get more work done without worrying about over-editing the original Paris page. Added - to ease discussion I've set up the Talk page into different sections attributed to each subject.
Over the past months I have taken great pains to make all this clear and I'm sure all concerned have had more than their fill of education in the matter, so from here I can only consider a lack of response as a consensus to change. I am in no hurry; what is destined next for change is very clearly marked on the Paris Work Page, so any edits, opinions, criticisms or suggestions should be made there before the topic in question is completed and brought to the main page. As my restructuring and "making accessible" certain parts of the Paris article will involve rewriting subjects not my specialty, I only expect that those who do know better will later bring their knowledge, corrections and improvements to the newer version.
In light of the above, a revert without a prior show of interest in the editing will be inacceptable. I ask all concerned to please allow this page to improve.
Cordially,
ThePromenader 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (aka "Josefu")
To see "live" what's going on below, please look here. Any edits, comments and suggestions are welcome (and should take place) there, and the details of what's being changed (and why) can be found on its Talk page.
That's it for the reverts today; as it stands this has gone too far and anything more can only be considered as vandalism. Not only are the intentions of both parties clear to all, so are the changes that need to be made. I hope we can move forward in a more mature fashion as I find this all quite demeaning. ThePromenader 15:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
ADDED - I'd spent my lunchtime reading, as earlier this morning I came across the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities page and found much useful information about situations similar to the "suburb-city" problem we have here. I have also looked at the pages of the world's other capital cities and - LOL - Hardouin, I see you have your finger firmly planted into the London pie as well.
I am not in such a hurry anymore. I have re-read much of what I have (most recently re-) written, and have indeed found factual errors due mostly to my cut-and-paste insertions into phrases I had written from rote. My ire has abated. I will be more careful, less hasty, and will continue to give full warning about anything I intend to do. If I recieve no comment from the authour then I will seek opinion elsewhere if the need be, but an I will consider the absence of any feedback as permission to go forward. Let that be clear.
My apologies if "my" Paris page seems for now to be a total rewrite, but my proposed changes are a result of a gradual accumulation of writing over the time I waited (in vain) for a consensus that turned out to be... one. I need not impose the whole in one throw, and if we manage to get a constructive dialog going, I may not need impose anything at all. Most of the texts you see there are but a from-memory recital fleshing out the headings and order I think would work well for this article. What I am working on for insertion I will find a way of highlighting, and most probably will note it at the top of the page.
In all civility, I remain in the opinion that this page is a mess. It is head-holdingly dull. It is a compilation of statistical extracts (some from contested sources it seems) that together convey a meaning both dry and erronous, and has a tone that is obviously offensive to some. The flow from subject to subject is incoherent, and the whole of the article, down to its "custom" city box tailored for "extra" populations, is unlike that of any other major city save London's - for obvious reasons. Paris does trade much, but neither its skyline nor its breadth is as imposing as the choice of statistics presented here would like to make us think. This vague "teeming and mighty metropolis" impression is only doubled by the a) plans presented b) skyscraper images chosen and (most importantly) c) absence of all information about how Paris lives today.
I will work my "city life" texts, as a replacement for the "Economy" section, until they are in a truely publishable state - with references. I now will remove my reams of posts below, as my aims are clear enough here so that I can spare unconcerned readers the entire story of how they evolved to this point. For sake of reference (or should you fancy some stonewalling and impatient ranting) I will store them all here.
Here's a compiled list of what I think could be improved on this page. Please comment.
CONCLUSION - In short this page contains often incoherent and ambiguous information, is arranged in an incoherent way as we can't get a grasp of what the page is trying to say about Paris. I can't begin to look into the motivations of whoever wrote most of the above (and, no coincidence, evidence shows that most of this was the work of one person), but it is a message a complete other than "what is Paris", a message telling us that Paris' suburbs, population, growth and economy confounded, are Paris itself. I cannot see that changing a thing here or there will fix anything, as making compromise with incoherencies has at best half-coherent results. Thus I proposed a total re-organisation, and a total rewrite of some sections. Please be reminded that I am under no circumstances questioning the accuracy of any fact that's been contributed to this page; my doubts are more with which facts have been chosen to represent Paris, as together they paint a false picutre of a teeming, sprawling, horizon-covering skyscraper'd metropolis that Paris is not.
I have been working on a such rewrite (as I have already mentioned "mainte fois" in this page) that you can find at --> Paris Recap. I am open to any and all discussion, and will be proceeding (short of any other propositions) with much-needed rectifications.
Doesn't the broken star at the top of the edit page mean anything? This page just can't stay the way it is, and I've taken more than just a bit of my time to see to it; to see about setting it on a straight track we can see the end of. That done, I'll feel that my job here is too.
As usual, shoot anything that's on your mind on the talk page. And, by the way, once this is sorted out my reams of (useless it seems) posts here will go. They stay for now just in case this case may need any further arbitration. (ADDED - all is here now.)
Cordialement,
Josefu 15:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
This entire section is worthless drivel. It's basically a longwinded Paris-promoting diatribe. It goes to great lengths to hammer into everone's heads how mighty Paris is economically. It continues on and on comparing Paris with other major world cities. It spends an entire paragraph diminishing London's economy to come to the conclusion that "London is not richer than Paris." It even includes a little table at the end that lists Paris' economy as larger than London's. All that BS is irrelevant and the motive behind it is utterly transparent.
What are Paris' major economic bases? Industries? What is its GDP per capita? Are there any major banks located there? No one knows, because this section only serves to aggrandize Paris.
Not the case. Accents can be omitted or used on all upper-case letters. It is more common to use accents on upper-case E because of more common differences in meaning (e.g. AIME vs. AIMÉ). Now that we have computers that can put accents on uppercase letters more easily than (say) a typewriter, it is much more common to do so. - montréalais
An interesting geographical feature of Paris is that it is one of only two cities in the entire world to have its governmental offices on an island, the second being Cedar Rapids, Iowa in the United States.
I've seen this before, but I lend it little credence. Which of Paris's government buildings are on an island? City Hall isn't; it's on the Right Bank. The Parliament buildings are on the Left Bank. - Montrealais (whose city's government buildings are also on an island)
I'm fairly sure that le Raincy is not one of the main attractions around Paris! David.Monniaux 23:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I removed the statement about traffic in Paris being notoriously dangerous. I live in Paris and very seldom see traffic accidents. Simply, in most areas there are too many traffic lights and other impediments for people to really go speeding. David.Monniaux 16:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've added
History of Paris - see what you make of it... --
ChrisO 23:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My knowledge here is a little sketchy at best, but my understanding was the Statue of Liberty that was gifted to the United States by the French was an enlarged copy of the original in Paris. I'm not saying this article is wrong as I don't know. But can anyone provide citations to prove the reality? -- Colin Angus Mackay 00:44, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"The name Paris could be originated from the phrase "par-isis" (ancient french for "near Isis") because in ancient times the town was consacrated to the homonyme Egyptian God"
I suspect this is nonsense. The name derives from the Gallic tribe of the parisis. David.Monniaux 08:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
True or false: someone can explain what advantage of having this article at Paris as opposed to Paris, France. 66.245.125.9 21:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the picture is not as detailed and neat as I would like it. However, this is the case of most pictures I have seen on Wikipedia. Nice pictures are made by professionals, and they are copyrighted, therefore it is not surprising that the pictures found on Wikipedia are not very great in general. Of course, if you have a better picture of the Parisian skyline of La Défense, then replace the picture. BUT, in the meantime, I think we should leave this picture at any rate, because it is important that people can have a look at the real face of Paris in the 21st century, instead of the cliches to which we are always treated (Notre Dame, Montmartre, Eiffel Tower, etc.). For the majority of Parisians in 2004, living in Paris is not fancy tourism in quaint historical districts. The reality is big commutes, fast pace life, and an environment of concrete, asphalt, steel, and glass so typical of major metropolises; and I think this picture, although not perfect, gives a sense of that. Hardouin 22:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Skyscraper pic would be good in the suburb section, it seems. WhisperToMe 05:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
While editing the article, a so-called "spam filter" blocked the following links, for no obvious reasons:
An administrator needs to do something about this!! Hardouin 13:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm doing a bit of research on Paris for a fictional purpose. For the incident I'll be portraying, could someone familiar with the city tell me if there's an open air or street market that I could set a scene in? Also, if it isn't an additional burden, the location of the hospital that would be nearest there? The former is more important than the latter, and if you assist me, I wish to extend in advance my profound thanks. -- Mr Bound 02:55, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
In English, the correct term for Paris is actually "City of LightS" (plural), but this has been corrupted by writers over the years. Must Wikipedia propagate the error?
Paris is a beautifull city and to walk... -- Adelepuc 18:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In here, Northern Portugal it isnt summer yet and yesterday and the day before and the other the temperature was above 28ºC at 2 A.M. Nobody died... o_O when some body is about to die they just go to the beach and cool down in the water. LOL. - Pedro 13:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pedro, your thermometer must have a problem. According to the Portuguese Meteorology Institute, the temperature in Porto yesterday was 26 maximum during the afternoon, and 17 minimum during the night (
[1]). In Vigo the Spanish Meteorology Institute says the minimum temperature was 17.3 last night, and in Ourense it was 15.3. Maybe you measured the temperature inside your flat/house, but that's quite different. Meteorology institutes measure temperatures in the outside. Also, 2am is never the lowest temperature at night.... usually the lowest temperature is reached between 4am and 7am. The 25.5° C temperature that I wrote down in the article was recorded inside the Parc Montsouris at approximately 4am (at 2am the temperature was still 28-29). The temperature in the streets was higher than in the park, and inside flats/apartments, it was even higher than in the streets. In many Paris apartments, temperatures never went below 30° C at night during these days, which is extremely high. A 25.5 minimum at night as recorded by meteorology institutes is extremely high, even for southern Spain where daily temperatures reach 45 in the summer. Usualy it's the kind of night temperatures you find in Madras or Bombay in the summer, but not in Paris.
Hardouin 17:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On the Spanish Meteorology Institute website they say that yesterday the temperature in the Sevile area reached 36.5 in the afternoon, but the minimum at night was only 17.5. So you see that 25.5 is indeed very high.
Hardouin 17:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK... the weather is colder today than yesterday, I'm going to see the temperature better, in a better place. BTW Galicia is traditionally very cold! At least for us here. So you cant compare. When I go to Galicia I normally use a lot of cloths. Unfortunnaly even in here the temperature reached 40ºc in the last summer, I hope it doesnt occur again this year! But 25ºC is a very pleasant temperature.-- Pedro 23:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
after a lot of time measuring correctly, and today the night is much more pleasant than yesterday. Much more. The temp is: 18.7 at 1 A.M. (so you are correct, although the temp. today is much lower than yesterday).
in August 2003, I had IN my flat a temperature of 38°during the day, and a lowest of 33° in the night (at 6AM) during 3 weeks ! You can imagine what these temperatures can do to ederly and ill people...
Where is the source for Paris being the second largest stock exchange in Europe? Surely both the London stock exchange and German Stock exchange are far larger. I would also dispute that paris is alongside London as being the major financial centre of Europe. Again London, Frankfurt & Berlin are far more developed in this respect
The introduction is correct.
There are different ways to measure the size of a bourse. Data below as of Feb 2001.
One way is by the number of comapnies listed. London had 2,921; Paris 1,437 and Deutsche Börse 988.
Another common method is by market capitalisation. London with close to 2.5 trillion dollars, Paris with over 2 trillion and Deutsche Börse with over 1 trillion.
So by market capitalisation, which is the most common measure of size, Paris is twice the size of the German bourse. However, it should be noted that turnover in the German bourse may be higher. The reported figure is higher but reporting rules and calculation methods differ among the bourses. Parmaestro 23:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem in the introduction is not the size of Paris, or the size of its stock exchange. The problem is the frame of reference. While one could argue which, out of Paris and London, is the largest business centre; the statement that Paris is the most urban in the European Union is not. By most measures, London is a larger city - and is part of the European Union. This can be corrected with a simple change from "European Union" to "Euro area". In that frame of reference, Paris is undoubtedly the largest urban area.
...has with Paris? It's not even in it, nor does it have anything at all to do with French culture. Is Wikepedia forwarding "sponsored" links to its users now in addition to real encyclopedic resources? Actually only the top few links (besides the Disneyland URL) provide any real Parisian content.
This page seems to be open to all so I hope I didn't overstep the line by eliminating a spam link or two I found these past days. There's still one or two there IMHO but I draw the line here - also I don't seem to be very good at it (according to the page History, I somehow "spam linked" to the "old" version). The reason I did the above was out of a frustration at finding little in the English language of value or even relevence about Paris on the web - anything "Paris" is literally swamped with spam by tourist-fleecers. I do like Wikepedia and it has been a great help in my research - it is sad for me to see the same happen here.
I do have some link suggestions but now I hesitate to post them. The utter democracy of Wiki is indeed puzzling to one not used to it (smile). If anyone is interested please leave word here - and sorry for any problems I've caused, if any!
This is a much-visited page, and many who post links here have motivations very (*cough*) un-encyclopaedic. If one commercial link appears and stays then the flow will never stop. I have a website of my own concerning Paris that I would love to post here, yet I can't for the very same reasons. The only "Touristic" link here is the official Ville de Paris tourism website which itself is the limit of this logic. Please show some understanding.
ThePromenader 16:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Just my two cents here. This is a great page start for someone starting a research on Paris but let's keep it in that theme. Disneyland definitely has no place here, as anyone looking for "Disneyland Paris" will type - disneyland paris - and be taken to or shown the link to the corresponding wikitravel page. Putting Disneyland on the "paris" page is an attempt to hook someone interested in Paris who might be coming - and this is certainly not an encyclopaedic practice. "Amusement parks" should go as well. Actually I think the Wikitravel link should go up near the top as an immediate reminder for those actually looking for travel information.
(added) In that light there are a couple other "non-encyclopedia" items that should go as well. If no-one has anything further to say on the matter I will see to it later today.
Sorry for all the edits but I'm new at this. I'll try it "all in one go" next time with the help of a text editor. Josefu
The section on the area of Paris is a little misleading. It says that the commune of Paris has an area of 105.398 km² compared to Greater London (1,572 km²) and New York (786 km²). Only further dowes it mention that Paris is a metropolis which contains smaller communes. The commune of Paris is more comparable to the cities of London and Westminster or the borough of Manhattan.
International comparisons are useful and should not be removed. Raw figures in themselves mean nothing if they cannot be compared with other data for other cities. As for the reader above, I'm not sure what she/he does not understand. The city of Paris (an administrative area with arbitrary limits set in 1860) has an area of only 105 km², which is much smaller than the administrative territory of the city of New York or the Greater London Authority. On the other hand, the metropolitan area of Paris (a statistical area with limits expanding year after year as people build houses further and further away from the center of Paris) is much larger than the administrative city of Paris and includes many small suburban communes. Sounds easy to understand. What exactly did you not understand? Hardouin 23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
So you actually are suggesting that we put "all of Paris' onto one page? I'm sorry but I must strongly disagree, mainly for a reason which forms the fundament of your argument: Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia. It does not have its space limitations, nor does it have its "a-z" hierarchical organisation. There is an astounding amount of publishable information on Paris, as Paris has engendered many inventions and movements over the centuries and today has yet another importance as a financial centre in the makeup of the world economy. How do you propose to put all of this on the same page? I fully understand now this page's hodgepodge of selective information, as well as why it is bloated well past the suggested size.
If you want to cite Britannica, Universalis or why not Quid, go to those sites to see how "Paris" is organised. None of them contain "everything" on one page, but even there, there is no reason Wiki should not do better. We should be contributing ideas, not territorial markings and idealogical limitations.
As I see it, the only way to expand is to reorganise this page into several "primer" subjects suitable for those uninitiated to the subject or those following leads (geolographical situation, demography, history, culture, etc) and have a link to a more elaborate page on each subject (if it exists). This leaves room to expand. A "Paris Culture" page, linked to from this one, could lead itself to different aspects of Parisian culture such as "Paris Fashion" - a page that, by the way, doesn't exist in English wiki. Anyhow, if someone is looking for "Paris economy" or "Paris fashion" he will type exactly that into the search field and be taken directly there. One can assume that one typing only "Paris" is either uninitiated on the subject or is looking only for very general information.
Wiki should not only be informative, it should be efficient.
Josefu 08:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
"This page is 44 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."
I think the above says it all - for starters. I don't get the comparative either - just because other "city" articles are bloated doesn't mean that this one has to be too. Other than that you totally ignored every one of my arguments; exactly how much "valuable information" do you intend to put on one page? How much can you put?
Your stance on this page is quite clear to me now. I would like to hear from the others before making any changes though.
Josefu 15:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I do agree with you there, but I still think that even 100k page would not be enough to hold all the information needed for a complete and informative "all-in-one" Paris page.
Josefu 20:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
There's more than photos that need to be removed or moved to other pages, there is a lot of over-specialised, redundant or pompous information on this page. Need I make a list? And why are you the only one answering? Where is the "page consensus" I've been told that I must apply to? It can't be but one person. If I don't hear anything I will go ahead with my changes and "be bold" as I was first advised.
I would like an end to this seeming stalling and an open discussion, but I have posted my aims here to no reply for long enough.
Josefu 08:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I am reverting once more Josefu's edits about Paris economy, and pretty much for the same reasons as before. Josefu's edits deal only with the administrative city of Paris, exluding the rest of the metropolitan area from this article. This is silly and makes no sense at all as I have already said before, and it is also quite misleading. For instance, one of Josefu's conclusions is that industry is a small and declining component of the Paris economy, based on the fact that indeed inside the administrative city of Paris there are few industries. But this leaves totally aside the industries in the suburbs, which make the metropolitan area of Paris one of the largest industrial base of Europe (car industry, Ariane rockets, satellites, Dassault fighter jets, Falcon business jets, optics, among others). Josefu, since nothing that I can possibly say seem to convince you, please check some serious encyclopedias, maybe you will listen to them. Go to your local library, and check Encyclopaedia Universalis, Edition 2002, Volume 17, page 393. There you will find the article about the Paris economy. Check also Encyclopaedia Britannica, Edition 2002, Macropaedia Volume 25, page 444. There also you will find the article about the Paris economy. Both these very serious and reputed encyclopedias talk about THE WHOLE METROPOLITAN AREA, not just the administrative city of Paris, because it makes no sense to discuss the administrative city without talking about the very extended suburbs beyond the city limits. Please be reminded that most of the Paris economic activitiy is happening in the suburbs, and not inside the administrative city proper. You can also check Encyclopaedia Britannica, Edition 2002, Micropaedia Volume 9, page 152. There you will find their Paris article, which talks about the whole metropolitan area, and not just the administrative Ville de Paris. Some of Josefu's edits are interesting and should be incorporated into the economy section, but first we need to rewrite the section to discuss the whole metropolitan area, and not just the administrative city. Hardouin 16:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)\
Josefu, I am sick and tired of your constant personal attacks. I try to explain rationally why your edits are flawed, using encyclopedic references, but you always come back with personal attacks, "this page is yours and you don't want to change a word of it", that sort of language. No, this page is not mine, and I didn't write the entire article, far from it. What's more, if you check the article's history, I have never reverted people when they add new information. You constantly stress the fact that at some point in the past there was ONE anonymous user who left a comment on the discussion page complaining about the economy section, but that is just ONE user, ONCE. So stop saying PEOPLE have complained about the article. In fact, if you had thouroughly checked the history of this article, you would have realized that the real complaint about this article was about a year ago, when the article presented a very cliché picture of Paris limited to its administrative city, and to touristic clichés of Amélie-esque Paris. Some users like David Monniaux, me, and others, said that this representation of Paris was a misrepresentation, and that's when I started to give facts and statistics to the article. That's also when David and I started to upload pictures showing skyscrapers and towers to show that Paris is not just the touristic core that tourists only visit. And by the way, since when is it a crime to add data to an article? Now your new proposals to this article would have us return entirely to the 2004 version that was complained about, the version of a Paris limited to its administrative city and a very cliché image of Paris. When you state that Paris industry is limited to the Sentier clothing industry, I'm sorry but this is a total cliché and you are mirepresenting what Paris really is. Your understanding of the aire urbaine concept is also quite shallow. No, aires urbaines were not "invented" recently. Aire urbaine have existed for several decades already, but it's just recently that INSEE measures them. The phenomenon of extended suburbs and satellite cities has existed since the 1960s mind you. And the aire urbaine of Paris does not include "much other growth from different poles" as you wrongly say. The aire urbaine contains only suburbs and cities that are totally satellite of Paris, such as Fontainebleau. But cities like Chartres, Orléans, or Beauvais, are not included in the aire urbaine of Paris. Please be reminded that there are about 20 million people who live within one hour train from central Paris, and yet the aire urbaine contains only 11.5 million people. This is why I am reverting your edits, not because of a supposed sense of ownership. So please stop personal attacks. Hardouin 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
More in detail, these are the points, precisely, that explain why I am reverting your economy edit:
In all, in your economy edits I find only two good points that should be re-used when we write a decent economy section:
Please understand that there are so many flaws in your edits that it must be reverted for now. If you want to reply my message, please do not use personal attacks and answer the points that I have detailed above. Thanks. Hardouin 11:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Following the very many messages of Josefu (aka ThePromenader) above, I have searched for some data to improve the economy section, and clearly list the main branches of the Paris economy, instead of having just an explanation of the size of the Paris GDP. Thus, I have trimmed the Paris GDP discussion, which has its own article, and I have added workforce data, with the distribution of the workforce across economic sectors in the Paris metropolitan area. These figures are hard to find outside of France, and I think people interested in the Paris economy will be glad to see them. I have outlined what the rest of the section should talk about (manufacturing, business services, commerce and finance), but unfortunately (or rather fortunately) I have a life besides Wikipedia and I don't have time to write about these at the moment. I have access to very good data though, and as soon as time allows I will add the data I have access to. Josefu if you want to add some of what you wrote on your Paris work page, please do so in the subsections I have outlined.
Your map of Greater Paris is also very good and it would be great to put it at the beginning of the economy section, just below the italicized note. I just have three suggestions of improvement for your map:
1- you should give a specific color to the boundary of Île-de-France, say red (whatever), to distinguish it from the boundaries of the départements. Then in the legend you would say that the red line (or any color you choose) is the limit of Île-de-France, and that the black lines are the limits of the départements inside Île-de-France.
2- Instead of having "Areas of high-density inhabitation", you should instead use the limits of the "unités urbaines" that exist within Île-de-France, and call them "built-up areas" in your legend, which is generally how it's called in English. Your "areas of high-density" are not fully reflecting the extent of the "unité urbaine" of Paris, in particular in the Yvelines département. If you can't find a map showing the "unités urbaines" in Île-de-France, let me know I will give you some links to find it.
3- You should use the same color for the whole unité urbaine, instead of having a separate color for the city of Paris as you have done. The city of Paris is already distinguishable by the black boundary of its département.
Hardouin
03:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
ThePromenader 11:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It is near impossible to discuss things calmly with you, as you seem always hot tempered and always find flaws where there are none. Of course my figures are sourced, it's written inside the section, re-read, they come from the census 1999. I don't know how I can be more clear, the census, C-E-N-S-U-S, RECENSEMENT GÉNÉRAL DE LA POPULATION DE MARS 1999. The results of the census are available to all on the INSEE website. Your assertion that we have no economic data for the aire urbaine is also wrong. All census data are available at the aire urbaine level, and many of them are economic data. What you say about tourism is also plain wrong, I'm afraid to say. Even if we assumed that all the 183,196 people working in the tourism industry (a figure coming from an INSEE study about tourism industry in Ile-de-France) worked in the city of Paris alone (which is far from the case), that would still be only 11.4% of the 1,600,815 workforce of the city of Paris. So tourism is really not that important overall. Finally I don't understand what you mean by my "unexplained terms". All the terms that I have used are the ones used in economics litterature. Hardouin 13:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Section Moved - Instead of eliminating the more statistical part of the of Economy section left for more than a day in a state of unsightly incompletion (see above), the entire section has been placed onto a new Paris_economy page. (note - this information is indeed useful, but hors-propos here. It is best that it have its own page, that way it can retain its language better-understood by those interested in the subject.)
ThePromenader 09:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand that some people are having strong feelings about how this article page should look like. Without going into the details, here is my feedback: the Paris article is way too long and a substantial part of the information contained in this article should be moved to sub-articles.
The rationale is quite simple: think about the reader. Who is the typical reader of such an article? Probably 2 main types: 1- someone browsing Wikipedia and looking for an overview about Paris, and 2- someone looking for specific details.
The article as it is today is absolutely discouraging for the first type of reader, and most people won't read anything in this article and simply zap to another one. Period. So I guess that it misses the point of informing readers about Paris at all.
The second type of reader will most probably browse and look for the section of his/her interest and will click on the specific sub-article. The current Paris article makes it quite difficult for such a reader to quickly find information.
Information architecture is a key aspect of any readable article or website. Look for instance at the Hong Kong article. Hong Kong is a city about the size of Paris. There are literally hundreds of Wikipedia article specifically dedicated to Hong Kong topics, yet the main article itself remains readable and detailed information does not appear overwhelmingly in the main article.
A few examples about the Paris article:
I hope this can help. olivier 14:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Again: "Tourism, of course, is the icing on Paris' economy cake. From its first Universal Exposition years, themselves fuelled by the very beginnings of transport technology, Paris has risen to become the most-visited city in the world. The capital seems to be between two trends today: most of its Paris monuments and establishments famed for their history or "Parisian nostalgia" have been preserved and restored, and millions invested to this end; on the other, Paris has had many new "chain" restaurants, hotels and stores catering to a tourist's already-established tastes." Do you see the problem? It lacks actual information and "waffles" too much. Also information on new restaurants, hotels and stores is meaningless as is - *every* city in the world that has tourists has that. It's only information if there is a point to be made: have these restaurants ruined the cities character? etc.
This should be cut massively: "Since the World Expo of 1896, Paris has become the most visited city in the world, with more than 50 million visitors each year [cite] coming to visit its carefully preserved art galleries, museums and theatres and to experience the unique Paris atmosphere". Keep it tight.
I suppose I must take the above "English-speaking French nationals with an education or experience of Paris and its relation vis-à-vis the rest of its country (and the POV can go to extremes depending on where he's writing from)" as addressed to me? I think it is time to make a few things clear: a- I am not, repeat NOT, French (although I could obtain citizenship if I asked); b- I do not live in France; c- I am trilingual, I lived in many different countries, including France for a long time. Ever heard of children raised by parents from two different countries? For all the weeks and now months that Josefu (aka ThePromenader) has been active on this page, I have been time and again the subject of personal attacks, which haven't stopped even after expressing how sick and tired I was about it. It seems it's not enough for ThePromenader to attack someone's writing, he also has to attack that someone's character and motives ("your motives are utterly transparent" and all that crap).
I really, but REALLY don't like the tone "this article shouldn't be a French encyclopedia entry written by French nationals" and all that "I can be a bridge" bulshit. I was educated at Stanford University, California, so I think I know a bit about what's written in American academic literature and can be as good a "bridge" as anyone else, Mr. Josefu. It is really no surprise that Wikipedia has no recognition at all in academic circles, given the shallowness and gossipee nature of so many articles. Over the months that I have been active on Wikipedia I have been trying to improve the content of many articles (not just Paris mind you!), giving precise facts and data, debunking a few myths and clichés, organizing things in a more academic way, etc. I don't pretend to be perfect, but I try to do as best as I can.
Now about this article here, I have this to say: true, it should not be just a dry collection of statistics, but on the other hand, if it's going to be only an entertaining presentation of Paris, you might as well write for the Lonely Planet Guides. The article needs to contain hard data and figures if it intends to have any informative use for more than just tourists or curious bystanders. I think it is a mistake to write the article with people planning to come visiting Paris in mind. After all, if they are going to be looking for information for their trip, they are more likely to open the Lonely Planet guide than Wikipedia. Hardouin 00:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I have been thinking about the heated arguments exchanged in the past weeks, and I think a lot of it has to do with a problem of definitions. The name "Paris" has different meanings. In a strict sense, "Paris" refers to the city proper itself, the Ville de Paris. In a broader sense, "Paris" refers to the whole metropolitan area, the city and its suburbs. After pondering this, I am more and more enclined to think that we should create a City of Paris (or Ville de Paris) article, which would give information concerning strictly the city proper, while the Paris article would deal with issues concerning Paris in the broader sense, the city and its numerous suburbs. This idea I didn't just make up myself, it slowly matured into my mind after reading articles about several other cities. Please check the Brussels, Sydney, London, and Melbourne articles. These articles are concerned with whole metropolitan areas, while there are the more specific City of Brussels, City of Sydney, Greater London, and City of Melbourne articles which talk about the administrative cities proper. We could do like what they did at the London article, we could create a "Defining Paris" section that we would put at the beginning of the Paris article. In this section we would give the different meanings of Paris, the different limits, and link people to a City of Paris article if they wish to know more about the administrative city proper. Then we could also move the infobox to the City of Paris article. Waiting for your comments. Hardouin 12:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)