Talk:Economy of Paris

Cabal resolution

I will be editing the article tomorrow in light of today's Cabal decision, but withhold any such action tonight in the case that it be "gamed" as yet another revert. Thanks, and cheers to all. THEPROMENADER 23:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Updates done. I returned the texts to Hardouin's latest version, but with updated corrections to terminology using in the principle regions cited in reference, as per yesterday's Cabal compromise conclusion. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Last night I made the mistake of reverting before applying the compromise - User:Hardouin just reverted again and in total ignorance of all. Work forward please. THEPROMENADER 07:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's better. User:Hardouin, you still have the introduction to change - either it becomes "aire urbaine", or it goes back to the IDF version of before - all of the regions economy figures are there, so that of course is best. THEPROMENADER 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Corrections once again completed. Since all of Paris (and area) economy figures are collected in départements and régions, the subject of the article should be the same. There exists no "Paris metropolitan area GDP - or economy" so this inclusion in the introduction (besides its countering the agreed compromise) is improper. This article still reads like an advertisement for "Paris' might", and includes a table originating from a single source study that is not at all widely accepted as fact (especially when some of the countries mentioned within have no metropolitan area - London, for example - and definitions of the same differ widely), but let's leave it for now. THEPROMENADER 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the economy of Paris and its metropolitan area, so I see no reason to remove the term metropolitan area from the introduction, appart from your obsessive dislike for metropolitan areas. If you want to create an Economy of Île-de-France article, go ahead, but stop botching this article. Thanks. Hardouin 23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You have totally ignored all discussion and compromise - as usual. This on top of the evident fact that there exists no "aire urbaine economy". Not only is "metropolitan area" a phrase misplaced and vague as a "translation" for aire urbaine, it has never been used as a translation by the very organisation that created the aire urbaine - and the offiicial translation exists right there in front of you. Either use this translation or the original phrase as the proper name for the precise thing it is (as agreed). The only thing that counted here was your pigheaded revert - the above post is nothing reason at all. THEPROMENADER 04:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: it doesn't matter what your cited paper calls an agglomeration - it's what France calls it that counts. Here, "pôle urbain" and "unité urbaine" fulfil the role of the "urban area" of other countries. This article is on this region, not that paper. There is no reason not to explain things clearly. THEPROMENADER 04:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"I'm sorry but the cabal agreement was never about removing the term "metropolitan area" from the introduction. You're abusing things now."

Not in the least. The agreement was to use "metropolitan area" as an explanation for "aire urbaine", and not as a proper name - that it is not! It is you who are being abusive in your state of denial and constant reverting - once again against all discussion, agreement and fact. I'm sorry, but I'm putting the article back to our post-agreement version. Once again, there is no "aire urbaine GDP" so you cannot present the article as being on that subject. This is manipulative and abusive to the extreme.

As for the factual (and not vague nor inventive) translation of "aire urbaine", the correct term to use, the official translation, is "urban area", yet I made the effort to forgo imposing this very proper terminology in favour of the proper-name France-only "aire urbaine" with "metropolitan area" as only an explanation - it is there where it applies, so respect this agreement please.

As far as the IDF is concerned, that is where the economy is, so stay true to fact - you are triple transcending rule (WP:POV, WP:OR for starters), agreement and common sense here. THEPROMENADER 12:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely a metropolitan area of Paris, 13,500 non-Wikipedia hits on Google for "Paris metropolitan area" ([1]) and 10,100 non-Wikipedia hits for "metropolitan area of Paris" ([2]). So can you please stop denying that there is such a thing as a metropolitan area of Paris? If there is such a thing as a metropolitan area of Paris, why exactly is it wrong to say in the introduction that this metropolitan area is one of the engines of the global economy? It is only your obsessive denial of French metropolitan areas, and particularly the Paris one, that creates all this mayhem and all this tension. Take a break from Wikipedia for a day or two, cool down, and come back with a fresh look. Thanks. Hardouin 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, shut up with the selective googling - try "Paris region" for some fun of your own.

Dont' put words in my mouth - I said that there was no aire urbaine economy; France's economy is in its départements and régions, so it is quite pointless to make it look as though a commuter-belted statistical area is Paris' economy as you have done. You also know that it is only with a super-stretch of the imagination that we can consider everything within the île-de-France to be Paris' own Economy (even though economists, because of France's administrative-area-limited fiscal data collection, are obliged to place it there) - but you would take this a stretch even further to - an even wider commuter belt area that has no economy figures? Get real.

Our compromise was to use the term "metropolitan area", but as a secondary explanation only, but it looks as though this never mattered to you.

"The metropolitan area of Paris is one of the engines of the global economy" is a not only vague but untrue statement for all of the above reasons.

Why not say "Paris is one of the engines of the global economy"? Vague, but erfectly understandable. "The Paris region is one of the engines of the world economy" - even better: true to its sources, factual and understandable by all. Yet with of your pig-headed insistance in forwarding your inventive "wanna be like them" pet translation, you are both muddling and contortioning facts that could easily be quite clear.

You've squatted this article since its creation - how about letting it improve? Do you intend that it always remain at "start" and "low priority" status, just because we must always, instead of stating things simply as they are, must constantly fight with User:Hardouin who ever-constantly blanket-reverts to "his" version containing "his views" about what we "should know"? Again, get real - the facts are right there in front of you - all of them - so tell things as they are, not as you would like them to be. THEPROMENADER 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: I think "Paris region" would be a perfect - and factual - compromise. THEPROMENADER 15:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Silly me - it was that already. THEPROMENADER 16:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then let's use "Paris" alone, to make the two of you happy. Concerning the "pôle urbaine", I checked the PricewaterhouseCoopers pdf, and they mention this term nowhere, so we shouldn't use it as it doesn't match with the reference. What they talk about is urban agglomerations, which are urban areas (and not metropolitan areas) from the population figures they give. Regards. Keizuko 09:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell: it is silly to think that the terminology used by a single paper for its single purpose can be made to look as though it's the country's own. If this article was on the paper, this would be fine, but it isn't - Paris' economy is defined in areas of its own definition and terminology. France's urban area is not the same as another country's, and this article is not a "comparitive study" - KISS. THEPROMENADER 10:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of being "happy" - it's getting the facts straight. The "Paris region" is considered as Paris' economy by all of the country's highest institutions, and all relevent references to the same state the same as well. As for "pôle urbain" (a core "unité urbaine"), that is the proper name for the area discussed (unless you want to use the official "urban unit" translation), and, like the "metropolitan area" mistranslation, "urban area" should be used only as an explanatory afterword. If the article subject's country has a specific terminology (and an official translation for the same), one cannot expect to override this because of the interpretations of a single paper using a terminology of its own - or another country - this article is on the area, not on a single paper (like the silly hypothetical "who's the biggest" table is). Clear this up, please.

Why are you only dwelling upon exactly the same two points as User:Hardouin, and editing only the same, in using exactly the same "reasoning" (France's names for its regions are less important than the paper's)? THEPROMENADER 10:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just silly - what ever can be wrong with "Paris region" - all of the sources cited in the article point there. "Paris" is imprecise as well, as the city economy is bigger than the city itself. Edit for clarity and verifiability, not with the goal to "appease" one's ego - readers only see what's written. THEPROMENADER 10:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now, but I did link "urban area" to the proper definition of the area discussed there - yet even this is not clear, as people read the article before they read the paper, so eliminating "pôle urbain" just makes two steps to understanding instead of the former one. I am not satisfied with this morning's edits - they are neither clear, true to their country's proper terminology or precise. THEPROMENADER 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The cbal compromise should really be respected unless everyone agrees on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix 15 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that everyone agreed upon it. Tonight I've decided to revert to the post-agreement version because:

• a) All sources cited refer to the Île-de-France when speaking of Paris' economy, and it is this that dictates the article scope - and reference.
• b) The paper cited uses its own terminology, but refers to that of another country in its own language - this article's "native" language goes first, and explanations (referrals to the paper) after - it was like this before.

All this, of course, in the interest of reason and verifiability. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 23:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There was never an agreement in the cabal mediation to remove the term metropolitan area in the introduction of the article. Keizuko has proposed as a compromise to write "Paris" alone in the introduction, and I've accepted that because after all an introduction should remain general, but Promenader once again couldn't resist and after just half a day has reverted the article to his version without consideration for my or Keizuko's efforts to reach a compromise here. This is all the more crazy given that the very same Promenader had written above: "Why not say "Paris is one of the engines of the global economy"? Vague, but perfectly understandable." Look at this Phoenix, first he says it's ok and perfectly understandable to write "Paris" alone, then when Keizuko makes exactly this change he reverts the change after half a day arguing that it is not ok. I think here we have an editor who is just here to start revert war and is willing to contradict himself if needs be. Pathetic. Hardouin 09:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The agreement was to not use 'metropolitan area' as a proper name and as an explanation only.

It is stupid to sacrifice clarity for a game of contributor tit for tat - because that's what it would seem for you - especially when the proper term to use when describing Paris' economy is evident and omnipresent [3][4] in even the sources cited. As for "Paris": of course Paris' economy is bigger than the city itself - using just "Paris" is an unneccessary and misleading "compromise"; "Paris region" means "bigger than Paris" no matter where you're from.

Reverting "pôle urbaine" is just pigheaded - it is the proper term for the area indicated, and "urban area" was just after it in brackets (for cited "comparative" worries), so what the hell was wrong with this added clarity? It's as though you want to pretend that France is another country without names and methods of its own. It doesn't seem at all as though you're interested in relating fact in ways clear to all - rather, it seems you've got a bad case of WP:OWN that doesn't mix well with your inventive opinions and theories about what we (ignorant fools) "should know" about Paris. THEPROMENADER 10:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Of course I have an excuse: Paris' economy is much bigger than Paris (and measured as the same, as show all sources for this article), and we must use first proper names and official translations for clarity and later cross-referencing, as per Wikipedia naming conventions. One can't expect to make the entire world apply to a wannabe "greater scheme" as the intention seems to be here; use proper names and official translations, or in other words: get your facts straight. It is for both of these reasons that this article will be returning to its former post-Cabal verifiable and convention-following version. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted with very good reason. Fact, verifiability, sources, local customs but clarity - the version as it is is all this. "Paris" only and an unexplained definition of "urban area" belonging to another country isn't. Stop with the pigheaded tit for tat and think of the reader instead of yourself for once. THEPROMENADER 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: It is alright to make compromises about whether to use a cited administrative or statistical area's proper name or its official translation, or to add extra explanations after the same for clarification, but not to twist the facts themselves. Paris' economy is the Paris region in all sources cited, and "pôle urbain" is the proper name of the area cited ("urban area" is France's official translation for aire urbaine - not at all the area discussed in the source cited); the former is fact true to reality and all references and citations, and the latter, in addition to following the lines of our agreement (to use original names instead of official translations, with added explanations), is not only true to Wikipedia naming conventions, but to basic common sense: one country's urban area is rarely the same as another's, and in this case, the urban area of that study and France's are not at all the same.

The present version is true to its facts and understandable by readers of all origins: for this and all of the above reasons I stand by this version and will continue to revert any further attempt to revert to a version that contains fact-muddling, name-switching, foreign-name-borrowing or any similar sort of disinformation. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hardouin, I suggest you read the above. When the the state you are reverting to counters both fact and Wiki policy, and you are fully aware of the fact (in addition with an arrogant negligenc to leave any comment or talk page addition at all), your reverts can be considered to be little more than vandalism. Stop this. THEPROMENADER 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hardouin: No matter how you "spin" the rules or our agreement; fact is fact. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hardouin's arrogance depasses all bounds: no comment, no discussion, just wholesale reverting - as usual. Read the above - why the constantly reverted-to version (by the same) defies both fact [5][6] and Wikipedia naming conventions is more than evident. I will continue to revert to the factual and Wiki-reader friendly version, for obvious reasons. THEPROMENADER 15:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Again an unjustified no-discussion anti-consensus anti-fact anti-wikipedia-protocol revert by User:Hardouin. Enough already, luv. THEPROMENADER 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again. I don't have much time to edit these days, but I do do my best to eliminate vandalism and other *$%&$* that may appear in the articles in my watchlist. Again a no-comment revert by User:Hardouin to "his" non-factual non-reader-friendly anti-wiki-protocol version. I'll be watching even from Monaco, dearie. THEPROMENADER 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Paris Region, as per all references cited, is omnipresently considered to be the "Paris economy". France has an appellation system of its own: this comes first, explanations after."

How can it be put any simpler? Stay factual please. THEPROMENADER 12:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nota: I consider any further no-comment counter-protocol non-factual reverts as simple (pigheaded) vandalism. THEPROMENADER 19:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hardouin: "Letting another contribotor have it 'his way'" is not "behaving". Save the condescending tone, read the above, and stop with the pointless and pigheaded reaverts - all you do is diminish the article. THEPROMENADER 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the above contributor's full-time job is making sure wikipedia readers read it "his way" instead getting the real picture described by the very sources cited. I suggest a change of trade. THEPROMENADER 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea of writting "Paris" without mentioning region or metropolitan area was yours ("Why not say "Paris is one of the engines of the global economy"? Vague, but erfectly understandable."[7]), not mine. Keizuko then proposed this idea as a compromise ([8]) and I accepted it to end the revert war, yet now you insist that this is wrong and must be reverted at all cost even though you were the very person who proposed it in the first place! All you seem to be interested in here is waging revert wars, even if it means contradicting yourself. Pigheaded revert indeed. Hardouin 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How selective. Take the next statement - concerning "Paris region" There is absolutely no reason to be vague. Point.

Why the hell are you reverting "Pôle urbain"? This is perfectly against Wiki naming conventions. How can this be clearer?

Stop with the pighead spin. You can't expect to "out-last" those disturbing your "ownership" over certain articles just because of the low traffic in the same: fact and reason will win out eventually. Stick to the real story - and get real. Write to inform readers about the subject, not what you would like them to think about it because you think it concerns yourself. No-one cares - they're only going to think Wiki (or invisible contributor you) stupid when they read the truth of the matter elsewhere. THEPROMENADER 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This last statement could be exactly addressed to you. You have this tendency to believe you're right and that the Paris articles must necessarily reflect your point of view, because your point of view is not a point of view, it's the truth. Twisted logic. As for mentioning the pôle urbain in the introduction, I think it was already pointed out to you that the term "pôle urbain" does not appear anywhere in the PWC study, therefore you can't use this term otherwise you're interpreting the PWC study, which is original research. The PWC study uses the terms "urban area" and "agglomeration", and so that's the terms we should use when we refer to that study. A guy so attached to using the exact words found in the source documents should be able to understand that. Hardouin 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is utter bullshit - this is not an article on that study - and that article is only an re-interpreteation of fact (in bypassing existing terminology) for the sole benefit of the "international comparison" study itself. No "greater schemes" when official names and translations exist - period. THEPROMENADER 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can it with the spin and politics - stick to fact. Period. THEPROMENADER 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC

Lame Revert wars XXIV - "Paris Region" & "pôle urbain"

{{editprotected}}

There is no reason to muddle the factual accuracy of this article. It was accurate in its former state.

a) Most references and citations for this article refer to the "île-de-France" region - official translation "Paris Region" [9] - for its statistics, and all of these consider the "Paris economy" to englobe a region bigger than the city itself, so there is no reason to falsely indicate that only the city itself is "an engine of the world economy" - this is simply not true. At best it is the centre of an engine of the world economy, but this is complicating things - "Paris region" is not only a precise description of the contents of this article; it is a term understandable by all readers, no matter their origin or level of knowledge!

b) The area discussed in the cited paper is the Paris pôle urbain - a core unité urbaine, officially translated "urban unit" [10]. The paper cited as a reference to the questionable term uses a language of its own, using an approximate international comparison method, destined to readers of another country than France. If France has its own precise appellation and official translation, the paper's translation is secondary to this and should only be provided as an explanation, not a proper name. In addition, "urban area" is France's official translation for its aire urbaine statistical area [11], so stating "urban area" as a proper name does not only trade a precise and proper name for a vague one, not only ignores Wikipedia conventions for placenames, but creates an outright falsehood. What's more, in the precedent version, "urban area" was provided as an explanation afterwards for further clarity, and the term remains present in the rest of the paragraph (concerning other countries), so there is absolutely no call to revert this!

This lame insistence on reverting to vague and misleading "proper names" stems from an earlier agreement to replace an inventive "greater scheme" naming method ("borrowing" terms from other countries describing areas sometimes not at all similar to France's definitions and methods) - it is a silly "tit for tat" effort by a single wikipedian to retain control over "his" article through any means possible, even if the "reverted-to" version counters all evident fact and logic, and this for no reason at all: this is a page-history-evident observation. Present in all articles "written" by the same author, this attitude is "grudge-silly" to the extreme and should cease immediately.

I can't put it any clearer. The article spent months without complaint in an accurate state, and there is not reason that it should not retain its accuracy. What's silliest in all this is that the article needs much improvement, yet because of one contributor it always takes months to get it away from the state "protected" by the same. For the sake of the article and the accuracy of Wikipedia, this silliness must end. THEPROMENADER 11:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was protected from editing at the request of ThePromenader until disputes have been resolved, yet the very same Promenader now asks for a unilateral edit to the article even though the dispute hasn't been resolved. That doesn't sound very logical. I see no reason to make this unilateral change to the article until the dispute is solved, given that the article contains no offensive material or blatantly erroneous information. All that Promenader quibbles about here is a mere question of terminology. I think it doesn't warrant an "immediate edit" as asked by ThePromenader. Consensus on terminology should be reached before unprotecting the article. Hardouin 13:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Politics, character slander and fact-skirting as usual. If you care to play the same game: It is well known to many contributors that you don't really care about the factual state of an article if it is your work: all that ever concerns you is that it stays as you wrote it, no matter how many arguments and proofs against your often minority or skewed point of view. You seem to have a bad case (or desire) of "world vision" about what people "should know" about where you live, but unfortunately you don't seem to be aware of what most English-speakers DO know and understand (although you are quite aware of their ignorances), nor do you seem to care that a lot of the skewed theories you publish exist in few other places than Wikipedia - probably contributing to one of the very reasons that it cannot be considered as a reliable source today.

Your contributions to Paris articles have been many, but much of it has been a support for a chip, chip, chip propaganda that, over the years and over several articles, makes Paris seem something that it isn't - or, more precisely, makes it seem as though you live somewhere you don't. I am not the only one to note this - through the quite insistant POV of your reverting it was quite evident even to User:Metropolitan that you lived in the (cough - France-inexistant) "Paris metropolitan area" - or, properly stated, somewhere in the Paris aire urbaine, that, correctly translated, is the "Paris urban area" [12].

You constantly misuse most all the above terms to this end, thus making Wikipedia a source of false and misleading information. Paris has many problems with suburban integration, but one can't very well expect Wikipedia to make it seem as if they don't exist. Nor can we pretend that France uses a terminology belonging to other countries when it does nothing of the kind: you have to use the terminology and translations set out by France's own demographic and administrative organisations, and if you want to "explain" these in other words after the proper name or official translation, then fine. In its present state this article does nothing of the kind, so it therefore is not factual. Period. THEPROMENADER 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: User:Hardouin knows damn well that there will never be any consensus - the lack of contributions to most all Paris articles is the very reason that he was able to publish and revert-hold such inventive information in the first place. As for he and I, I have already lain out the facts with sources in the clearest way possible - straight cut n' copy from the highest mainstream and official sources - and I don't really see what argument there can be against this. Which is probably why User:Hardouin, when he isn't outright reverting, sometimes later "explaining" his theories or digging up cherrypicked foreign studies as "justification" when real and hard fact is readily available - always refuses to talk about anything fact at all. THEPROMENADER 14:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the dispute is here, but there doesn't seem to be consensus to make any changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there will be: this article has sat almost unchanged since its creation, and its author doesn't much seem to like shooting straight and factual about certain subjects concerning Paris demography, and always reverts outright. I think it's a personal issue. THEPROMENADER 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The personal issue only seems to be you incessantly reverting the article over minor questions of terminology. You're very obsessive about these, and you never contribute anything to the article, like adding info to the sections still missing content. All you ever do is reverting. Wikipedia is primarily about adding info to the articles, writting things of your own, and not just reverting other people's edits. As for the claim that "this article has sat almost unchanged since its creation", it is easily proven wrong by a quick check at the article's history. Hardouin 12:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All I have time to do these days is to maintain my watchlist against vandalism and other shennanigans in the articles I have contributed to. Your only "contribution", time and time again, even after months of silence, is to revert to a former non-factual "creeping propaganda" version written by yourself. You have never been the origin of any discussion about anything objective or factual - aside from your usual un-commented reverts, your only "discussion" is cherrypicked "justifications" (pleading only to the ignorant) for those same reverts. The facts are there in front of you, so copy the same if you really wish to contribute something to this endevour. As it stands, it seems that you consider this this place to be a trumpet to your own opinions about "what other people should know" - about yourself. Stick to the facts, think of the readers, and you will never have any problem from me. THEPROMENADER 22:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"All I have time to do these days is to maintain my watchlist against vandalism and other shennanigans in the articles I have contributed to." That's a funny statement. A quick check in the article's history can show that ThePromenader has actually never contributed anything to this Economy of Paris article. Not even a paragraph, nada, zilch. The only activity of Promenader in this article has consisted in deleting information, changing some words, and reverting edits from other people. That's not really what I call a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Hardouin 23:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think people won't check, and will just take your word for it? How calculated, many would. To refresh your conveniently short memory, I was the one who, after extensively editing this section in its former place in the Paris article, made it an article of its own here. Your subsequent contributions were many, but in the process you reverted back to the WP:OR language you had tried so hard to force on the Paris article - not to mention your months-long anon-IP-puppet-ridden revert war over your silly WP:OR table based on the conclusions of ONE study - a hypothetical essay questionably comparing regions that don't even exist in some countries. Others tried to correct both the language and the silly "who's got the biggest" table and language, but you reverted this as well. The language correction was the first you "allowed" since more than a year, but still you insist on reverting to vague and incorrect language. Talk about fighting tooth and nail over nothing; making this article true to its sources should create no problem. Instead you insist on reverting to an incorrect and unverifiable language - just because you want it that way. If you want to see editing habits not useful, disruptive and even damaging to Wikipedia, look to your own. THEPROMENADER 06:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As you point out, you created this article by simply copying and pasting the Economy section from the Paris article, so you have absolutely written nothing of your own here, neither have you added new content or fresh information afterwards. All you have done was waging revert wars over minor terminology issues, and filling the talk page with scores of lenghty messages. Hardouin 15:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Again you conveniently skip the fact that I worked extensively on this article while it was still but a section of the Paris article; thereafter, I was only too happy to get you out of my hair. The "minor terminology issues" of which you speak are a sort of creeping propaganda only your own, and of course any forced re-(re!-)insertion original research should be considered as vandalism (especially when the facts of the matter are known by both of us) and effaced from any Wikipedia article. I'm sorry you don't like my attention, and that you would like to be left on your own to change "your" article to its former non-verifiable state, but this never will be the case. Stick to fact, and I can have no argument with anything you contribute. THEPROMENADER 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Spare the insinuations and drop this self-righteous tone. You're not in charge of leading a crusade for the truth. You're just one simple editors among many other editors. Why are you so obessive about these articles as if your life depended upon them? Also please stop claiming things that you haven't done. You didn't "work extensively" on this article while it was still a section of the Paris article. I've been following the Paris article for more than two years now, so I know exactly what you have contributed and what you haven't. Your contributions have always consisted mainly in filling the talk pages with lengthy and angry messages, and reverting people's edits or changing words here and there. Hardouin 21:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No insinuations needed - just a few facts based on simple observation will do. When the article citations and references say one thing, yet the article says another, there's little need to look further for problems. The same when a single contributor continually reverts any changes to the same. All you write about my contributions to the Paris article is tripe - insinuation is yours. What do you hope to gain through lying about my contributions? Why do you need to resort to such underhanded tactics if all you publish is verifiable fact? If you think you're right then just cite reliable sources and we can both shut the fuck up - if you can't, then there's a problem, and you have no call to resort to behaviour pushy or underhanded at all. Get real. THEPROMENADER 23:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Making the article broader.

I find this article quite interesting but somewhat narrow. Could the article be made broader by talking about the infrastructure (roads, metro, number of airports and their sizes, TGV train stations, ...), stock market capitalization vs. other financial centers, global fortune 500 companies located in Paris vs. other cities, number of fashion houses vs. let's say Milan, London, New York. Also, it's interesting to know how the Paris is GDP stands vs. other cities (which seems to be a contentious issue) but it's also interesting to know how well the economy is doing vs. other regions in France, Europe, and the World. Also, I often hear that Paris is a big music recording center . It would be interesting to know if this is the case. Basically, I'm making a case for knowing a little bit what is inside the "manufacturing" and "tertiary sector" numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.121.27 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added Fortune Global 500 companies information. Hardouin (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. THEPROMENADER 23:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ile de France

• For JamieS93, Paris is a City, ile de France is the region of the city, the economy concerns the region not the City of Paris. If you speak French let's visit the french page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu97417 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC) (sorry to haven't signed).

Ile de France is a little known name in English, whereas Paris is known the world over. Also, I note that the article contains many data about the Paris urban and metropolitan areas which do not correspond to the Ile de France region, so the name Economy of Paris seems more appropriate. Olivier.Sr (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that's a good idea to make voluntarily a mistake for people who don't know Ile-de-france. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a site for children. Paris represent 15% of the region with 2 millions people. It's just like "selfish" for people living in suburbs who participate of the economy as Parisians people. I will not insist more but it's like create an article about the Economy of California and call it Economy of Los Angeles Lulu97417 (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Paris 2 million people? That's only Paris intra-muros, i.e. the administrative City of Paris. It's like saying that Lyon has only 400,000 inhabitants and that the Satolas Airport is not part of the Lyon economy (it's part of the Colombier-Saugnieu village economy then?). Completely ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.245.240 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking into account the administrative field, Lyon has approximately 400 000 inhabitants and Paris 2 millions you have understood. In an encyclopedia it's better to use the correct terms, and therefore the Ile de France and not Paris. Anyway, it hasn't shocked on the french wikipedia ? ridiculous ? ...sticks and stones. Lulu97417 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this article contains data about the urban agglomeration of Paris and about the metropolitan area ("aire urbaine") of Paris, which are different from the Paris region. Only a few data refer specifically to the Paris region, so it would be a misnomer to call this article "Economy of the Paris region", given that many data in the article do not correspond to the Paris region. The name "Economy of Paris" is more generic and seems more proper. Olivier.Sr (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Olivier, I'm not arguing about the title (I think it's fine as it is), but I must ask you to note that economic data ~does~ come from communes, departements, and the Île-de-France ('Paris Region') as a whole, and not at all from the 'Paris aire urbaine' - the latter, a recently-INSEE-created 'concept' statistical area, has never been used for anything other than census data (and practically unknown to/unused by the public, politicians, and economists alike). Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Disproportionate history section

Is this article turning into a history of the Paris economy? If so, it should be renamed "History of the Paris economy". If the history section is not drastically summarized and its content moved to a separate article, I will formally ask administrators to rename this article "History of the Paris economy", so that the page name "Economy of Paris" can be used for an article about today's economy of Paris. Thank you. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Der Statistiker,

The article does need a section on the history of the economy to give it context. You'll see that I also updated the lead, the GDP figures, the ranking of cities, and the list of Fortune 500 companies, which were all many years out of date. The problem isn't that the history section is too long; the problem is that the rest of the article is outdated and missing current information on the different sectors of the economy. This article is nowhere comparable to those on other major cities. Once that's done, the history part will be relatively short. You're certainly welcome to add information and help with the updating. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What's this threatening admin intervention before even discussing article content? Is that any way to edit wikipedia?

Granted that the history section transforms this page from what it was before (basically a page full of statistics and statistics tables), but I'm sure a compromise can be reached, perhaps by, like the Economy of New York article, putting any history into an activity sector section, which would give it a more 'Economic' context. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:ThePromenader asked me to look in on this article and this disagreement. The lumper/splitter argument will always be with us. The historical part here is good content, and it belongs in Wikipedia. The only reasonable question I can see about the historical part is whether this the history of the economy of Paris should be a separate article. I think it's fine as it is, and I don't see what would be gained by making a bunch of well-written, solid content harder to find.

The article would gain from more on the present-day economy. Does Paris subsidize the rest of France in tax terms or vice versa? How, other than sheer scale, does the economy of Paris compare to that of other large French cities, or other European capitals? Can we identify specific effects of EU membership and of globalization? (We talk briefly about labor immigration, but say nothing about how numbers from within the EU compare to others, or to people moving to the capital from elsewhere in France.) I notice that tourism (estimated elsewhere at 10% of the Parisian economy) gets exactly one mention. Etc.

In short, if I were looking for a problem with this article, it would not be to remove material but to add it. Then, at some point when the article on the present-day economy begins to approach the level of the historical part, it might be worth considering whether there should be a split into two articles.

Also, I'm all for having statistical tables—they are an irreplaceable reference for those who want to make their own comparisons and draw their own conclusions—but many people's eyes glaze over when confronted with a sea of numbers. Just as narrative text is no substitute for hard numbers, hard numbers are no substitute for narrative text. - Jmabel | Talk 17:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your useful comments. I added the history section because I had the material and citations; now it needs updating of the economic data and the different sectors of the Paris economy. I hope that Der Statistiker and other editors who criticized the current unfinished article will join in adding new content and updating the statistics. Once that's done and there's some substance in the article the history part could go as a separate article. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)