Talk:Economy of Paris

Mediation

A request for the assistance of the Mediation caba was made. The case can be seen at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-02 Economy of Paris--Pheonix15 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous ip

To the anonymous user who keeps vandalising this page (using IP 82.35.100.95, 82.35.100.238, and 80.195.235.28): please read carefully the text you have repeatedly removed. Greater London plus all the NUTS2 regions around it is much larger than the metropolitan area of London. It includes Oxford, Newbury, Chichester, Folkestone, Ramsgate, Cochester, etc, which no definiton of the London metropolitan area ever include in the metropolitan area. To say that the global GDP of all these NUTS2 regions is the GDP of the metropolitan area of London is simply an exageration, and that's why I call it vandalism, whereas the text in the article gives two numbers, one for Greater London alone, and one for Greater London plus all the NUTS2 regions around it, and makes it clear that the real figure for the metropolitan area is somewhere in between, but where exactly it is not possible to say. So please stop removing this. Hardouin 12:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

World metropolitan areas with the largest GDP

In my humble opinion, this section has nothing to do in an article about Paris economy. If you're interested in the topic, this could indeed make a proper Wikipedia article which could indeed be linked to Paris economy article, however it doesn't describe what Paris economy is about and as such I consider that specific section as off topic. As such, I'm inclined to remove it. If you really want to keep it, then explain me why wouldn't it be a proper article. Metropolitan 17:57, 15 March 2005 (CET)

Why don't you create this article then, instead of merely deleting the information? Hardouin 23:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well actually I've thought about it. But then I realized I didn't know how to name it ! Anyway, the information is still available in former versions we can read in "history". If you're ready to make such an article (which would certainly be noteworthy), you could post a link in that article about the economy of Paris. I think it would be better this way instead of having three paragraphs about the Americas, Asia-Pacific and Britain. What do you think about it ? If your list is only about the Top6 metropolitan areas, that's already a good start. I'm sure many editors will increase it later. ;) Metropolitan 01:58, 16 March 2005 (CET)

Message to 82.45.217.219

Okay, I'm sick about people vandalizing this page with silly datas. There is no official metropolitan areas for London. That's specifically for that reason that I consider such kind of ranking as totally out of place. Indeed, there are estimations of London metro area at 14 million people, others at 11 million people, it goes in all direction. Once the metropolitan area is something in itself which is backed by no relevant data, how its GDP could be ?
In my humble opinion. No ranking should be given at all. Metropolitan areas are very subjective statistics as they are based on national datas (which don't even exist in the specific case of London) and aren't meant for international comparisons. We can simply say that "Paris metro area is among world's largests". There's no need to fight to know whether its ranking figure is "5" or "6". Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprized that both Paris and London will be overtaken by Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing in the next 10 years to come. Metropolitan 10:41, 17 March 2005 (CET)

This guy is a well known vandal. He/she has vandalised this article for months already. He/she also frequently vandalises the Paris article. He/she uses always IPs starting with 82 or 81. This guy edits only Paris and London articles. At the Paris articles he/she always try to undermine the importance of Paris in the world, but in his/her London edits he/she always try to maximize the importance of London. It's so childish it's almost funny. The only thing we can do is keep watching.

About what you say regarding no definition of metropolitan areas, there ARE definitions of metropolitan areas in France, US, and Japan, and the GDP data I presented were for French, US, and Japanese metropolitan areas. Only the UK do not, and that's why I specifically said we cannot know for sure the GDP of London. Metropolitan, if you are concerned about this, you should check the London article. This anonymous user wrote his/her GDP figure in the London article, saying it is the GDP figure of the metropolitan area of London. Go to London and explain to people there is no such figure, or delete the figure yourself yourself.

I still think the fact that Paris is the fifth largest metro area in the world in terms of GDP should be mentioned in the article, as it is noteworthy. What you say about Asian cities is wrong. There is no chance they can overcome Paris in the next 10 years. In 2003 the GDP of Paris metro area was US$506.7 billion. That same year the GDP of Hong Kong territory was $158.6 billion. In 2004 the GDP of the municipality of Shanghai (including all suburbs and beyond) was $120 billion. In 2004 the GDP of the municipality of Beijing (50% more land area than the whole Ile de France) was $69 billion. These figures for mainland China municipalities include the recent revision upward of Chinese GDP. So as you see, even assuming a very low 1.5% GDP growth of Paris metro area in the next years, in order to overcome Paris, HK would need 14% growth rate every year, Shanghai would need 17.5%, and Beijing would need 24%. That's totally unrealistic. There's no way these Chinese cities can overcome Paris in 10 years. Hardouin 11:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This anonymous user, after being warned of blocking his IP address, has finally provided some references, instead of merely vandalising the article without justification. The reference provided comes from the GEMACA II study. This study, although very interesting, is, well, just a study and not an official figure. Different studies by different private research groups will yield different numbers, therefore one cannot use the GEMACA II study to "prove" that the GDP of the London metropolitan area is higher than the GDP of the Paris metropolitan area. In the absence of official definitions, the GEMACA II research group have their definition of the London metropolitan area, and other research groups would have other definitions. At the moment, in the absence of official figures, it is best to leave it as it is already in the little table in the article, where there are listed two figures in between which lies the GDP of London metro area. Hardouin 10:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Expert tag

Someone needs to examine the competing claims of the two anonymous editors about whether the GDP of Paris is ranked 5th or 6th. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

AOL proxy

Not only the conflicting edit between two anon IP's; the 'defender' IP is a blacklisted AOL proxy. In seeing the low contributor traffic this article gets, it is highly likely that the proxy is being used by an already-contributing editor as a means to circumvent the WP:3RR rule. THEPROMENADER 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research

It has been mentioned many times before in other Paris articles that, although the Île-de-France and the Paris aire urbaine are similar in size, they are definitely not interchangeable as this article would suggest. The INSEE aire urbaine statistical area has an only very limited statistics-only use in France, and only consensus data is taken there; economical data is calculated in France's départements and régions, so it is wrong that this article suggests otherwise. The data for a "Paris metropolitan area economy" is not only "not available": it does not exist.

As for the chart, the base of an almost year-long revert war: this is just silly. First off, the (inexistant) "Paris metropolitan area GDP" is linked to Île-de-France GDP figures as a source, and secondly, there exists no London metropolitan area, and certainly not any economical data for the same, as would convey the vague 'between' figures next to this equally nonexistant area.

Also, "metropolitan area" has never been an official translation of aire urbaine in any documentation I've seen, so it would be kind of the contributor of this to provide a confirming source.

Although the article does link to Île-de-France and Paris aire urbaine sources, interchanging these or making misleading statements about their origins/importance, with and in addition to all the above, amounts to original research. This article could use some knowledgable attention for sure.
THEPROMENADER 14:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

195.93.102.35

Hello - will the user of the blacklisted AOL proxy 195.93.102.35 please desist from using such means to avoid the WP:3RR rule? It is quite obvious who it is. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that there's no need in an article about the economy of Paris to draw a list of the Metropolitan areas with the largest GDP's. Knowing that there's no international way to determine metropolitan areas, comparing those GDP figures is about comparing apples with oranges. Saying that it is as big as some countries should be enough to make understand that it is powerful.

Now, it's true that the behaviour of the anonymous user who has as hobby since several months to rank London above Paris according to unofficial studies he finds here and there on the net is particularly annoying. And the fact that this anonymous user never registers on Wikipedia to explain himself leads me to often revert any of his edits. Though I'm neither 195.93.102.35 nor Hardouin.

I believe this tables ranking section still need to be removed, and that doesn't imply that any side is right. Metropolitan 22:02, 18 september 2006 (UTC).

I totally agree with you. Especially in the light that GDP figures exist neither for the Paris arire urbaine nor the nonexistent London Metropolitan area. Not only are both users comparing apples to oranges, but both are brandishing fruit of thier own invention : ) THEPROMENADER 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Promenader making accusation here now. Aren't you happy to already fill the talk pages at Paris and List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris with lengthy accusations? Do you have to make accusations in every Paris-related article? So this time it's Metropolitan who is targeted. You really don't like this guy, do you? Metropolitan, you should be aware that Promenader has filled a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Economy of Paris. For all I know, since we're making accusations, if IP 195.93.102.35 is Metropolitan trying to bypass the 3RR, then IP 82.35.101.215 could very well be you, Promenader, also trying to bypass the 3RR. You've been spending the last year doing your best to belittle Paris in every Paris-related article, so I wouldn't be surprised if that anonymous IP address was you trying again to belittle Paris by placing it below London. Or perhaps it's more Macchiavelian, perhaps you're simply generating an edit war in an attempt to discredit the article, which seems to have worked out (cf. the tag placed on top of the article). Simply put, Promenader, don't make accusations lest you be prepared to have your own behavior called into question and investigated. Metropolitan, if you feel this accusation against you was offensive, feel free to file a complaint against Promenader on the incident noticeboard. I think that's the only way to stop him using smearing tactics. Hardouin 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Read again, User:Hardouin. It was quite obvious that Metropolitan made it quite clear that it was not he, even though I never accused anyone directly - and I believe him. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? THEPROMENADER 12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: Why does this quite legitimate complaint offend you so? You were never named, not even once. THEPROMENADER 12:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If your complaint is "legitimate", then why is your complaint directed only against IP 195.93.102.35? why is it not also directed against IP 82.35.101.215? You really think both Metropolitan and I are stupid, don't you? Hardouin 12:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The complaint was against a blacklisted AOL proxy - the other IP is a simple anon from the UK. Proxies are Wiki-bad, and blacklisted anon proxies even more.

I've never even metioned Metropolitan in any of this, nor made any accusations - why do you insist on making it seem that I am a) making accusations against b) someone I have no complaint against? What are you trying to accomplish? THEPROMENADER 13:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Then if you're not making accusations against anyone, why do you use language such as "It is quite obvious who it is."? Metropolitan apparently thought this was addressed to him (he had to insist: "I'm neither 195.93.102.35 nor Hardouin"), and any person reading this (including me) would also believe your nasty comment was addressed to Metropolitan. Hardouin 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dissuasive language, until I thought it better to complain. This page has no mention of any problem with Metropolitan and myself, but it would seem that you are doing your best to invent one. What is your goal here? The anon AOL proxy is not he, I know it is not he, so why are you protesting so much? THEPROMENADER 13:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a look into the page history to see what all the fuss was about. The table in question was not in place when I created it from the Paris article [1], but in looking at the page history it would seem that that the table's author is Hardouin [2], and almost the entire page history [3] has been a revert war between, in descending order, Hardouin and an anon and between two anons, between Metropolitan and an anon and betweenHardouin and Metropolitan.

Metropolitan has never reinstated the table, and this was actually the object of a short revert war between Metropolitan and Hardouin. With the anons, there have been only four major contributors to the article. THEPROMENADER 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Table of dispute" removed. Other corrections needing attention.

Since there exists neither a London metropolitan area (or GDP data thereof) nor a Paris metropolitan area GDP, the subject of this months-long revert war was pretty pointless: both positions are Original Research, and because of this, unverifiable. In other words, this battle is not only pointless, but endless.

In this page alone, all the "metropolitan area GDP" with citations link to Île-de-France INSEE figures - this is wrong, and not only purposefully misleading, but Original Research as well. The aire urbaine statistical area is only used for collecting census data, and economy data is only collected (calculated) in départements and régions - stick to fact please.

Even the term "metropolitan area" as a translation of aire urbaine is doubtful and misleading, as the French INSEE aire urbaine statistical area has little to do with its North American counterpart in concept nor calculation. Also, the term "Paris metropolitan area" is to be found nowhere in any English INSEE documentation as a translation of aire urbaine - they use the term "Paris area" instead. In addition to being Original Research, this inventive translation aims to cater to a master schema quite contrary to Wiki "follow local conventions" naming conventions.

THEPROMENADER 07:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Spare us new accusations Promenader. Accusing other editors of original research when there's no evidence of it simply contravenes WP:FAITH, which you should read again and again. The US and Japanese metro areas have official definitions, and all data come from official sources (Government of Japan for Japanese metro areas, and Conference of US Mayors for US metro areas). The Paris metro area is also officially defined and its territory is very nearly that of Ile-de-France. Absolutely all economic books I've read use the Ile-de-France regional figures for the Paris metro area simply because both areas are almost exactly the same. Only the most pedantic person would insist that we don't use Ile-de-France regional figures because strictly speaking the Ile-de-France region and the Paris metro area have slightly diverging borders. Metropolitan, can you explain to Promenader that a few more fields or a few less fields on the edge of Ile-de-France change virtually nothing to the overall figures? Finally, the only metro area that has no official definition is London, and that's precisely why the article says that we cannot give a figure for the London metro area, and that's why it gives figures for Greater London and for the entire South-East England, which are both verifiable.

In answer to Metropolitan, I would also like to say that these metro area GDP figures are more interesting than country GDP figures. In a way, comparing the GDP of Paris metro area with the GDP of countries does not tell us much about it, whereas comparing it with other world cities is a better measure of where the Paris economy ranks in the world. There's a trend now among economists to consider that with globalization it is more and more relevant to compare metro area GDPs/economies, whereas comparing country GDPs/economies is becoming less and less relevant, because major world metro areas behave more and more like "islands" disconnected from the country in which they are located and interconnected with other large metro areas in the world. There was a young French economist, whose name I can't remember now, who published some years ago a list of metro area GDPs for all the large metro areas in the world. It was an impressive research, and it reflects this new trend among economists. That's why I think the current list is important, and should not be removed just because some English anonymous users don't like the ranking and vandalize the articles. Metropolitan, you should know that French related articles are vandalized almost on a daily base by anonymous English and American editors (check France for instance, one of the most vandalized article on Wikipedia). So if we remove the list simply because it get vandalized, then we're basically giving in to French bashers. Hardouin 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: The GDP list comes from official sources (contrary to what Promenader insinuates), and this is so true that I will update the figures as soon as the Japanese government publish their 2004 local GDP figures (US Mayors and INSEE have already published their 2004 GDP figures). Hardouin 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardouin, why are you reverting? Theories based on fact are not fact - they are theories - and Wiki is not interested in any Wikipedian's theories. If the box is not Original Research, provide some links to Paris metropolitan area GDP or Paris aire urbaine GDP figures please. THEPROMENADER 12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pedantic arguments, same as the pedantic arguments already used by you at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris and at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 List of Tallest buildings and structures in Paris where you insist that nothing outside of the administrative City of Paris can be called Paris. Here you insist that we can't use Ile-de-France regional figures for the Paris metro area, although all economists do so. I wish you had studied economics, Promenader. Perhaps you would have a less pedantic and "litteral-reading" view of the world, perhaps you would realize that economists make do with whatever data they can get. Hardouin 13:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So if economists use Paris metropolitan area GDP statistics, then they should be readily available for reference. Are they? THEPROMENADER 13:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong in asking for fact? If you could prove your assertations were fact, you would have satisfied my question and the discussion would end - but instead I get excited vitriol as a reply. I don't see any cause for such fuss. Anyhow I've better things to do with my lunchtime. THEPROMENADER 13:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote, apparently you didn't understand. Economists use whatever data and figures they can find. Promenader, I'm sorry to tell you, but this ain't a perfect world. In a perfect world, economists would have available all the data that fit exactly the object of their study, but in the real world they make do with whatever data they can find. If an economist studying the Silicon Valley can't find exact data for the Silicon Valley (such as GDP), but instead has access to data for Santa Clara County, which is slightly larger than the Silicon Valley, of course s/he'll use these data. Probably people like you would say that it is unacceptable, POV, and whatnot, because the Santa Clara county is not exactly coterminous with the Silicon Valley. But then I'm sorry to tell you, you're not living in the real world. Hardouin 13:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So if these figures exist, then you should be able to provide them. If you can't, and the numbers are of the contributor's own concoction, then that contributor would be guilty of Original Research. Pretty simple. THEPROMENADER 14:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: Am I correct in assuming the contributor in question is you? THEPROMENADER 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're insinuating again. As the French saying goes: "Calomniez, calomniez, il en restera toujours quelque chose." All references are at the bottom of the article, the rest is just smearing tactics. Hardouin 14:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But I don't see any Paris metropolitan area GDP figures. What do you mean? THEPROMENADER 14:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

ThePromenader, you should really stop your silly habit consisting in attempting to marginalize people you disagree with. This can only antagonize oppositions and that is certainly not what Wikipedia needs. I have enough of those little tricks and those little moves which do not help anyone to enforce his opinion but on the contrary which simply generate pure rivalries. Simply stop your argument about Ile-de-France and the Paris metropolitan area. Knowing that the metro area is marginally more populated and more urban than is Ile-de-France, the conclusion can only be that the Ile-de-France GDP is an estimation of the metro area GDP which is marginally inferior to it.

My problem with this ranking is that it has no significant meaning in this article. Granted, Hardouin, you want to say that the Paris metro area is very powerful worldwide, and that only a few metro areas are more than Paris. You read a lot more about this than I do and I can only trust you on your conclusion. What disturbs me though is that I don't believe any ranking is necessary to come up to that conclusion.

Those rankings, knowing that they are based on different national definitions of metropolitan areas can't make any consensus. There is no standardized datas to back up this, to say which one has the biggest economies and in which order. As such, I think it's probably better to simply say that the Paris metro area is one of the few generating a GDP over 500 billion dollars or something similar, and that's it. You would have already proven your point that Paris is economically something very important in this world.

The problem with rankings when it deals about non-standardized datas is that they necessarily lead in opposing people having other non-standardized datas saying that their place should be better ranked. Wikipedia should be above that kind of rivalries... especially when they deal about marginal differences such as it's the case for London and Paris. And the fact that your datas come from national official publications which is not the case of the anonymous user don't change much, as that table invites in itself to that kind of opposition.

Frankly, this article about the economy of Paris would earn more legitimacy and as such more visibility without this table ranking non standardized datas. If we get over this, perhaps this article could finally move forward as it is currently rather incomplete.

As for the anonymous user constantly adding his petty London claims, all his IP should be banned. If he has something to say, than he should register to express it. Metropolitan 16:24, 19 september 2006 (UTC).

"ThePromenader, you should really stop your silly habit consisting in attempting to marginalize people you disagree with."

Thanks for the advice, but all I have ever done is ask for references to anything I see that does not concord with reference. I have never targeted anything else. If no references can be found to back the claims in question, then there is a problem, and this alone is enough to marginalise the text in question. I could care less about contributors - in fact, I don't even recognise my own contributions any more. Only what's written matters to me. THEPROMENADER 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess we can safely assume that Paris metropolitan area GDP statistics do not exist. THEPROMENADER 01:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In 1999, the part of the population of the Paris metropolitan area living in Ile-de-France represented 98.996% of its total population. The same year, the part of the population of Ile-de-France living in the Paris metropolitan area represented 97.023% of its total population. In 1999, the demographical difference between Ile-de-France and the Paris metropolitan area was about 2%. There's nothing illegitimate in considering the Ile-de-France GDP as an estimation of the Paris metropolitan area.

Actually, the conversion from Euros to US dollars leads to a much stronger approximation of that figure, knowing that both currencies have fluctuated in a margin of 10% in the last 12 months.

You see, ThePromenader, your behaviour is in here exactly the one I can't stand anymore. It consists in finding a little trick to make disappear a valuable information, for a reason I fail to understand. The GDP of Ile-de-France is definitly a legitimate estimation of the Paris metropolitan area which is perfectly legitimate to mention in the article about the economy of Paris. Metropolitan 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

Normally, I would agree, however.... WP:NOR. You need to have a precise source for the data, estimations from data on other regions/populations is considered original research. --Bob 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no and no. If there are no GDP figures for any "metropolitan area", one cannot cross-calculate numbers on his own to make the term fit and still call it fact - especially through calculations based on data so non-sequitur as land area and population - GDP is calculated on the number of businesses, and the revenues thereof, within a given territory, not land and population. If one insists on using the aire urbaine as a base for GDP, he will have to do the data gathering in the said area himself, as no fiscal data has ever been taken only in the wedge of extra-IDF territory covered by the AU.

This sort of maniplation is the very example of Original Research. Because it is in error, is Original Research and unverifiable, it is of no factual nor informative use to anyone. Certainly not to Wiki. THEPROMENADER 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC) (revised 09:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

The GDP data should be rewritten or removed as it is original reserach. From WP:NOR: An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:

It introduces original ideas;

It defines new terms;

It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;

By stating that IdF data is a guestimate of Paris metropole thereby original research. --Bob 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

GDP numbers Paris - London

Problem resolved - I have inserted the figures based on the Eurostat definition for Larger Urban Zone. Eurostat is neutral and not involved in any of these debates. INSEE has also agreed to the new harmonized Eurostat definitions. It would be useful if one would start following Eurostat's urban defintions (such as the one of Larger Urban Zone when talking about metropolitan areas). Something tells me that the table will be removed for sure now :)JGG 23:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(Grin) poking aside, that is good news, and especially when the new definition is backed by the INSEE as well. Can you provide a link to this INSEE support as a bit of extra "factual glue" to ensure that things stay in place ? THEPROMENADER 07:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the information on this project comes from Eurostat but I assume they would not claim the National Statistics Offices including INSEE have agreed if they had not. Some specific documents from CNIS regarding INSEE and this topic: http://www.cnis.fr/Agenda/CR/CR_0147.PDF, bottom of page 27 and all of page 28. Here INSEE clearly accepts that the French definitions such as "urban area" cannot just be applied to other EU countries and explains they are working with Eurostat on comparable statistics. Important note: In the Urban Audit 1 there was still disagreement about the definition of Paris and London (no surpirse, this seems to be a matter of national pride for the French and British) and therefore they were excluded from Urban Audit 1 but for Urban Audit 2 there clearly was agreement and hence both cities are now included. The Eurostat definition of both cities is in many Eurostat presentations / publications of the time around 2003, so it must have been a difficult debate! JGG 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oy, edit conflict - I'll answer the rest later. I wasn't questioning you sir, but, as this page was a source of long conflict, some may question even fact here. After reading, it seems that the project was organised even in collaboration with the INSEE. THEPROMENADER 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine that it was a difficult debate. Although the "unité urbaine" concept does its best to comply to international UN "urban area" standards, I still find that both are only effective in a single-nation study, as living habits, #habitants per apt, density, etc tend to change with culture. Actually, the same "apples to oranges" argument could be used in the case of certain cities - Marseille and Paris, for example. Although both "structure densities"/population may qualify for UA status, try to compare the sprawl of US "one-family-house-only" suburbs and compare them to Paris' ville dortoirs - hell, the debate can go on forever. At least now there's some sort of reference-worthy agreement - "big city" races are both boisterous and rife on Wiki. THEPROMENADER 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nota: Mind you, although I do find the above fascinating, I am still quite the layman, so excuses if I've overlooked anything. THEPROMENADER 10:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with economies of Brazil and Russia

Another thing, this comparison with the Brazilian economy, ouch. Ever heard of PPP? When one compares economies of highly developed countries such as France with average developed countries such as Brazil, the appropriate measure is PPP adjusted GDP numbers. Anybody who has ever been to Brazil will understand that this claim about the Paris economy being larger than the Brazil economy is arrogant, to say the least. Ditto for the Russia comparison.JGG 23:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. GDP's in purchasing power parity are good indicators of development but they are not good indicators of economical strength. Internationally speaking, the economical influence is better measured and compared by GDP's at current exchange rates. If your currency is weak, then you have a weak international purchasing power. As such, no, it's not that silly to consider that Paris is as powerful economically speaking as a poorer country having the same GDP at current exchange rates. Now this being said, this was true in 2003 and we have no clue to know whether it's still true nowadays. Currencies exchange rates have massively varied in later years.

By the way, JGG, you who seem so concerned about factual accuracy, why is it still written that Eurostat definitions of "LUZ", which are based on political regions, are the most accurate comparison of urban demographics ? Metropolitan 12,38 20 October 2006

Applying PPP to metropolitan GDP figures

The more I think about it, the more I think this table needs a serious footnote. PPP is equally important for cities than for countries. Why? Take the example for countries first. If Brazil produces 100 breads costing $.10 each and France produces 100 breads costing $.40 each (because of differences in labour cost and other input costs), then the nominal GDP of France will be four times the nominal GDP of Brazil. Yet the real GDP is the same. The same goes for cities. Differences in real estate prices feed through into labour costs. Hence a Big Mac may cost more in London or Tokyo than in Paris. If GDP only consisted of Big Macs and assuming all cities produce the same amount of Big Macs, does it really mean the Tokyo or London economy is larger than the economy of Paris? No it is just a measuring difference. Also no surprise that Osake is so high on the list. It does not mean I would erase the table, but I would suggest to put it in the right context. There is a relevancy of starting to calculate and measure the economies of alpha cities as indeed they have a higher correlation one with another than with the country they belong to. JGG 16:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Description of the Paris economy

I just read this part of the intro: "The tourism industry, for instance, employs only 3.6% [3] of the total workforce of the metropolitan area (AU) (as of 1999) and is by no means a major component of the economy. The Paris economy is essentially a service economy. Its manufacturing base is still important, the Paris metropolitan area remaining one of the manufacturing powerhouses of Europe, but it is declining, while there is a clear shift of the Paris economy towards high value-added services, in particular business services."

If tourism is not a crucial economic sector in Paris, I wonder in which other city it would be. The rest this paragraph gets the reader confused. 1) Paris is a service economy 2) Paris is a manufacturing powerhouse 3) Paris is becoming a service industry.

So would it not be better to say: "The Paris economy is well balanced between manufacturing and services, with an ongoing shift towards services and high added value industries. For instance, tourism is an important contributor to the Paris economy, but it employing only 3.6% of the the total workforce of the metropolitan area (AU) (as of 1999) shows how balanced the Paris economy really is."

Opinions appreciated.JGG 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you'll look at the "reference" attached to the tourism phrase you'll see that it is a .pdf on how important the IDF is for France's tourism. Of course not the entire IDF is a magnet for tourism - only the city and a few "satellite attractions" are - so it is only natural that Paris' tourism spread over the entire région does not amount to much for the whole; it would be more informative (and straightforward) to state it in this perspective.

True - I am just saying this paragraph needs to be rewritten because right now it looks very strange, particularly where one say it is a services centre and then one say it is a manufacturing powerhouse. JGG 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, then by all means, please do, sir. You seem to know much more about it than I do. THEPROMENADER 17:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see whether there are any further opinions. It is easy to change numbers, this sentence is a bit more difficult because it tries to summarize a complex situation in a few words.JGG 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That would be the normal thing to do, but I am quite familiar with this page's origins/history; I don't think there'll be any rush of commentary any time too soon. If you like, take it up directly with the author of the text in question - that would be User:Hardouin. THEPROMENADER 07:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is strange ... it looks like there was a civil war raging about this article only a few weeks back and now it seems so quiet. I will give it a few days because there is no point of spending a lot of time changing everything with good intentions and then having it reverted. Anyway, I think there is a fundamental issue with this article and maybe it needs more than just a few cosmetic changes. It seems to have been written as an answer to a question. I would phrase the question as "I do not believe Paris is an important economic centre, please prove me wrong". The table and the comparisons with other countries such as Brazil and Russia contribute to that impression. But does that question represent public opinion around the world or is it just fed by anxieties in France? What will be our conclusion when we read this article and the discussions in 10 years' time? JGG 14:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the only Economy data available is based on the IDF region (and its départements), I think it would help reader comprehension if everything was based on this area (as "the Paris region"). The aire urbaine is only used to determine commuter activities (and the only data gathered within is census data), so this should be used only for citing info of this type - employment figures are fine. THEPROMENADER 16:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us to another point, i.e. about the "aire urbaine". This seems to be very much an INSEE concept and I was surprised to see how much it is promoted on Wikipedia. I just spent a few hours addressing some of the misunderstandings sbout this on Largest urban areas of the European Union. For Eurostat it is simple: the metropolitan area of Paris (the Larger Urban Zone as they call it) is the IdF.JGG 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but for many North Americans, the "Metropolitan Area" covers an agglomeration and then some [4] - in most cases an extension of the limits of an urban area to the closest county border. France's commune is too small for "county comparison", but départements... - anyhow all this is just speculation because even the INSEE doesn't use the term "metropolitan area" in any of their English documentation concerning France - they use "Paris area" to describe the Paris aire urbaine. In short, I would hesitate to use the term "metropolitan area" to signify the IDF or Paris aire urbaine. Vague and unverifiable. THEPROMENADER 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll find that the Wiki is perhaps the only (what is supposed to be) mainstream reference (apart from the MSN nonsense cited) to use the term "metropolitan area" to speak of anything France. I've been accused by the author of all this of "hating" the term, but I just don't see it used elsewhere, and certainly not as an official translation, that's all. The Aire Urbaine, on the other hand, way beats the NA MA as a precise demographical tool, namely because it is based on the map of France's (often tiny) municipal communes. Myself I elect to just to use official and referencable terms to avoid anything smacking of original research. THEPROMENADER 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It also gets very confusing because IdF is translated as Paris Region abroad. Now I went to Meaux the other day, coming from the North on the A1. I exited just before Paris. Amazing, it was just 30 kms of fields. No urban sprawl, just agriculature, and tiny villages. I have never been in a MA like that.JGG 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the sparse urbanisation would be éparpillement. Only 20% of the IDF is urbanised in reality [5]. Unless it is explicity spoken of, think the term "Paris region" should be used before IDF on English Wiki to describe Paris beyond its agglomeration, as it is the official translation [6] - but perhaps it would be wise to put IDF between brackets at first mention of the term. Okay for cleaning this up too. THEPROMENADER 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Rewrite

So what can be improved? First off, I still have doubts on that table - I'm still persuaded that the data within is rather apples to oranges, or in any case, certainly not based on anything that can be called a "metropolitan area". The Tokyo and Osaka "県" is certainly not this and, again, there is no Paris AU GDP. Isn't there a similar study somewhere that can be sourced directly?

As for the comparisons... I would agree that, as they are, these seem trumpeting simply because they have no context. Comparisons are useful in describing national/international market evolution (eg. the Paris region WWI - WWII machine and motor industry and its role in the European economy/production, now moving to services), but "bigger than that country" is pointless - especially when the reader doesn't have a clue about the economy of the compared-to country.

If anything, this article should be rewritten in using terms and regions used by the economists of its own country - this is the only way it can be verifiable. Any "bending" of names and figures to the goal of international comparison, unless it is a direct citation of a respectable reference doing the same, smacks of original research. In short, this article should place the numbers where they are, and not be an exercise bent to a "greater schema" of international comparison.

How do English references speak of the Paris Economy? There should be the guideline, methinks, as it bypasses all "international understanding" arguments forwarded thus far. I have the 2006 Britannica - Time for a gander. THEPROMENADER 15:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Figures

So London has finally overcome Paris ? Well, at least the French had the fair-play to say that Paris and London were equal, and didn't push into figures examination and manipulation in order to put their city above the other by all means. Anyway, the external link that gives the GDP of London doesn't seem to work all right, can it be fixed ? Enmerkar 17:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do not know what fair-play has to do with establishing facts. I am not French, I am not British but I thought the table was rather stupid and I completed it. Now we are comparing two Larger Urban Zones, as independently defined by Eurostat. I would delete the table and also the naive nominal comparisons to Russia and Brazil (which do not really mean anything) but as this seems a very sensitive subject I will not do it until there are some more opinions on this duscussion page. I do not understand why you say the link does not work, I just tried it and it works well.JGG 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Table

Some new Wiki member just reverted the table in order that Paris the Paris economy would appear larger than the London economy.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion this table is meaningless.

Firstly, there is the debate about what the "city defintion" should be. If we compare on basis of the administrative city definitions, the Paris economy would get a much lower ranking. Yet, I think it is fair to look beyond administrative levels and I think most of us could live with the IdF being used as base. But then the Parisians need to allow the same to happen for other cities. So that is why for London we now use the Larger Urban Zone, which is still considerable smaller than the IdF in terms of surface and marginally larger in terms of population. When Eurostat compares between cities, it will take the IdF for Paris as its LUZ and for London it takes Greater London plus a few home counties as LUZ. On that basis one should allow London to come up in the table with the GDP for its LUZ. There are other studies that come up with much higher numbers for London and I can quote these if you are interested but I think this is a fair comparison as it uses the neutral Eurostat methodology.

Secondly, the table does not consider cost of living. London and Oasaka may actually have a lower GDP than Paris on a PPP adjusted basis (I am pretty sure they have).

Thirdly, the table does not really contribute anything. Why not say that Paris is one of 10 largest city economies globally and that is it. We'll be able to argue perpetually whether it is no 3 or 8 or whatever.

So I reverted the table for it to be at least factually correct. But we really need to ask ourselves the question whether we should keep this table. Also the comparisons with Brazil and Russia are unhelpful because on a PPP adjusted basis these economies are multiples of the Paris economy. On top of that it reads as quite belittling to anybody from these countries. Can we please have a discussion here before we start changing the text?JGG 10:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite intro

This is the current intro:

-- The metropolitan area of Paris is one of the engines of the global economy. In 2003 the GDP of the metropolitan area (Ile de France) of Paris as calculated by INSEE was US$513.4 billion [1] (at real exchange rates, not at PPP). If it were a country, the metropolitan area (IdF) of Paris would be the 14th largest economy in the world (as of 2003)[2], above Brazil (US$492.3 billion) [2] and Russia (US$432.9 billion) [2].

Although in terms of population the Paris metropolitan area is only approximately the 20th largest metropolitan area in the world, its GDP is the sixth largest in the world after the metropolitan areas of Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, Osaka and London.

The economy of Paris is extremely diverse and has not yet adopted a specialization inside the global economy (unlike Los Angeles with the entertainment industry, or London and New York with financial services). The tourism industry, for instance, employs only 3.6% [3] of the total workforce of the metropolitan area (AU) (as of 1999) and is by no means a major component of the economy. The Paris economy is essentially a service economy. Its manufacturing base is still important, the Paris metropolitan area remaining one of the manufacturing powerhouses of Europe, but it is declining, while there is a clear shift of the Paris economy towards high value-added services, in particular business services. --

I think does intro read very badly and contains a lot of illogical sequences such as the argument that Paris is essentially a service industry but then that it is a manufacturing powerhouse in Europea at the same time.

Why not write it the following way:

-- The metropolitan area of Paris is one of the leading city economies in the world, alongside the other alpha cities such as New York, London, Tokyo, etc. In 2003 the GDP of the metropolitan area (Ile de France) of Paris as calculated by INSEE was US$513.4 billion [1]. This GDP puts Paris well into the top ten city economies globally and if it were a country, the metropolitan area (IdF) of Paris would be the 14th largest economy in the world as of 2003 (at real exchange rates, not at PPP).

The economy of Paris is extremely diverse and has not yet adopted the same degree of specialization as other cities such as Los Angeles with the entertainment industry or London and New York with financial services. Yet, Paris has positioned itself as a global beacon in industries such as fashion and luxury goods. Paris' economy has both a domestic and international dimension and is essentially a service industry, although it still has pockets of manufacturing industry, mainly in high-added-value areas.

The Paris service economy benfits from its position in France where it faces no true domestic competition. Paris benefits form an excellent internal transportation system and excellent links to the rest of Europe, Paris also being the most important node on the European high-speed-train network and the second largest European airport hub. In recent history, Paris has known an extended period of rapid economic growth following the second world war but has faced slower growth during the 90s and early 00s, contributing to a serious unemployment problem. Yet the Paris economy has been outperforming the French and eurozone economies and is currently growing strongly again.

--

I'd love to have comments on this. To me it seems less of a propoganda text and much more credible and balancedJGG 10:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I do like your version. As for article credibility, I'd have a look at other articles/references on Paris' economy [7]. You'll find that the term "metropolitan area" is never used when speaking of Economy - data on this is taken in départements and régions. When speaking of Paris' economy, it is generally understood that it englobes the entire Île-de-France. Verifiability would make this the base of the article, but the "aire urbaine" statistical area (that only vaguely translates to "metropolitan area") can be used, as it is in reality, to cite individual census data (such as place of employment, trade, salary, etc) it is used for. Anything outside of this, as stated before, is Original research and unverifiable. THEPROMENADER 12:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that GDP figure is for the IdF and it may be better to explain that properly. The text should not contain any original research but I have tried to create a fluid text rather than a list of dry facts. Of course I am just observing from a distance and may not be aware of every detail but that makes it sometimes easier to synthesize. I just find it a pity there are no French wikipedians giving their opinion. Fact is the current intro looks very bad upon Paris. JGG 23:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may, what do you mean by "bad"? Are you talking about the trumpeting tone? THEPROMENADER 09:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that's it. It somewhat appears like an artcile written by a promotion agency. It also hides every negative aspect that is also relevant in the consideration of the Paris / IdF economy. For instance, the world "unemployment" never comes up in the article, whilst we all know that this is one of the problems Paris and IdF are struggling with (9% unemployment is considerable, that's over half a million people for the IdF region).JGG 11:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many people include the "metropolitan areas" of NYC, Tokyo, etc. but since it can be expanded very much away, I think the GDP of the cores are more interesting. Maybe it should be added in the intro that the 6.2 million inhabitants Paris has a much higher GDP that the 7.2 million London. Enmerkar 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The concept of "Metropoltian Area" is vague to say the least. In the US a Metropolitan Area is set at the county borders closest to an unbroken urban growth - if France's communes were treated as counties then France's unité urbaine (urban area) would be this, not the aire urbaine statistical area as one has done his best to prove here. Tokyo's prefecture limits are set in a kilometre radius, and not at all anything like a Metropolitan area - nothing at all comparable! Apple to oranges I say. For sure a city's urban area would be a best base for comparison - unfortunately France's economical data is taken where people pay taxes - in départements, summed together into régions, meaning Paris' Île-de-France.THEPROMENADER 15:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Get serious, please.

As proven a thousand times already, "Metropolitan area" isn't and has never been a translation of "aire urbaine" [8] - this is just a creation of Hardouin's wishful thinking: If the INSEE doesn't use this term, I don't see how a single wikipedian can think himself immune to and better than this simple fact. What's more, as repeated thousands of times before, French economic data is collected and calculated in the country's administrative regions - meaning communes, départments and régions - not commuter belt areas - so there is no "aire urbaine GDP" possible, no matter how inventively one "translates" it. Come to think of it, I'd better check up on the usage there too.

One cannot modify fact to match his own inventive pet phrase and it as fact itself; this is a bras d'honneur to Wiki readers and contributors alike. Get real, please. THEPROMENADER 09:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep your insults for yourself. As for your assertion that "metropolitan area isn't and has never been a translation of aire urbaine" it is simply not true. It is YOU, and you alone, who has always refused to use the term "metropolitan area" in the Paris articles. Any admin can make a quick search and find that you're wrong on this. I can bring scores of documents that show that "aire urbaine" is commonly translated as "metropolitan area". If an admin reads this, check for example:

• this academic paper from the University of Lyon which translates its French title "Modèles économétriques des configurations des aires urbaines françaises" as "Econometric models of spatial urban structure : the case of French metropolitan areas" in English
• this study from the Political Science Institute of Bordeaux and the USC in LA is called "Towards an Americanization of French Metropolitan Areas ?" and deals with the "aires urbaines" as specifically stated in their introduction.
• this case study about Lille by the labour department of the European Union specifically says this: "Population of the metropolitan area (aire urbaine) is 1,140,000."
• this article from the Canadian Journal of Regional Science translates its French title "Forme urbaine et mobilité : une application à l'aire urbaine de Bordeaux" as "Urban Form and Travel Patterns. An application to the metropolitan area of Bordeaux" in English.
• in this paper from the Grenoble district of the French Ministry of Education, we find the following sentence in the introdution: "Thématique :Réaliser une carte sur les aires urbaines (" Metropolitan Area ") supérieures à 500.000 habitants de la périphérie des Etats Unis ." Note that this paper is destined to geography teachers in the high schools of the Grenoble region.
• In this paper written by academics from France, Canada and Catalonia, we find this sentence on page 14: "Finally, we also allocate each municipality to its metropolitan area (‘Aire Urbaine’) when there is one or classify it as rural."

Still sure that "metropolitan area isn't and has never been a translation of aire urbaine"? Hardouin 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All of these are world comparison studies that compare "similar areas" using a single term for the better comprehensebility of the paper itself. These are interpretations for studies - they are neither hard translations, nor hard fact. Also, the "similar areas" differ from paper to paper. Also, there is no single definition of "metropolitan area", and none at all in France!

Yet on the other hand, an aire urbaine is a very precise thing with its own official definition and official translation - and the organisation that created it has never used "metropolitan area" as a translation for it. Do you really expect these rather cherrypicked examples to outdo the writ of the very official government organisation that created the aire urbaine in the first place [9]? How can I make it any simpler? THEPROMENADER 14:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is beyond stupid. If the government collects all its fiscal data in départements, how in the HELL can there be an "aire urbaine GDP? This Original research has been pointed out to you hundreds of times already, and not only by myself - read the fucking talk page above. Is there no end to your disruptive pig-headedness? THEPROMENADER 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

And why you wan't use the term "metropolitan area" for a better comprehensebility. We agree that aire urbaine and metropolitan area a bit different but in your way at no cities outside North America can use this term. So foreign don't know Ile de France or aire urbaine and the aire urbaine of Paris is 99% of Ile de France, for a better comprehensebility I don't see why we couldn't use the term "metropolitan area" Minato ku 19:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I due to past sockpuppetry I tend to doubt when I see (yet) another next-to-no contributions (but Paris-only oriented) contributor jump into the discussion. What's more, I have never seen anyone even think of using an "almost 88% the same" argument to support substituting one inapplicable term for another real and referenced one, yet Hardouin has done exactly this many times in the past. Plus the total disregard for the argument that there exists no economic data for aire urbaines. Plus the same no-contribs contributor finding this page, at this moment, just after a revert war, after months of inactivity. A tad too many coincidences, eh.

All the same: None of your arguments justify the use of a term that simply doesn't exist in the official terminology the INSEE uses to communicate its findings with other organisations - to do this would be vague (because pure undefined invention), misleading, original research and unverifiable. I have proposed placing the term "metropolitan area" between brackets at the first mention of statistics pertaining to France's aire urbaine (official translation: urban area[10]) to clear up any misconceptions, and this would remain both factual and verifiable - and yes, it's too bad that the whole world doesn't use the same terminology - but to present "metropolitan area" as a direct and factual translation of aire urbaine is just plain wrong. THEPROMENADER 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated and unwarrented and abusive blanket reverting

One really can't correct any article if it was "created" by Hardouin. You reverted - for a fourth time in not even 25h - even the spelling corrections I brought to the page (it's "electro-medical" and "equipment" - "equipments" isn't English). You also reinstated non-existent "aire urbaine GDP" figures that are just a proven fabrication of your own - proven wrong and exposed by more than myself - so you revert not only to pure fabrication, but against consensus. What's more, you comment your revert "(Please leave the original version while admins are investigating the case.)" - this is just an intentional smokescreen blown at the ignorant, as there is no admin "investigation" at all about any of this. Now you're just intentionally taking the piss - again - and not even trying to hide it. THEPROMENADER 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the GDP exist, it was not created by Hardouin.

Sorry for my error but 99% of inhabitants of Ile de France region live in Paris "aire urbaine". The term "metropolitan area" is wider than "aire urbaine", that's would say that if we use the american definition Paris metro would be bigger.

The GDP of Ile de France was in € 465.7 billion more than US $630 billion in actual change rate. [[11]]

Actually 99% of Ile de France population is in Paris "aire urbaine", so we can say that 99% of this GDP is in Paris "aire urbaine" but actually Paris aire urbaine is more populous than Ile de France, so the GDP should be higher.

I don't see why we can use the term metro area for a better comprehensebility if everybody do that.

Minato ku 00:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll be getting a ticket later today - this is getting surreal. There is no "aire urbaine GDP", no matter how it is "translated" or twisted. Who ever (other than Hardouin) could even consider using such wrangled and inventive "logic"[12][13][14] instead of using the referenced facts already available to us? Oh, right - Metropolitan [15] later picked up on it - but even then the original research aspects of such argumenting was made very clear to you even then.

I suggest all concerned read the Follow local conventions - use the official translations where they exist[16], and refer to the same area in the article as the area indicated in references it links to. - that's it. No fussing about. THEPROMENADER 06:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert-war XXIV - Working forward from the corrected state.

We can be sure that this article will be reverted once again around 15:00 today, but first a couple glib notes about what will be reverted to.

• One cannot say that statistics given come from one area when the reference they are linked to say they come from another.
  • Concerning the above, one cannot justify this by saying that the completely irrelevent switched areas are "almost the same size"
  • Concerning the above, one cannot on top of that "do their own math" to justify this sort of wrangling. This is beyond original research as already indicated several times in this talk page.
• One cannot present a term used differently between many countries as a 'translation' for a well-defined entity that created and given an official translation by its own country[17]. This sort of wrangling is not only contrary to Wiki guidelines, unneeded and uncalled for: it also makes its article unverifiable.
• One does not revert ad lettram good-faith edits; especially corrections to spelling and grammar errors.
• I really think WP:OWN applies here. This article remained unchanged for months, yet was reverted by Hardouin (exactly to the same's "own" version) only hours after the above errors were repaired.
• There is no, and never has been, any administrator involvement in any decision pertaining to the use of "metropolitan area" in this article. This claim, attached to many past reverts (and probably to future ones as well), is totally false: this claim is nothing but a time-buying smokescreen aimed at those uninitiated to this issue.

I can't make it any simpler. Good day. THEPROMENADER 11:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is fully protected for 1 week

The article has been protected in its present form for 1 week to allow editors to cool down and discuss their concerns here, on the discussion page. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 16:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

The fact that "metropolitan area" has never been the official term used to describe the Paris aire urbaine, and the fact that "urban area" is the official translation for the same term, has been made clear several (hundred) times already [18]. I am once again inserting the correct and official terms used in the references indicated - this is the correct thing to do, so please stop the repeated reverting to wishful "greater scheme" WP:OR. Cheers.

THEPROMENADER 11:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

An urban area and a metropolitan area are two very different things. Check the definitions. Hardouin has contacted me and I believe other editors interested in French things to warn us that you would revert his/her edit due to the feud between you two. And that's exactly what you've done, at least partially. Reverting edits without even trying to discuss things before is not the way to solve conflicts. Regards. Keizuko 13:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How about being a little less obvious with the blanket-revert sock/meatpuppetry? That was your second revert.

It's too bad that one country defines "urban area" one way, and another another, but you cannot supplant official usage of one country with definitions from others. Needless to say that the term "metropolitan area" has never been any part of the English-publication INSEE vocabulary for any of their documentation, and the same for the French government, so you can't use it here - especially when an official translation exists [19]. This is manipulative disinformation to the extreme - and, because of your persistant reverting, denial while we're at it.

If you transgress the WP:3RR rule with this user, I will report you as the one you are. Cheers.THEPROMENADER 14:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Again making accusations of sock-puppetry? You'll never change. That's like what, the 7th or 8th person you accuse of being my sock-puppet? Whoever disagree with you is necessarily a sock-puppet. Not only there's no way to have reasonable discussions with you, but you also deny that several people are in disagreement with you by accussing them all of sock-puppetry. It's hopeless. Hardouin 15:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Either sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry - no matter, it's all the same. What are the chances of a recently-created user stopping my this page (amongst hundreds of thousands of others) only hours after our last exchange - to reinstate - ad literam - your own revert?

There has never been any "reasonable" discussion from you - and only rare cherrypicked "foreign study" sources supporting your own POV - and this when the bare and apallingly apparent facts are omnipresent in the very sources you cite. For the last time: "urban area" is the official translation of the very organisation that created the aire urbaine [20], the organisation that is a peerless integral part of the French government. How can you expect your POV on using another country's terminology - one that has never been cited or used here by this country's official organisations as a measure to the country's economic and demographic makeup - to supplant the already-existing highest official translations? [21] THEPROMENADER 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew so well that you would revert my long edit, either entirely or partially, disregarding all civility and Wikilove, because that's what you always do, so I contacted several editors to let them know that I had edited this article and to be my witness if you reverted my edit. And reverted you did, after just 11 hours and 43 minutes ([22]). I haven't been editing anything on Wikipedia for more than a month, and when after one month I come to make an edit, you revert me after 11 hours 43 minutes. If that's not stalking and harassment, then it looks terribly like it. I'm glad Keizuko stepped in, and I hope other editors step in too. This harassment has lasted for way too long. Hardouin 20:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I also note that you're not even interested in editing this article. All you ever do is reverting my edits, or rewriting over them, which is considered like a revert, but you never add info of your own, you never contribute anything. Can't you be a contributor that adds things to Wikipedia instead of just reverting people and creating tensions and fights? Hardouin 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything but the facts, as usual. I left your edits as they were, but replaced your personal terminology with the real and referenced one. I frankly don't have the time to edit much these days - although I did create an article recently if you care to look - but I do have my watchlist, and do my best to tend to vandalism when I can.

With the referenced and obvious facts set clearly before you dozens of times, in spite of the full knowledge of the same I know you have, I consider your contributions to the articles I am aware of - reverting them to your personal selective unverifiable POV and OR - to be of the vandalism category. You know full well the fact of the matter, and you know that what you are forwarding is what you would like people to understand - but it is not fact.

That was your fourth revert - good day. THEPROMENADER 21:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, User:Hardouin is blanket-reverting in spite of the facts present right there in front of him. The INSEE has never used "metropolitan area" as a translation of aire urbaine in any of their English-language documentation (amply available online in .pdf format on the site) - would he say that the entire very official government organisation who created the aire urbaine statistical area is - delusional? - because of this, and that it is he, Wikipedian, that knows best over even they? Please. THEPROMENADER 19:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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" ([23]) and 10,100 non-Wikipedia hits for "metropolitan area of Paris" ([24]). 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 [25][26] 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 [27][28] 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."[29]), not mine. Keizuko then proposed this idea as a compromise ([30]) 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" [31] - 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" [32]. 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 [33], 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" [34].

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economy of Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210185302/http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/jp/sna/toukei.html to http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/jp/sna/toukei.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Economy of Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.recensement.insee.fr/RP99/rp99/wr_page.affiche?p_id_nivgeo=M&p_id_loca=001&p_id_princ=EMP1&p_theme=ALL&p_typeprod=ALL&p_langue=FR
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.recensement.insee.fr/RP99/rp99/wr_page.affiche?p_id_nivgeo=M&p_id_loca=001&p_id_princ=ACT1&p_theme=ALL&p_typeprod=ALL&p_langue=FR
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.recensement.insee.fr/RP99/rp99/wr_page.affiche?p_id_nivgeo=M&p_id_loca=001&p_id_princ=EMP2&p_theme=ALL&p_typeprod=ALL&p_langue=FR
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919160354/http://www.paris-region.com/index.jsp?LANGUE=1 to http://www.paris-region.com/index.jsp?LANGUE=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210020003/http://www.paris-iledefrance.cci.fr/ to http://www.paris-iledefrance.cci.fr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119125720/http://www.paris-iledefrance.cci.fr/?page=eco_regionale_chiffres_cles_en_2008 to http://www.paris-iledefrance.cci.fr/?page=eco_regionale_chiffres_cles_en_2008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901094647/http://www.crocis.ccip.fr/index.htm to http://www.crocis.ccip.fr/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060709034937/http://www.europinvest-paris.com/ENG/ to http://www.europinvest-paris.com/ENG/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051120071311/http://www.iaurif.org/en/index.htm to http://www.iaurif.org/en/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030083641/http://www.industrie-iledefrance.org/index.php?page=home to http://www.industrie-iledefrance.org/index.php?page=home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625082756/http://artesi.artesi-idf.com/ to http://www.artesi.artesi-idf.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051212053518/http://www.ile-de-france.drire.gouv.fr/ to http://www.ile-de-france.drire.gouv.fr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)