User:Josefu/Work In Progress/Paris debacle

Changes to this Page - Open discussion

Since my first contribution over two months ago, I have been trying my best to make known my views on what improvements could be made to this page. After an initial consultation with an administrator I decided to "be bold" and start a "démenagement" of all that had nothing to do with the city of Paris. I was met with opposition - and after being complained about I thought it best to put things back the way they were until I could get a good feel of the "general consensus" of the page's contibutors.

My goal here is not to "control" anything, (as was complained to one of the administrators) - I would like only to contribute to making a better page. I have learned much from other Paris pages and pages concerning French history - namely those concerning the French kings - but those are well covered as far as knowledgable contributors are concerned and are in little need of improvement, so I had little to do there. This page, on the other hand, I find lacking, and see many things that could be improved.

The most important fault this page has is its quantity of specialised information - far too much for a general "Paris" page. The search function is a very important element of Wikipedia, and with this in mind, much on this page is redundant and unneccessary. Those looking for "Paris economy" will type exactly that into the search window. The same for "Paris history" or "paris fashion". Here I am but repeating what I have already written below.

In short, in order to make this page a comprehensible tool for one looking for a lead from the subject of Paris, or one totally ignorant on the subject - in other words, one who knows only enough to type only "Paris" into the search window - I propose to move the more "specialty" information to their own pages. My apologies to those who have contributed the more detailed information, but this would be better suited to a "specialty" page of its own. This would even be a positive move, as it would allow the contributor knowledgable in the subject of his contribution to expand his input far beyond what could be contained on this one page.

The irony of the sort is that, though I contribute to Wiki, it won't be to this page in any quantity. My specialty is the history of Paris, and I cannot even think to add that knowledge here - Paris' history has a page of its own. Just to give you all a clear idea of where my aims are.

Here I would like to contribute in the interest of clear information. I hope with this post to create an opportunity for improvement - please answer with any ideas you would have. With this post I would also like to "sound the board" - to see whether it is an interest for information or partisanship that holds the upper hand on this page, as what I have seen to date leaves room for doubt. In your answers, I hope for evidence to the contrary. And for ideas of your own so that I will not be alone in deciding any changes. The goal of Wiki is to be the best for all, by all.

Please feel free to forward any thoughts on the matter at all.

Josefu 16:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

ADDENDUM

You can find a proposition for restructuring here -> Paris Recap - please keep in mind that this is only a structure reference marked only by short notes, I don't really want to cut everthing out!

Update - I am happy to see changes going here but amazed at the lack of response to my messages. "General consensus" seems to be naught. I have been working on my proposed changes and will move them to the Paris Recap for review later this week. These changes installed, much of the more detailed information here will be moving to pages of their own, shortening this page and making room for the more general "what is Paris" info that it should contain.

Cheers,

Josefu 15:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have completed the first stage of this page's restructuration, and will be uploading it to the Paris Recap later today. In doing so I have tried to retain as much information pertaining to Paris as I could, but the modifications are in fact heavy. In the course of my editing I also found erronous information (namely in the population statistics, easily available on the INSEE site), so ended up rechecking else as well. For this some statistics have yet to be inserted, but for sure will be, and a list of sources will be mentioned at the bottom of the page as there should be.

A conclusion that will no doubt displease some of you: I ended up rewriting almost everything. The reason for this lies mainly in the fact that most of the page, as it stands, is misleading and incomprehensible to one unfamiliar with Paris. It is written in a tone of one already living there, in a language understood best most probably by the readers who attended the same school as the author. The misleading part is this page's repeated claim that Paris' suburbs are inseperable from and should be spoken of as Paris itself - this is not at all true, and makes describing "what is Paris" all the more difficult with a conclusion incomprehensible to the layman reader. Paris' separation from its suburbs is often a matter of pride and in fact a real problem but let us speak of them as one when Paris annexes them. For now, best make mention of the suburbs where directly applicable (produce, industry, workers commuting to the capital) and, for clarity, put more detailed information to the "Ile de France" or "Paris Economy" page.

In short, my rewriting fills a step-by-step of what Paris is, understandable to even the uninitiated foreigner that I once was. In reading one can construct an image of where the city is in the country, its size and shape, how to get there, and how people live there. There is little mention of history, and I think this should be part of a list of "other Paris subjects" to the bottom of the page above the page sources. There is only vague mention of past traits, and only if they have a direct influence on Parisian habits today.

I hope that all of you will understand what my aims are, and see the logic in them. I hope that, based on a first restructuring, this page will develop information, links and leads to more detailed, specialised and varied information on other pages, thus enriching the pedagogy, quality and diversity of Wikipedia.

Cheers, take care,

Josefu 10:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

IT'S UP.

Paris Recap

Written by rote, no doubt truffled with spelling and grammar errors, the first draft of my proposed revisals are up for all to see. I have a few dates to add, much rewriting to do for clarity, and links galore to make, but in all I'm sure that it's quite clear what it's all about. I have yet to gather more relevent information from the existing page, a task I will undertake tonight or tomorrow. In the meantime feel free to examine and comment away.

Take care.

Josefu 17:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL I seem to have gone a bit overboard on the "Districts" section, and I may have to make this a page of its own. The rest is ready (as far as I'm concerned) and will be going up this week. Any of you who have any qualms with anything I've proposed better speak up soon.

Josefu 19:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Josefu, I don't recommend you change the article. You would only expose yourself to mass reverting from other Wikipedians. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else owns this article, and nobody is entitled to change it entirely. To add to the article, to edit part of it, that's the normal process here. But to change the article entirely and put your own article instead, that's a definite no no. If nobody has commented on your postings yet, I guess that shows that nobody is really interested in your changes. Hardouin 19:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If it I haven't made it clear already, I've been asking, then trying to provoke, some sort of discussion about improvements to this page. I see what's wrong with this page, and I'm not the only one (look just below), and have also a solution. Not answering criticism or propositions is definitely not "not caring"; it's a means to stall any changes. There is no excuse for totally ignoring someone wanting to make changes who takes the time to ask the advice of others first.

Yes, no-one "owns" the content here - this is the very reason that changes could and should be made. Your prediction of "mass reverting" shows only too clearly an attitude of ownership over this page. The changes I make will be just as suject to alteration as anything already existing, and it is in the interest of the information itself that I am making them, no other. "What is at fault with this page, and what can we do to improve it?" is the question that should be constantly being asked here, yet the only answer to such queries has been either stalling or a vague "better not" reply equalling "the owners like it as it is".

My apologies, but the very structure of this page is the origin of much of its incomprehensabilities. Much of this page is understandable only to a world-statistically-aware very few (as many don't even know the GDP of their own city, and few even care about such things). Simple "editing here and there" will not fix the matter. What would you suggest? I suggest that you suggest to other contributors (should you know them) that they speak up too.

Josefu 20:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have thought about a way to "soften" a restructuring but see little other solution than a total rewrite. Yet if we were to extract all that's amiss with this page - its misleading "Paris-is-île-de-France" information and statistice, the incomprehensible-to-most "comparative" information, the redundant "Paris history" section (repeated in a quite mediocre page of its own), the over-developed and purely statistical "Economy" section that says absolutely nothing at all about the trades that drive Paris' economy, the trifling "monuments" listing (which, since lately, has a quite decent page of its own), not to mention the other quite-incomplete other listings in the "cultural organisations" section that best be placed in a more extensive page of their own - there would be almost nothing remaining in this page, and would come far short of its purpose of describing "what is Paris?".

This page is supposed to provide information, and it is only to that end that I work. I await still signs of consensus, and will progress with my proposed changes on the page indicated. If I hear still no reply, I will be seeking an objective point of view before progressing with any changes. This then will be the judge.

Cordialement,

Josefu 08:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

ADDENDUM - I have spent a good hour going over this page's history, and am now quite aware now who this page's major contributor(s) are. I ask for a bit of "bonne foi" in this matter.

Someone rewrite the entire Economy section!

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

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

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

Cheers,

Josefu 21:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Questionable content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

take care,

Josefu

The geographical area of Paris

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

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

Josefu 10:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Josefu 17:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Josefu 17:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Josefu 08:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Josefu 15:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Josefu 20:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Josefu 08:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Economy section

The reason why I have reverted changes by User:Josefu, who rewrote the economy section entirely, is because his/her new section appears not very professionally written. I think it will be quite obvious to anyone with some economics background. Let me explain.

First of all, Josefu intends, in his/her own words, to discus the administrative City of Paris, excluding the suburbs from his/her analysis. To write an economy section about the City of Paris only is about as absurd as if an article about the London economy talked only about the City of London without any reference to the wider Greater London, or as if an article about the San Francisco economy made no reference to San Francisco International Airport traffic and business, just because strictly speaking San Francisco International Airport lies outside of the City of San Francisco proper. It makes absolutely no sense to discuss the economy of the administrative City of Paris proper, as if we were still in 1800 and the suburbs did not exist. If you check the French Encyclopaedia Universalis or the Encyclopédie Larousse, you'll find out that their Paris economy sections talk about the economy of the WHOLE METROPOLITAN AREA of Paris, not just the city proper.

Then beyond this fundamental flaw, the new section written by Josefu is also quite bizarre. As far as I know, the three main sectors of economy are: 1- agriculture, 2- industry, and 3- services. But Josefu divided his/her section into 1- produce (produce? what's that?), 2- industry, 3- finance, 4- commerce, 5- restaurants and cafés, 6- night life, and 7- tourism. Now this is a really bizarre presentation of an economy. And since when is "night life" a major component of the economy, deserving its own heading??

Then there are just the many badly worded sentences, or simply the flatly wrong statements, such as: "The stores where Parisians buy their everyday goods are in their majority small-commerce, as the majority of the city's produce and material goods is sold through smaller street-side stores and boutiques." User Josefu should know that Rungis is the largest wholesale food market in Europe, and that the metropolitan area of Paris has one of the largest surface areas of supermarkets in Europe. Even if you talk only about the City of Paris proper, there are many supermarkets, and small boutiques are now in the minority.

Please understand that I don't intend to be rude, but I think it is best to leave this to people with some real background in economics. Personally, I write only about subjects that I am specialized in, or that I have very good knowledge of, and I suggest Josefu do the same. As for the economy section, I understand that it needs to be more than just a discussion about the GDP of the Paris metropolitan area. In particular it needs to discuss the majors components of the Parisian economy today (today, not the cliché Paris of 50 years ago), it needs to discuss the changes in the Parisian economy in the last 20 years (loss of low skilled industry, increase in highly qualified services, competition with London and Frankfurt for the position of Europe's finance capital, etc.), and present the emerging global role of Paris in this era of globalization (Paris as a hub of exchange and interaction, CDG airport, etc.).

I am not an economist myself, but I have a good background in economics, and I will try to improve the economy article along the lines I have just mentioned as soon as I have enough time, unless of course someone with a good knowledge of economics is willing to do it him/herself. Hardouin 17:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin, I address myself to you, as it is you and your work that is concerned here.

You quite conveniently missed the point in the changes I made, and quite frankly I question your honesty. My intent with my changes was to give the section a new theme more concerned with Paris, and that intent is obvious to any reader should you have left them any time to read it. I would only expect that others more knowledgeable than I correct and add where they see fit. If you had read what I had written before eliminating it, you would have seen that I had indeed stated that Rungis was the produce centre for Paris - and that in its proper context. If you don't like the word "produce" and would rather have "agriculture" (although it doesn't at all fit with Paris' industrial food factories), then change it. If you don't think that Paris' night life is an integral part of its City economy then say why and replace or remove it. In addition to these weak arguments, you criticise my choice of words as a fault - this is certainly not civil behaviour. If you know better, fix it, don't use it as an excuse for justifying a revert to your own errors.

Yet, even before I begin, I digress in detailing the above, because I severely doubt that anything I wrote really mattered. You reverted to your version which you alone judge to be "best" in spite of the fact that others have felt the need to complain about it, and through no light words, either. Nor did you leave any time for discussion by others (as time for discussion I left aplenty before even progressing with my changes), again, you simply reverted to your "own version".

Your error is simple: Paris and its outer industrial districts are important together for calculating, in their ensemble as you have done, any GDP (and even this can only reflect on the Product of the factories in this region, not trade through Paris offices between more distant regions), but this does not reflect on what the city is itself. For obvious reasons, Paris is an ideal rendezvous for trade, but the product of these agreements is rarely that of the city of Paris itself. Paris' economy does not exist to feed businessmen and their dealings, nor does it rely upon them for its very survival. It has commerce, trade and an economy of its own; it does not shop at one giant suburban Wal-Mart, nor even in the suburbs. In fact, as far as the city is concerned, the economic tendency is the opposite of that you describe: People commute to Paris from the suburbs, and this would not be the case if the scenario was indeed that you describe. Also, in your above comment, you err in your "European Finance Capital" claims - even if Paris wins this battle and it becomes a place of trade for all of Europe, the exchanges there will have nothing to do with the city of Paris' economy, because very little of this money exchanged will be Paris' own. Period.

I see the logic in what you state in the fact that much of the produce sold in Paris comes from its suburbs and factories there, but if you're going to go to those lengths (which you have done to a maximum), you might as well include China and developing countries, because that is where much of Paris' goods come from today. It's all a question of context; where you draw the "economy line": For the Paris page, it should be "what's bought and sold in Paris". The same "where to draw the line" rule goes for population, immigration, density, and even altitude, as you insist on including all information from within borders well to the outside of Paris. If you would like to start an île_de_France_economy page, please do so if it does not exist already. If you were to start a Paris_exchange page, this would be even closer to the subjects you cover. Even if you would like even to start a Paris_greater_region_and_all_trade_within_and_its_GDP_and_its_might_over_the_world page, please do so, because much of what you write in this one is quite fitting for it.

Paris is in no way the thriving capitalist skyscraper'd metropolis that New York or even London is, and pretending otherwise is folly. If Paris' ways are somewhat "backward" to more economically-driven counties, so so be it, but it is because of this that one of its major City per capita sources of income is tourism. And that is what you can call a major attribution to city economy. Information found here should be truth, not a selective choice of information that depicts only the facets you like, that paint a picture of how you think things should be. The Economy section strangely symbolic of this, as it shares the same theme with all else you've chosen to (and chosen not to) fill this page with. No other page claiming to speak about Paris does so like you do, and I can only with difficulty imagine why you choose to, in much of what you have written, try to mislead people into thinking that Paris is similar, in every respect, to the great swaths of its surrounding regions. In nothing you write (apart from your history additions) is there anything about what Paris is or what it contains.

Did I mention I live here, and have done so since fifteen years now? Should I have to tell you that every day I have my choice of five small supermarkets and one larger one in my fifth arrondissement neighbourhood - no matter what surface area toghether they may have combined - , and have seen wherever I should go in this town for as long as I have lived here that most every Parisian quarter has more or less the same choice? Should I have to say that I formulated my suggestions to contain what information that I, foreigner, would have liked to know about this town even before I thought of coming, and, through my experience here, have a good idea what information most foreigners could use about this town? This English "Paris" article will be in its majority read by such people after all. No, I wanted my arguments to speak for themselves, and these arguments are not formulated through encyclopaedias from continents afar. On this subject I have said enough, and normally I need not even speak of it.

I've gone on long enough on the subject in this page and will only be repeating myself if I go further into detail. I will not revert immediately, but intend to when I see fit. Consensus is against you for the time being, as you have two complaints against you and only you yourself see fit to defend your work here. Of course I accept all other opinions on the matter, and I can only have faith in their neutrality of opinion. I am already tempted to call an RfC on this and will do so should the stalling continue.

The icing on the cake was when you express your intent to "improve" your own writing "when you have the time" or when " someone with good knowledge of economics" does - and for this latter titbit, I assume that only you will be the judge ? It is very nice that you state that we should write only about subjects that we specialise in, but, although you claim to know much about much, should you apply this rule to yourself, this page would be strangely empty.

As for myself, what I "do best", and am trying to do here, is presenting information (and rarely my own) in a comprehensible (instantly understandable, if possible), coherent and even attractive (through its presentation and layout) form, and to do so I must understand both the message and its intended target. Because of the title it is under, this page is lacking in coherency and even veracity: This is what motivated me to suggest changes; I have stated this from the start when my proposed changes were minor, and I was not alone in my point of view.

Hardouin, I have to say that I find your attitude and behaviour towards me to be quite distasteful and dishonest. You seem to have much time to spend here, but you have wasted what little time I had intended to consecrate to Wiki through your stalling and dishonesty. I wish only that I had found out sooner that you were the author of all that's misleading in this page, a fact that even you, through your "dissuasion" messages, refused to tell me. You even pretended that it was "others" who would be offended at change, but today the only reverter here is you. It's all too clear that you consider this page "yours" and will do anything to keep it from changing from the theme you have set it to. It is truly a pity when obstinate mediocrity tries to win out over even a discussion on what's better for readers. In all, you've transformed an honest wish to "give back" some of what I got from Wiki into a reams-of-posts-waiting-game-shifty-discussion waste of time. And here again I've been obliged to go on and on and on to defend what normally should be a simple case. Yet I am increasingly convinced that all this is much ado about nothing, and that you are the only one opposing change because much of the work here is yours alone.

Josefu, just go to your local library, get the Encyclopaedia Universalis, go to their Paris article, and read the economy section. Maybe you will convince yourself that the Paris economy is not limited to the administrative city only, and that tourism is by no means the largest component of the Paris economy. Hardouin 10:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hardouin, you can quote any reference you want, but you must place things within context. This is the "Paris" page, not the "Paris_economy" page, and in Larousse there is a "Paris" listing and a "Paris Economy" listing under quite distinct and separate headings. This is the Paris page and Economy should get brief mention here, if at all, at least not under that title. I have re-formulated some of what I have written above so I suggest that you re-read it. I repeat here all the same: I do see the logic in what you write, but if you want to place it here you have to be careful where you draw the economy line. Thinking that yours is way too far beyond its borders, and seeing that you include the trading of Capital that is neither a product of the City (nor remains in the economy of the City itself), I have re-written a "city economy" limited to what is bought and sold within city limits. This is entirely justifiable because this is how the city itself lives.

All the same I do see some ambiguity with what I have written, as perhaps "City Life" would be a better title. There within, even in its header, could be a link to a much more expansive "Paris_Economy" page. If you do decide to make one please try to keep out the "Better than" claims that many find offensive.

---

For any eventual RfC venue that should see this, I propose that you look at the following: Most importantly, the changes I have formulated - I have rewritten an accumulated much over time - but every subject is written for the title it appears under, and I only expect that the content will improve and change later through work not my own. I have developed the article, giving it a start through to a more developed and detailed end, with every successive subject a logical suite to that preceding. Yes, you will find the "Economy" (once here) there too. Ignore the font changes if you will, that was just ten seconds esthetic fun, but if it's liked it can stay. I will be spending some what "time-to-time" time over the next few days I have to port what relevant information this page contains, and I have already begun with the quite well-written, complete and clear Administration section.

You can find the rewrite in my personal sandbox here. Also if you would like to read the "Amiss List" I posted up top of this page, I hope you see some logic in the criticisms there. Excuse the tone in places as I was quite peeved in writing it as, should you care to read the reams of posts I had written lower down in the page, I had just discovered that I had wasted much of my spare time over three months writing them.

And Hardouin, should you be missing the message I left you, the message that you removed from your talk page unanswered before all this even began, you can find it here.

Apologies to all unconcerned parties.

ADDENDUM - I will indeed be re-submitting the Economy section later today under the heading "City Economy" to eliminate all ambiguity on the subject, but before doing so will make modifications in light of Hardouin's criticisms, although he could have done this himself. The present "Economy" GDP diatribe cannot stay, as in addition to its other faults, it has already been moved to Paris_GDP, creating a fork. I also note that one of this page's first contributors has quite kindly corrected my "lower case" error creating the new "Paris_gdp" page, and moved it to a new one. Thanks for that.

Paris Page

Hardouin,

I really can't understand you miring me down in details like this; you seem to have missed the point completely. My first and formemost goal was to restructure the Paris page into a more logical form, and this involves rewriting great swaths of it. If I am alone in making the changes, as my unanswered consensus plea obliged me to be, then of course I will be editing subjects outside my specialty. Yet even if I do make changes, those knowing better could correct, modify and add within the new structure that were the goal of my changes!

In my impatience (and my research during) things did go beyond that. I do not disagreee with you using the "aire urbaine" statistic and resulting GDP estimation in speaking of Paris economy, but not only do you not explain where and how this economy is seated over the Paris region (thus explaining "aire urbaine"), you did not explain what it is! The GDP estimation is a result but where does this come from? What trades? Where? Lastly, taking Paris' GDP and ranking it "above and below" other cities (that themselves we haven't a clue about what they do either) is not what you can call article content. There is no source, no conclusion and it comes across as trumpeting.
This of course leads to using the "aire urbaine" statistics to speak of a "metropolitain Paris" in a way that, accented by your plan, is largely misleading. Paris has tendrils of post-1970's growth stretching past its "petite couronne" along its autoroutes and railways, but it in no way covers the whole territory - much of the "grande couronne" (and more than just "spaces of farmland") is indeed rural. This spread has begun to approach other agglomération "poles" that have existed since even centuries, and the "aire urbaine" statistical criteria has only recently embraced them. You must explain Paris' growth like this or again paint a misleading picture. Again, you must fill out this information with its source instead of just throwing numbers against those of other countries. This is what I mean by context.

Even in spite of the errors it contained, my Economy rewrite contained much more information than yours and was written in a much more structured way, so you were wrong to revert it. Its errors were easily corrigable and you were welcome to make any changes you saw fitting, yet instead you chose to take offense in on my removing the blare from your GDP trumpeting and eliminate it all together. Of course I will take offense at this, and of course it will look to me as though you are but protecting your writ and your POV.

Al the same, I don't hold grudges; It's what you do now that matters and not what you've done. Should you decide to help out in doing a Paris rewrite, your factual knowledge can only concord with my laying out info in a way (and language) that people understand, so together we should be able to make a great page. As it stands the Paris page is but a mass of facts with no start and no end and little understandable connection between them. I am going to "go out for a walk" from all this to regain a clear picture (and get some work done!) but will be posting my conclusions and plans in this matter in a few days. Until then I await your reply.

Cordially,

Josefu 10:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

ThePromenader 17:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)