Talk:Economy of Paris

message: 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)
thread_title: Mediation

message: 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)
thread_title: Anonymous ip

message: 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)
thread_title: Message to 82.45.217.219

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expert tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AOL proxy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  GDP numbers Paris - London 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Applying PPP to metropolitan GDP figures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article Rewrite 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Figures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Table 

message: 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)
replies: text: I do like your version. As for article credibility, I'd have a look at other articles/references on Paris' economy . 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  If I may, what do you mean by "bad"? Are you talking about the trumpeting tone? THEPROMENADER 09:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Rewrite intro 

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  Revert-war XXIV - Working forward from the corrected state. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article is fully protected for 1 week 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've added Fortune Global 500 companies information. Hardouin (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. THEPROMENADER 23:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making the article broader. 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ile de France 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  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  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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified