It is stated that cars are driven on the right, when the United Kingdom is the only place where they are driven on the left. This may have something to do with the country's proximity, but it is excessive detail and somewhat laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.222.173 (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2008 (GMT)
Actually, there are quite a lot of countries that drive on the left. To name a few: Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Thailand, India and Japan. 80.7.186.169 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should put the coat of arms back. How can it be unknown to French people, it's on the front of all French passports! Also if someone wants to know what the current coat of arms of the French Republic is, where do you suggest they look it up?Jarby (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know they were on our passports. Like I said, I didn't know anything about it. The french article about them says that they aren't official, although it does say they figure on our passports. But it doesn't quote any source.
The article about French symbols suggests that the fleur de lys was the only offical coat of arms, although, again no sources are quoted. the same page presents the French logotype, which is used on every government letterhead, and thus fills the role of a coat of arms. (it is used as such in fr:Catégorie:France)
Now, I not dead set on this topic, it's just that when I opened the top page about my coutry and found something I had never heard about, it felt strange. I guess it would be OK to just mention 'unofficial coat of arms', but it would be better to replace it with the logotype--Yitscar (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you thik the intro is too long compared to other countries one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.32.57 (talk) 14:12, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the wording in several articles. I hope that someone with expert knowledge will respond to this comment. I am trying to discover if there is a significant difference under the French constitution and law between metropolitan and overseas departments. I clear unambiguous statement.
Under international law, and the United States constitution, Alaska, and Hawaii, are indistinguishable from the 48 contiguous states. Hawaii is over 3000 km from the rest of the United States but is just as much a part of the country as is Long Island which lies just 4 km from the mainland.
However these articles—France and French overseas departments—leave room for confusion. I found this "Overseas departments—Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion, and French Guiana—have the same political status as metropolitan departments" statement in the article on , Metropolitan France.
Going with that I edited the other two articles. I am hoping that if I am wrong someone will correct these. But this ambiguity has been bothering me for months so I took action today.
French overseas departments have no difference with metropolitan departements. The government representative is also a prefect named by the prime minister, and citizen of overseas departements have elected representatives in both chambers of the French parliament, they also have the same duties and rights as any other French citizen. So yes, French overseas departments are indistinguishable from other French departements, although not part of Europe, they are also part of EU. This is unlike other overseas territorial collectivities (i.e. French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, ...) where the French president is the head of state, but they have their own assembly and only defense, diplomatic representation and to some extent justice are shared with metropolitan France. Blastwizard18:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Differences are tiny, but do exist : article 73 of the French Constitution is specifically covering the status of overseas departments. The specificities : statutes and regulations « may be adapted in the light of the specific characteristics and constraints of those units » overseas ; « units to which this article applies may be empowered by statute to determine themselves the rules applicable in their territory in a limited number of matters » (this second disposition does not apply to Réunion, which can be considered as "more" metropolitan than the three American overseas departments. Hence it is pefectly reasonable to distinguish metropolitan departments and overseas departments. French Tourist20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The football team is regarded as one of the most skillful teams in the world with one FIFA World Cup victory in 1998, one FIFA World Cup second place in 2006, and two European Championships in 1984 and 2000. They were also placed 2nd in the recent 2006 football world cup held in Germany."
It mentions them coming runners-up in the 2006 FIFA World Cup twice; the second mention really isn't necessary. --KatzMotel09:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i tried looking up the individual IPA sounds but combining them hurt my head, can a francophone record his/herself saying the country's name and tack that onto the article? tia! 130.85.249.23605:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to the Encyclopedia Brittanica's entry on France. This seems unnecessary since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, also, and that it is possible that Britannica is trying to get people to switch to their encyclopedia as a primary point of reference. Cool BlueLight my Fire!21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there such a big blue blob to represent French Polynesia on the 'Territory of the French Republic in the world' map?(80.189.121.4000:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Uhhh. European Union Member states EEZ's, does not include overseas territories of members If we're coloring territories by EEZ now, we have a lot of maps to redraw. → —RVJ06:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see your problem. This is a map of metropolitan territories of European Union Member states. French Guiana, which is an integrate part of the French Republic, and about the size of Maine, does not show on this map. And we don't run of circle screaming about it. Rama06:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problems here. I provide the EU EEZ map as an illustration that we do not color territories by EEZ. EEZs are not territorial. We do not even normally color territories by internal and territorial waters, but rather provide a dashed line when relevant. Even so, I don't believe Hoshie is showing us the EEZ around French Polynesia. I have not measured it, but I believe he is showing us the boundary of the sea which legally contains all islands which are French Polynesia. I believe this demarcates internal waters. We don't normally color these in, else Lake Michigan and Hudson Bay would be colored in. Hoshie does seem to recognize this by using a slightly different color than the land masses, though it would be probably still be better represented with a thin blue line surrounding the sea area. —RVJ08:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find a better wording than "claimed territories". This gives the impression that most of the territories are unrecognised claims, while the disputed part is a small territory of no practical relevance. France is not the Bosnian Serb republic. Rama07:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Adelie Land and all of the other territorial claims of France could at least be mentioned in the article. Perhaps a territorial claims section or something. It would save time looking all over wikipedia for Frances territories that may be disputed or unrecognized. And the French Southern and Antarctic Lands? If French Polynesia is mentioned shouldnt they be? I dont know their disputed or recognition status, so it is merely a suggestion. RoyalMate101:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I truly wish that Wikipedians who are not natives of a geographic zone did not insist on writing up completely original articles instead of using the translated information from the country's main language (when possible of course). All information pertaining to a geographic entity that is not consensus within that entity, should be on a separate page. Wikipedias are international with no geographical philosophical attachments, and hence should not create and override content coming from each geographic entity. France should come from the French, Britain should come from the Brits, etc. However, a International view of these geographic locals is completely appropriate, but on a separate page, so as to give a clear comparative view for readers. But that's just me, apparantly, wikis administrators encourage outside POV/facts to mixed in with local POV/facts resulting in coerced and badgered consensus due to demographic weight affecting this illusion of democracy. Not healthy...--Tallard18:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no and no, certainly not, this would be the open door to national bias, there would be too much "Cocorico!" on this page. There is an absolute need for an external view at least to moderate over emphatic style and facts or worse. There are contributions of great quality by non French people on this page, and in many cases an external view is more likely to be neutral. Just get rid of the rubbish written by non French as well as French people, without looking where they come from. Wiki is not a brochure for a travel agency who sells flight and hotel nights to France, let's hear what others have to say, even if it is not that pleasant sometimes, as long as it is true verifiable and not blatantly biased, anyone should contribute to this page. Blastwizard06:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what is it exactly that we so sorely lack on en: with respect to the French article ? The grammatical innovations like "Avec 58 réacteurs nucléaires, toutes exploitées par EDF, la France possède..." ? The polish of it ("Bibliographie A réécrire.") ? The neutral tone ("...elle a influencé les révolutions américaines9, puis la Révolution française a insufflé l'élan et l'exemple démocratique dans le monde entier, développant des valeurs de liberté, d'égalité, de fraternité et de laïcité. La culture française rayonne au-delà du cadre européen...") ?
And fr:France is an excellent article by fr: standards. It is quite factual, generally rather exact and the tone is, in fact, much less lyrical and tendentious than on some other articles. I shiver at the idea of the Breton nationalist oafs propagating the quality of their articles of fr: onto en: being made into some sort of policy, for one example among many. Rama07:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well myself and most of the people I know don't think Brits and Canadians can't write a better article about France than the French, and I don't think Canadians can write a better article about Australia than Australians. The same as I don't want to read the French opinion of the United States or Spain. Assuming that outsiders know better than locals is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. That would be like asking China (being the most numerous of all) to write Britanica's entry on United Kingdom, just makes no sense. Outsiders opinions are of course VERY "interesting", and should be heard, but in a separate forum. So ok, some countries have ridiculous systems, Zimbabwe, China, Sudan, Afghanistan, but it's still their own country. If not by providing a separate forum for outside opinions, maybe at least have some kind of translation tool, so people can access local information and not only Americanised/Francised information. Because that is the reality, French are most numerous in WP:FR so it has a France slant, USers are most numerous on WP:EN so it has an American slant, and so on, there is no such thing as objectivity in these situations, the only option should be plurality instead of forced consensus' by demographic weight.--Tallard12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the ability to write a good article has much to do with your nationality of mother tongue. Much more so with your knowledge of the subject and your ability to write.
Given the standard of fr:, I am not no a hurry to give some sort of proeminence to the people who write there. And as you point yourself, your suggestion will lead to having no information on some countries. By the way, what are you going to do with Britanny, have it described by French people, or Breton nationalists ? If the later, which ones, the pro-nazi ones or the far-left who sleep with the ETA? Rama13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative work, between people with different backgrounds and origins, I would hate the article on France being only written by French people (like myself). The whole point is to obtain neutrality and objectivity (if it can exist), through editions and corrections, and sometimes arguments through talk pages. Granted, French people are more aware of what's going on in their own country, but it is as valuable to have and external view on the matter, which can only be provided by non-French contributors. This can also avoid all lyricism about the "Grandeur" of the country and other chauvinistic rubbish. I'm probably not the only one who is fed up with the schoolboys vandalism, but this is no way a justification to reserve the editing only to French people. First and foremost because it is against the philosophy of Wikipedia. Then because it is technically impossible to prove if an editor is French or not. Finally, it is a form of nationalism, I can already hear the sound of the boots. Blastwizard15:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think is true: "Despite figures showing a higher productivity per hour worked than in the US..." Is there a source for this? If not, it should be removed. Headraine03:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should add this section? All the French massacres and enslavement of North African people deserves that I suppose.
These people were never enslaved. Much as the rest of the Arab world and/or 3rd world, they were colonized.
Compared to the Spanish and England Empires? France did less 'damage' compared to them, yet England sugarcoat it's own history to make it's own history 'positive' and spreading democracy brings 'peace'. Just look at Iraq very peaceful ;) Phu273407:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, wikipedia is not about bashing each other and counting how many skeletons the other has in his closet, it is about facts and neutral point of view. As far I am concerned, I don't think this section should go in the France article, I don't think there are sections in other countries articles listing all their wrongdoings either. On the other hand, a balanced article on colonialism relating specific facts about exactions by all the different colonial empires (Portugal, Spain, Belgium, France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Italy, Ottoman Empire, Germany, ...) belongs to wikipedia. Also, why only Algeria and North Africa? After all, France had colonies in other parts of the world (there are well documented exactions by France in other of its colonies such as Madagascar and Indochina); this looks like a bias from the start. Not a surprise, the suggestion for this section comes from an anonymous contributor whose IP address is in Turkey, this seem to be a recurrent theme amongst some contributors originating from this country. Blastwizard09:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one should care about who did the most or less damages. It's a tragedy anyway. The point is this is supposed to describe France and summarise a bit it's background. Slavery does not make a strong case enough to enter the "history" section here, if we do we'll start having a huge article with neocons claiming for French policy in mideast to be included, Blairist to ask for Gaullism to be described, Turkish to mention the French stance on Armenian Genocide and so on.... Matthieu09:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I do believe numbers are absolutely essential because I know there have been major differences. One can not sweep this stuff under the rug, it must be dealt with, but in a neutral way. I believe all debates on the impacts of colonialism and imperialism should be centrifuged onto one single comparison page (in order to free up Country pages), such a comparison table could include: Number of sq-km conquered, previous ethnic distribution, number of resulting coutnries, native population drop (actual and percentage), common practises, religious attitude, duration of occupation, etc. No objectivity can be reached in colonialism debates looking only at one nation at a time, it must be done in relative terms. Just an idea...--Tallard02:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the paragraph describing the Baroque Architecture I suggest to be introduced a phrase about the French gardens (as the ones developed by Le Nôtre #REDIRECT [[1]]). Even if this is landscape architecture, the main aim was to change and integrate the environment into the buildings by using geometrical patterns to create optical illusions. This is probably the most original French contribution to the architecture. Opinions? BdB-1815:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section on government need to mention that France has a bicameral judical branch (Conseil d'État and Constitutional Council). The two highest courts judge on different section of Constitutionality, decree for the former, law for the later life.
it should be pointed somewhere that the natality control used by france earned it the 1870 defeat against the outnumbering prussian. the demography policy changed france situation from the most populated european country to a medium population country. the shift was completed with germany becoming the new number one (82 million > 64 million). and it lasts today. Cliché Online18:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was never natality control or one-child policy in France. I don't know where you got that idea from. Besides, the gap between France and Germany has been narrowing over the past 60 years. In 1950, Germany (in its current borders) had 68,377,000 inhabitants whereas metropolitan France had only 41,624,500, which means that Germany had 64% more inhabitants than metropolitan France. In 2007, according to official estimates, Germany has 82,310,000 inhabitants whereas metropolitan France has 61,538,322, which means that Germany has now only 34% more inhabitants than France. By 2050, according to official population projections, metropolitan France should have slightly more than 70 million inhabitants whereas Germany should have slightly less than 70 million inhabitants, so France will be the most populated country in western Europe again (it was already the most populated before 1866). Godefroy12:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember it had been removed and now someone else posted it again. I don't remember who removed it but I would tend to agree on him that it's not required here and it making the page too heavy... and it's an encyclopedia, a source of information, not a picture gallery isn't it? I'm considering removing it. While I'm at it I added the comics part, if someone want to proofread it. Someone should do French cinema in the French culture part but I'm too lazy (and it would be too large anyway for me) to do it alone. Matthieu12:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elements in these sections should be moved into relevant subsections IMO. I don't think we should keep these sections as such. Matthieu13:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text, "As of 2003, there are approximately 120,000 inhabitants of France who are living with AIDS [3]" misstates information at its source. It should say, "who are living with HIV/AIDS" or it could accurately read “who are living with HIV.” All persons with AIDS have HIV, but the reverse is not true, so the way the text now reads is significantly inaccurate.
Drl132017:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested that the french territory map be replaced with this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Outre-mer_en2.png and I think it is a sound move as Antartica, as someone pointed out, was internationalized by the Washington Treaty. Also, many other countries claim antartica (Argentina) but their claimed territory is not on their maps in wikipedia as claimed territory isn't territory. Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People15:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the articles says:
"With an estimated population of 64 million people, France is the 23rd most populous country in the world. France's largest cities are Paris, Marseille, Lyon, Toulouse, Nice, and Nantes."
this is not true, the city of "Lilles" is the fourth biggest city of france, far biggest than Toulouse, Nice and Nantes.
a french guy.
Lille metroarea is bigger than Nantes' and Nice's but Toulouse's now no4 (we're realistic here and aren't including Belgium and even parts of Germany in Lille metro of course). Matthieu08:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
anyway, Lilles is far bigger than Nantes an Nice...
I'm sorry to tell you this but Bordeaux is bigger than Nantes ! :-) anonymous
Hey guys, you are not talking about the same thing, the city of Nantes (270,251 inhabitants) has a larger population than Lille (212,597 inhabitants) or Bordeaux (215,363 inhabitants) but its conurbation is smaller (Nantes: 544,932, Bordeaux: 800,000 and Lille: 1.000.900). Blastwizard (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upset about the seventh economy in the world in 2005 reference
In the "Economy" section France is referred to as the "seventh largest economy" in the world in 2005 and as belonging to the G8 group of countries. I believe this is misleading. In nominal terms France's GDP ranks as 6th in the world behind the US, Japan, Germany, China, and UK (in that order). India's Nominal GDP ranking is far below that of France (less than half), India is not part of the G8 and India is still a (albeit rapidly) developing country. The time will come when India's economy will rightfully be included in the list but that time has not come yet.
Agree: I think it should remain 6th as most country pages cite the nominal GDP rather than the PPP GDP. I am going to change this in th infobox. --Mgill03:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
France is not only devalued economically, but also historically. In the History section, the Merovingian as the oldest dynasty have disappeared altogether. Jadawin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.35.253 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It states under "Demographics" that 51% of French citizens consider themselves Catholic, but a few lines under the article also states that "31% consider themselves atheist, while an additional 32% consider themselves agnostic".
The data provided conflicts with itself. Anyone have a good source to end this dilemma?
That kind of statistical conflict is inevitable in this context. Most people don't distinguish between atheism and agnosticism - indeed, there is no single satisfying definition of either of these terms. Furthermore, many atheists/agnostics have been baptized at an early age and consider themselves Catholic for that reason only. So statistics based on asking people about their religious affiliation are extremely unreliable. Attendance at religious events (mass, charities, whatever) is a much more accurate indicator of religious sentiment. --Targeman20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the sub-section titled "Economy of France" to be quite crude in general, limited in scope, and subjective. For instance, the first paragraph describes France as having substantial state involvement in economic affairs (a statement obviously taken from the CIA world fact book). While I don't necessarily disagree with the statement I don't think it is the single best description of the French economy and it depends highly on one's point of view. For instance that statement might be true from an American or British standpoint it is certainly less true from a Continental European standpoint.
Furthermore, I feel that too much attention is devoted on minor points such as productivity, economic policies, unemployment...
while entire sections of a very large economy are omitted (know-hows in aviation, rail, automobiles, defense industry, telecommunications, nuclear technology, construction, oil-drilling, agriculture, glassware, wine making, shipbuilding, retail, just to name a few that come to mind). While I don't expect too much detail in a sub-section of an article on a country I do expect to get to know what people do in this country. In general, the sub-section right now reads too much like a competition among generally rich countries over who is doing better while there is little information about the products that France manufactures and what their core competencies are. One last point concerns the drawn-out discussion and overemphasis on the fact that the GDP per capita of France is 30% lower than the United States. First, why should the US be the benchmark and not Switzerland or Luxembourg (which happens to be higher). Second, is a 30% difference statistically significant if one were to look at a cross-section of all countries. Third, is a 30% difference statistically significant if one were to look at a time-series of the two countries. For instance, the French GDP/Capita was higher than that of the United States in 1980 and just last year the gap was considerably reduced by fluctuations in currency (considerable appreciation of the Euro) and higher recent growth rates. Furthermore, the Economist World in 2007 shows France to have a higher GDP/Capita than the US. My point is that if this statistic is so transient it should be deemphasized.
I find the comment "Symbol of France, the Eiffel tower" (under the picture) quite odd. Maybe it would be a good thing to remind in the comment that it's not an official symbol but more a recognizable sign of France, especially abroad.
In other words, I think the word "symbol" should be changed.
The subject would deserve its own article, but it's tremendously complex and my experience with subjects even remotely linked to Israel suggests that it'll be difficult to work on this. Rama08:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know this would be a question I should probably ask at the geography of france, but much more people see this so here is my question: I need a list of the mountains of france, the Pyrannees the Alps etc. is there a wikipage about mountains, or is there a list of french mountains somewhere?--LtWinters 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Readded the original comment. ^ Aowpr17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence "The Germans established a puppet regime under Marshal Philippe Pétain known as Vichy France" is false.
As noted in the Vichy France article, a vote by the french National Assembly on July 10, 1940, granted extraordinary powers to Pétain... Philippe Pétain was willfully choosen by a strong majority of french députés and sénateurs, and the Vichy regime was established by Philippe Pétain. Arctur16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The regime was tolerated by the Germans because it did not contradict their policies, and they pressured to have their men put in key offices (Laval,...). And its rise was in circumstances less clear than a typical vote of the French parliament. "The Germans established a puppet regime" is oversimplistic, but so is the picture you render. Rama07:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In France 70% of the academic world is using E-mail and internet in their universities. Since the 1980s, France’s high tech grands projets have touched on new areas, such as telecommunications and television. France Télécom was born in 1984 partly as a reaction against Germany’s refusal to share cable technology, and the High Definition Television (HDTV) program was launched in the late 1980s to compete against Japanese technical superiority.
References: The Internet: Its Impact and Evaluation. Contributors: David Nicholas - editor, Ian Rowlands - editor. Publisher: Aslib/IMI. Place of Publication: London. Publication Year: 2000.
France and European Integration: Towards a Transnational Polity?. Contributors: Michel R. Gueldry - author. Publisher: Praeger. Place of Publication: Westport, CT. Publication Year: 2001.
Outrider2dx03:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rd paragraph of the Monarchy to Republic section states: "In the 19th and 20th centuries, its global colonial empire was the second largest in the world behind the British Empire. At its peak, between 1919 and 1939, the second French colonial empire extended over 12,347,000 square kilometres (4,767,000 sq mi) of land. Including metropolitan France, the total area of land under French sovereignty reached 12,898,000 square kilometres (4,980,000 sq mi) in the 1920s and 1930s, which is 8.6% of the world's land area." The Russian Empire, however, substantially exceeded this size at some 22,400,000 km². AnthroGael20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian empire was almost completely metropolitan and was not a colonial empire per se, unlike the British and French empires. Med20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had considered that as a possible explanation. However, I think it is incorrect to characterize Russian Imperialism as not entirely colonial. Apart from the decrease of close to 5.5 million km² of land because of the secession of many "colonized" countries, large and small (Kazakhstan, Armenia, Finland...), even today's Russia is composed of many regions of special autonomy because of historical and ethnic difference their autochthonous peoples contribute. If we include all types of these regions, more than half of Russia's current landmass would be non-metropolitan in terms of the Russian Empire where inorodtsy would not have had political power.AnthroGael00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poland and Finland can hardly be considered colonial territories in the nineteenth century any more than Posen or Galicia were. Simply having non-Russian ethnicities ought not be sufficient for an area to be considered "colonial" rather than "metropolitan." However, the central Asian, Caucasian, and Far Eastern parts of the Russian Empire, at least, can be considered colonial, in that administration of these areas is directly comparable to colonial administration of the other powers. That being said, I would suggest changing the term to "its overseas colonial empire was the second largest in the world," as that would clearly exclude Russia, which had no overseas colonial empire. john k07:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could "Fraternité" be alternatively translated as "brotherhood"? Not that there's any real confusion as to what "Fraternity" really means...I suppose that's nitpicking though. Antimatter--talk-- 05:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
And make it freedom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.234.255 (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for using the best source (as long as it is properly referenced), I put those figures in with a source because multiple people were changing the numbers and without a citation, it's impossible to tell who is right, who is vandalizing, or where the numbers are coming from.... Vrac (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very important to point out that France would have lost both world wars if other countries did not come to its support. It's historically accurate that France's modern armed forces are not comparable to those of the other power countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damnliberals (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page shows the date of formation of the French state as 843, simply listed as "Formation of the French State" (though correctly linked to the Treaty of Verdun.) However, the french-language wiki leaves this as "Independence" rather than "Formation", and lists independence in 843 CE as from the Carolingian Empire. Should the English info box be brought in line with the French one? As is it seems to offer slightly different impressions at first glance, without further research into the main French history article or the Treaty of Verdun. Thoughts? Kirottu82 (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "independence" from the Carolingian Empire in 843 is completely anachronistic. 843 is the formation of the French State as a legal entity, so the English Wiki is better than the French Wiki on that issue. Godefroy (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question about the beginning of the Religion section
It states:
"France is a secular country as freedom of religion is a constitutional right, although some religious doctrines such as Scientology, Children of God, the Unification Church, and the Order of the Solar Temple are considered cults"
That sentence sounds truly strange. "Are considered cults", what? What does that sentence mean by cult? It makes it sound as if "cult" is something lesser and therefore those mentioned aren't really good enough to be seen as religions. I don't think such derogatory use of "cult" is appropriate for a proper article. It sounds awfully like the "folk" meaning of "myth", according to which myth is "lie". Similar case here, the childish folk meaning of "cult" is used. But! If that's not the case and french laws make a distinction between "religions" and "cults" then that should be specifically mentioned! Androg (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, the French government, like the German one, does officially call Scientology a 'cult', or at least something less than a bona fide religion, [2] although I'm not sure about the other sects this article mentions. It should probably be re-worded to say that it isn't us (that is, Wikipedia) who are necessarily considering them to be a cult, but rather the French government. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The French authorities use the terminology of sect for the designation of these groups and are not religions in the eyes of French legislators. There was a parliamentary commission, that was in charge of investigating these groups to evaluate the potential dangers and risks to public order on these sects. Need to find more about it and the findings of this commission, if anyone has references that would be good. Blastwizard (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you're right, but the parlementary commission has been replaced by the http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MIVILUDES. Thoses "cults" (we don't use this word) are watched by secret services, etc. But I heard recently that Scientology is not anymore considered as a sect (I belevied it was concidered as), no cult, just an association "loi 1901" which is a kind of non lucrative association (the standard one in fact). However, the Order of the Solar Temple is a sect, I don't know about the others.
According to the FINANCIAL TIME, the size of the British economy has slipped below that of France for the first time since 1999 thanks to the slide in the value of the pound.
The US, Japan, Germany, China and France all had larger economies than the UK in the third quarter of 2007 – and in 2006.
The figures represented a “political economic cataclysm” for Britain, said Martin Weale, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who noted that the UK government often boasted of Britain’s being the fourth largest economy, and then the fifth largest when China overtook the UK in 2005.
The UK’s demotion to sixth place will put pressure on the government’s reputation for economic competence, particularly as it is Britain’s ancient rival, France, that is moving ahead.
Mr Weale said that, although the change in rank had no immediate effect on British living standards and the UK still had slightly higher gross domestic product per head, the falling exchange rate would crimp income growth compared with overall growth in economic output.
In 2006, the GDP of France was €1,792bn (£1,353bn) compared with £1,304bn for the UK. With sterling worth €1.47 on average in 2006, this put the UK economy comfortably 6.7 per cent ahead of the French economy.
But with sterling’s more than 10 per cent fall against the euro in the past six months to €1.32 to the pound, the UK’s economy in 2008 is now 4 per cent smaller than France.
I have included France's ranking for PPP GDP in the introduction along with its nominal GDP ranking but user:JdeJ keeps removing this information and could be considered vandalism. Signsolid (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I keep removing it. Well, you have proved many times already that you're taking great liberties with the truth. And the truth here is that I've removed it one time. Other users have removed it as well, but that's another matter. And as you have no consensus for keeping it in, your accusations of vandalism are a bit strange. The consensus seems to be the opposite, yet you keep edit warring just as you did on UK yesterday. JdeJ (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason why France's PPP GDP ranking should not be included in the introduction to the article and so creates a WP:NPOV between France's and the UK's GDP rankings. Signsolid (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's your view. I don't agree, neither does Godefroy. And at first, you even deleted the information about France being the fifth largest economy. It was only after Godefroy reverted your edit that you came up with this new one. JdeJ (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just some food for thoughts: You should both look up secondary sources (the CIA factbook, newspapers) and check which ranks are usually given. I am no economist and I have no idea at which rank France is. But if only one rank is given, it might be a better idea to put the second number in the Economy section, and not in the lead (see WP:LEAD). Note that if the revert war continues I won't hesitate to protect the article to a random version, or ask for blocks. -- lucasbfrtalk18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And you discovered that only after France overtook the UK, and never cared about it before. Really, do we have to go through all this once more? We had exactly the same circus yesterday in UK article. As for secondary sources, I've provided a lot of sources. The statement in the article is by Financial Times, but the same info can be found on [msnbc]] [3], Financial News[4], Le Figaro[5]. JdeJ (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think both going on news papers rather than such likes as the IMF, World Bank, and CIA factbook lists makes rankings on Wikipedia very hard to be correct as sources such as news papers that aren't experts or always correct and don't give full ranking lists and may only report on one ranking change and not another end up making rankings on Wikipedia incorrect. All rankings should have been left to the IMF, World Bank, and CIA factbook lists when rankings were undisputable and much more correct. There's even no new GDP figures for the UK and France so ranking who is above who is impossible until the IMF, World Bank, and CIA factbook update their rankings. Signsolid (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also reverted one of the edits you made, ft.com is a very reliable source.
Having said that, I think we should not put too much details in the intro, simply put it as 5th and give more details in the economy section.
PPP should be stated where nominal is stated therefore being WP:NPOV and removing PPP was vandalism of sorts as it gave a one sided POV and shortening the intro was requested if you view the article history. Signsolid (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three questions here
If you claim it was vandalism when various users removed something that everybody except you agreed on removing, what was it the two times you removed sourced contents that everybody except you wanted to keep?
Would you please tell us how many other country articles you've edited to insert both PPP and nominal?
None this far, so if it's so important, why is it just in the the two country articles that I have edited that it is so important and not in any other? JdeJ (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have added PPP next to nominal in the UK article.
It's obvious you're staunchly pro-French from your edits and your zeal for making absolutely sure everyone knows ASAP that the France is now richer than the UK, so you're not fooling anyone least not me. Signsolid (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you once again to a. leave my nationality out of the discussion and b. stop lying about my edits. I've got over 2000 edits on Wikipedia, less than 100 concers anything French. And my first edit on this followed a discussion on the user page. JdeJ (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I ask you to stop lying about mine either being trolling or vandalism or such as not including PPP GDP in the UK article when I had. Signsolid (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The troll accusation was in good faith, after you tried to replace the Financial Times with an anonymous Greek user's home page. I apologise for that if you want to, but surely anyone can understand why I got suspicious. And I explicitly said that you had included PPP GDP in the UK article. I asked why is it just in the the two country articles that I have edited that it is so important. Those two being, of course, France and the UK. And that question remains, just as the two other I asked you. As I don't see how the article benefits from our exchange of words, I suggest a halt. Every user except you has spoken out in favour of keeping the intro in its present form. Having said that, I'll welcome an inclusion of the new IMF report as soon as it is published. JdeJ (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, and the question is a good one! If you browse other country articles on Wikipedia, you won't find it in the introduction for hardly any country. Signsolid never took it any interest in it before an editing dispute with me and as a way to devaluate the position of France as the fifth largest economy, thus using Wikipedia to make a point WP:POINT. However, that doesn't stop your question from being a good one. The answer is that every country article already includes immediately at the beginning of each country article. The GDP PPP is to be found in the infobox to the right of the introduction. As both Godefroy, FFMG and myself have pointed out, there's thus no need for it in the introduction as well. JdeJ (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would add this to the discussion. An article in the very serious French newspaper Le Monde today about France and the Indian economy started with this sentence: "La France, cinquième puissance économique mondiale, ne se place qu'au huitième rang des investisseurs en Inde." ("France, the fifth largest economy in the world, is only the eigth largest investor in India."). Source: [6]. So it seems the fact that France has overtaken the UK and become the fifth largest economy in the world is now widely accepted, Le Monde being rather conservative with new data in general. Keizuko (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon its review on January 18, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. The cleanup tag has been there since long before the article was nominated for GA status, and is valid, as Good Articles cannot continue "Trivia" or related sections. It will need to be integrated into a work of prose before this article can pass GA. Also, given the recent content dispute, stability might be an issue as well, and it would be better to let the article go for at least a week before nomination to demonstrate stability. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP05:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article to state that the French empire was the second largest colonial empire, which it was. I have reworded the GDP ranking wording to a more NPOV and now reads It is a developed country, with the fifth or sixth largest economy depending on source. which has been worded exactly the same on the UK article and has the Financial Times source as a reference at the end and is linked to the GDP rankings article. I believe this gives satisfies both sides until the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, or CIA factbook publish GDP figures for 2007. Signsolid (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signsolid (talk), you are trying to make 2 changes, one of them has been discussed already, (the previous discussion).
As explained already the FT is acceptable and your point is discussed in the economic setion.
You are also trying to change another point in the intro with no reference and/or reason given.
The previous version stating only that France as having the fifth largest economy was implemented by user:JdeJ before consensus was met. The version now implemented is a neutral version which is also in use on the UK article and was agreed to there on the talk page by editors. The size of the French empire as being the second largest colonial empire is fact and universally accepted unless you really think it was larger than then British empire? Signsolid (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is really strange, you are making changes and then _demanding_ that no one reverts them until they are discussed. I am asking you to leave the article alone until the discussion is over.
Most of us seem to agree that FT is a good enough source and that in any case this is only the intro so we need to keep it short. More details are in the economy section.
As for the size of the empire, I don't care what you think, the sentence was 'one of the largest', again it was an introduction.
France was one of the largest and during the Napoleonic ara was probably the largest.
Either way you offer no source and/or reference, just changing a statement.
But again you made changes without any discussion and now are getting upset because I am asking that you revert the changes until the discussion is over. FFMG (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't care what I think? Isn't that assuming bad faith? Simply stating One of the largest is misleading as it does not state just how large exactly. One of the largest could mean the largest or even just the 10th largest. It's common knowledge the French empire was the second largest colonial empire in history after the British empire. Here's a list of largest empires. In fact during the colonial age the French empire was only the third largest empire after the British empire and Russian empire but was the second largest colonial empire. As for during the Napoleonic era the Spanish empire was the largest empire followed by the French empire.
On the economy matter a neutral worded version was reached upon on the UK talk page and was seen as being even more neutral for both the UK and France article used the same neutral worded version. FFMG you seem to be the only editor either here or on the UK talk page who has opposed using a neutral worded version which is used on both articles. Signsolid (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't care what you think, (bad faith has nothing to do with Wikipidia), I care about references, reputable sources, you don't offer any of those.
There has already been a discussion about the economics+introduction but don't want to accept the source(s) given, as you can see in this talk page many disagreed with you. But you don't care about what others think, only your personal agenda matters. And you will revert whoever offers sources that do not agree with you, (and then accuse us of vandalism of bad faith).
You make changes to the articles and then demand that no one reverts them, you don't bother to offer any quotes/reference/source.
I am not sure what agenda you are pushing, but Financial time is a reliable source, (as well as the other sources given in this talk page), but you don't care as it does not reflect what you want.
In any case, I have better things to do than care who is first, second or third. All I want is a reliable article, (this is not one anymore as is uses old source), I am sure another editor will edit your changes in time, but I have no doubt you will revert them over and over. FFMG (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that user Wilhelmina Will has added a few 'problems' tags on the page that cannot be removed until the problems have been discussed.
What problems?
What are we supposed to discuss?
And Where is the discussion about the tags? FFMG (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply removed the tags. The user didn't mention any problem with a single word and seemed to be here only to disrupt/provocate. The user's very derogatory edit comment when inserting the tags make this look very likely. Tags should usually not be removed, but when a user just go around inserting tags that nobody has been discussing and the user doesn't even care to mention any reason for adding them, the situation is rather different. JdeJ (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot have a single thing mentioned without a citation[citation needed]. Too many people are putting in their own opinions and original research. A true vandaliser is someone who just lets them get away with that. I suggest that you do not call me a vandaliser again. Otherwise you will have more money than you could ever dream of spending, but you'll never have enough to pay your medical bills.
If you want the article for France to be so cluttered as it is, then you'd better open up a blogspace and write about it here. It's people like you who are delaying this article - about one of the most glorious countries in the universe - from being a feature in Wikipedia. And I mean that accusation in the nicest possible way. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I shouldn't try and think so much on a Sunday morning, but.
1- I still don't see what the tags were for.
2- I don't understand your threat to JdeJ... you want to beat him up but then give him a lot of money as well?
You're very cute, with your interpretations. No, that was not a threat I gave him, it was a curse. I hope you don't believe in such things, or you might be disturbed, perhaps. Anyway, the tags were for what they read: More citations, a risk of the article possessing original research, and disputed neutrality. It's an observation, but if a lot of the editors to this article are English or low-class Americans, they seem to be living up to their stereotypes, and treating the article as though they hate or dislike the country it's on. Have you seen how many trolls attack this page, or the article? And hold on a minute while I fish for an example of that original research I feared for... Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha- just read this and its really funny. *Sorry back to serious mood* I think the article is fine. Possibly just clean up on a few facts and it will be sutiable. However, if no one comes to an agreement I wouldn't think these 'problem tags' are ever going to come down... ~comment by an guest~
I only skimmed through on these parts, but it seems to me that most of this needs to be cited - either for verification, or simply for the sake of further reading.
1. French people often refer to Metropolitan France as L'Hexagone (The "Hexagon") because of the geometric shape of its territory.
Unless it was a Frenchman or Frenchwoman who added that in, how can we know for certain that they really do? Is this self-made nickname for that region so internationally renowned that it's a surefire fact? Unless one can respond in the affirmative to either question, It needs a citation.
You must be joking right? It is one of the most common ways to talk about France in France. You want a citation? Read any french media, you will find this before long.Med (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. There are various theories as to the origin of the name of the Franks.
A
One is that it is derived from the Proto-Germanic word frankon which translates as javelin or lance as the throwing axe of the Franks was known as a francisca.
B
Another proposed etymology is that in an ancient Germanic language, Frank means free as opposed to slave. This word still exists in French as franc, it is also used as the translation of "Frank" and to name the local money, until the use of the Euro in the 2000s.
C
However, rather than the ethnic name of the Franks coming from the word frank, it is also probable that the word is derived from the ethnic name of the Franks, the connection being that only the Franks, as the conquering class, had the status of freemen. In German, France is still called Frankreich, which literally means "Realm of the Franks". In order to distinguish from the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne, Modern France is called Frankreich, while the Frankish Realm is called Frankenreich.
Now here we're talking about cite-cite-cite-for-crying-out-loud-cite! Some of this might not only be original research, but speculation, also! Two Wikipedia-no-nos riddled into one! It seems like you only walk one paragraph or two down the article and bam! The poor thing is literally kissed with original research! Something has to be done! The original research label goes back till it's done! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite like this part either. I wrote the following part with the reference to Capetian France and had it been only up to me I would have removed the first part because not only it lacks of references or citations but I'm not sure it is entirely correct (maybe only partly or it only represents a certain view on the events). Matthieu (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Been too long, so Removing OR section tagging... use a {{fact}} tag instead of shitty IN-YOUR-FACE tag for nit-picks like these. Don't disrupt the project with such when it really doesn't matter a hill of beans. That the Romans refered to the Franks with some congnate is beyond contestation, and that certainly implies they call themselves something along the same lines.
On A: The Francisca hypothesis is as likely as any... though maybe a chicken and egg quandry—that particular weapon was derivative of the axe as a tool, and Europe was heavily wooded until the High Middle Ages, and the Germanic tribes were all pretty good iron workers.
Should someone pin any of this down, add a note here to close out the section, including citation data. // FrankB16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the above. France has never classified people according to race, and I think it's wise. It's a country that since the beginning of time has seen a mix of Basques, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Franks, Moors, Burgundians and many more. In other words, it's a country just like any other :) France has usually regarded those who live in France, speak French and more or less follow a French way of life as French without caring about background. There are of course statistics about the number of people with foreign passports, but that's another matter. JdeJ (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the ideal case :) You have to be fluent in French, of course. I don't think there's any country in the world where you're seen a fully integrated in society despite not being fluent in the language(s) of that country. It's as hard being accepted in France without speaking good French as it is to be accepted in the UK or the US without speaking good English. Apart from that, I'd say yes. JdeJ (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that France is the oldest unified state in Europe is quite false, even in to the 1400 France was a mixture of Dukedoms with loyaties to different Kings. One could say that Britain was the oldest unified if only for a few years under Arthur etc but this would ignore the true facts. The failure of France for centuries was in the very opposite of this statement had it had a unified state with a degree of unity then it would have had far greater influence on the history of the middle ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.254.223 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is moot since the king of England was a vassal of the king of France until the 14th century. Ever wondered why your motto is in French? Why your language is saturated with French-originated words? Why most of your nobles have French names?
The economy section, (and the intro), is a joke really. Every time a change is made then someone reverts it. Any changes are ignored, rejected or some proviso is added, (look at the 5th vs 6th discussion above).
All that so the perceived rankings of one country or another is not changed. But by all means you are welcome to try and change it. FFMG (talk) 07:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
France GDP(nominal)for 2007 is 2.5 trillion???? Can someone put it in the economy section? What appears now is that Spanish or Italian GDPs(per capita or PPP) are higher than the French one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.196.170 (talk) 10:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated in the intro that France's main ideals can be found in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. But it's not it - one needs to add that main ideals are also stated in France's motto : Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (or in French : Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité). I cannot edit the article yet as it is semi-protected but if you someone could do it that would be great. Thanks,
Sir Selrak, 3/04
I'd rather change that if there was a citation available, but just so you know; to properly sign your signature after your comments, just add four tildes in a row (four of these: ~). Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even during German occupation there was a French sovereign state based in Vichy, ignoring that fact would lessen the responsabilities of the Vichy regime. Blastwizard (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been mentioned before, I think, but seems to me that 'brotherhood' would be a much better translation than fraternity. Merriam-Webster's, in the definition of 'fraternity' denotes that the sense of the word as a group or brotherhood as more significant than than as a sense or feeling of brotherhood. In the definition of 'brotherhood,' however, no such distinction is made.He Who Is[ Talk ]05:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary cites brotherhood as synonym for fraternity, and sounds like a dodgy translation. As the English contains nearly a third of words of French origin (via Normans invaders) it is most likely that the word fraternity comes from the French word fraternité and therefore is the most appropriate translation. Broterhood on the other hand is probably the equivalent word of saxon origin, as english there are numerous cases of synonyms words with one of French origin and the other of saxon origin. Sometimes the meanings have diverged slightly, that is the case with the meat and the animal it comes from. Blastwizard (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the section about France and Hip Hop, (here), because, to me, it sounds more like a political statement than a section about music in France. Maybe all it needs is to be rewritten from a more neutral point of view.
I am also not sure why it compares the music to the US racial problems, the two musics are not really the same. FFMG (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is write at the end of the fourth paragraph that either the "offenses against the public decency" or the "breach of the peace" have been used to repress public expressions of "homosexuality" !?
In France, homosexuality is protected by the laws. That means you can show public expression of homosexuality as well as heterosexuality...
Moreover, every discrimination about the homosexuality is seriously repressed as well as the racism for example.
I think what you mean it's that obscenities or sexual demonstration in public places are repressed (for both homosexual or hetero...).
If you talk about a past situation (what means I misunderstood), this sentence maybe need a date or another time indicator to emphasize this is abolished (like it's done for the "sodomy laws" just before it).
I'm hoping someone familiar with 20th Century French history will look at this. "In 1956, the then French prime minister proposed for France to become part of the United Kingdom." This is quoted from the article Commonwealth of Nations. Is this true? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's not true. At least not in that sense. No proposal was made for France to "become part of the United Kingdom". Neither was any such proposal ever officially made. It should also be kept in mind that the prime minister in France doesn't correspond to the British PM. All in all, the proposal itself is highly noteworthy but should not be described as more than it was. JdeJ (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So is it fair to say the idea of the two countries joining was discussed in private meetings and that records of those meetings were kept secret for fifty years. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not about France joining the United Kingdom but to create a new state called the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and France. That's not so stupid, until the Treaty of Amiens the name of England was sometimes known as United Kingdom of England and France because the Kings of England claimed to be King of France. Matthieu (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"France was the world's foremost power from the latter half of the 17th century until the early 19th century" in the opening seems to be very open to debate. I think it should be removed. Lord of Light (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! It should at least have a citation needed tag placed on it! Could someone do it please, I am unable to edit due to being a new user. Joe Deagan (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just come back from a couple of weeks in France, Sauze-Vaussais, south of Poitier to be precise, and was told by a local that their accent and dialect was very similar to that spoken in Montreal. What with my poor French, I could not ask for any more detail, could it be that the French spoken there has not changed as much as it has in other parts? Joe Deagan (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Québecois and the Acadiens came from the western provinces of France : Normandie (Normandy in english?), Bretagne (Britonny?), Poitou and Saintonge. They arrived in America with the dialects of these provinces. Indeed, as this town -- Sauze-Vaussais -- is located south of Poitiers therefore in Poitou, your local was right. Excuse my english...
I am an editor busy on the Germany article. There, we recently had the discussion on whether to use the orange or the green map. Most contributors simply like the style of the orange version more and so it will (for the time being) remain our type of locator map. However, to me it was very surprising to find out that more EU countries (the ratio is 2:1) actually use the green version. So, I was wondering whether this is done on purpose, because you prefer the green version? Or would you like to change? Tomeasytalk15:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you changing it though. It was fine in green....just leave it. Most of the European Union maps are green anyway so I dont understand why you would just change perfectly fine photos. The green looks much more professional as it does not include the nation's totpgraphy which is good. Galati (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Galati[reply]
Why do you speak up so late? I think there was enough time for you to voice your opinion before anything changed. Only when I changed the map you entered this talk page, and that too while immediately reverting my edit. This is bad manners, I gave everyone enough time to discuss this here before I changed the map. Now that it was changed after sufficient time without any objection, I think we should have this discussion while the orange map stands. Tomeasytalk11:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does this matter? The fact is is that the map was fine before. I dont know why you have to bother it. Just because you like the map does not give you the right to change what was there originally. It should just be left in the green like 66% of all EU countries. The fact that the others are green are good enough to show the popularity of it. I am reverting it back to the green because that is the way it was before and there was never an argument. Galati (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Galati[reply]
It was simply a suggestion. Cut him some slack. I personally think it looks better in orange, the borders are easier to see and it is more detailed. RoyalMate102:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recrntly the new france president aslo to do silly things, lech,unmanners and likes follow an American likes dog. So why that man became France president? Do you think the Franceman was mutt? I don't know,so I want people discussioning~!! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.82.219.207 (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am observing some kind of edit war between user: Keizuko and user: Signsolid. Casus belli appears to be the extend by which the French role in WWII is reported. I would like to motivate both of you to exchange your arguments here rather than reverting your respective edits. Perhaps we can find something on which we can all agree.
I think that the two versions advocated by these users are both extreme, i.e., one reports too much and the other one too little. Naturally, this makes it easy for the opponents to wipe out the other proposition. Therefore, we should focus on establishing a solution that is legitimate and consistent in itself, rather than pointing out the limitation of the other propositions.
I agree with Keizuko that the part on WWII should not get out of hand, and I agree with Signsolid that some things need to be said on this article. Just take a look on other European country articles to see how much could be appropriate.
From my point of view the information conveyed has to include: The period 39-40, a declared war with little fighting; the blitzkrieg campeign and occupation, Vichy and resistance; the liberation 44-45; and the French status as a victorious nation.
I suggest you make a background check on Signsolid. If you check the history of his edits, you'll see he's a British nationalist who makes numerous edits agrandizing the UK, its army (one of his pet themes), its economy, etc. In the past this user has engaged in some large scale edit wars, notably at United Kingdom because he didn't like the fact that the article contained a reference to the Financial Times which reported that the French economy has passed the UK economy due to the fall in the sterling pound. Also an edit war at List of countries by military expenditures where he couldn't stand the fact that France has now a larger military budget than the UK (who cares! apparently he does). Or another edit war, with sockpuppets, at Fortune Global 500 where he just can't stand the fact that Fortune Magazine lists Shell as a Dutch company. His British nationalism seems to be matched by his francophobia. It was quite obvious in his edits 2 weeks ago when he replaced all the pictures of the history section with images of French defeats (100 years' war, Waterloo, Hitler in Paris in 1940; see his edits here: [7], [8], and [9]). In the past it has been very hard to engage in reasonable discussion with this user, not just for me, but for several other editors as well (ask the people who discussed the UK GDP passed by France at Talk:United Kingdom), so I doubt it's going to be easy to discuss things reasonably with him here. Keizuko (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this background information. I am happy to hear that he is at least not a German nationalist as I was afraid considering the added content ;-)
Anyway, I am looking forward to read any of his arguments with good faith. I have not had bad experiences yet, so that is the least I have to offer. If this turns out to be in vain, then we will still be two people here who can talk the issue over reasonably.
So, let's have it about the content now. Do you think the list of contents I proposed is too long? If so, what would you chop? Tomeasytalk17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the previous version was slightly too long but Keizuko's version removed almost all mention of World War I & II, and considering this was one of the most important period's in France's history. Stating France was occupied by Germany is not nationalism, it's fact and common sense. Removing all mention of any French defeats from France's history is nationalism. Besides I've included France was occupied by Germany in the history section now and only added a few extra words to do so. Signsolid (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only the metropolitan part of France was occupied, so I've made that clear. Tomeasy, concerning the points you've listed, I think it's too detailed. We shouldn't go into detailing Phoney War, Blitzkrieg invasion, Occupation, Liberation. The history section ought to remain a brief summary of a history that spans over 2,000 years, not just 100 years, and there are already numerous detailed articles about France in WW2. More generally, I think the history section is poorly written. Some events are detailed too much (like the Indochinese War, which in such a short historical summary deserves only a brief note in a sentence about decolonisation), while others are completely missing from the section, like the great economic expansion between 1945 and 1974, the so-called Trente Glorieuses, which is much more important to today's France than the two world wars (as bloody as these wars were). There is even some factually wrong information, like that sentence about the 4th Republic struggling to maintain the economic status of France, when it's actually the opposite: France experienced its greatest economic expansion under the 4th Republic and then under de Gaulle and Pompidou. So there is lots of rewriting that needs to be done. Keizuko (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The length of a section is always a relative thing. Therefore, it helps to compare. As you've already mentioned other issues are treated in much more detail. I do not see why the Algerian issue takes more space than WWI and WWII together. Remains the question how much space should we allocate to this section in absolute terms.
I have looked up other European country articles and France is among the shortest. Talking about WWII it is the shortest. Not surprisingly Germany and also Italy deal the subject in much greater detail. But also on the UK and Poland article WWII receives significantly more attention. At last Belgium and notably the Czech Republic report on WWII extensively. And those were just and exclusively the countries looked at. So, in terms of Wikipedia standards it appears inappropriate to beat down both WWs here with merely one sentence. Tomeasytalk23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An image used in this article, File:Treaty of Rome.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This only tells the tale of one version of France, which competes with others. Catholic France is marginalised for the sole view of Masonic France. I'm not sure if this section is even needed, or if it is should be stripped of politicised content and left to simple descriptions. Rí Lughaid (talk) 07:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? There is no mention of freemasons in the article! The society section mentions only facts that are sourced... If you think there is a mistake or someting missing, could you precise what exactly? Thank you. Eleventh1 (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mention them, but presents their philosophical worldview in a subtle way through euphemisms such as "tolerance". Under the picture of Voltaire in that section, we are told he "fought intolerance and fanaticism," despite the fact that he himself was an anti-Catholic masonic fanatic, who ended every letter with "crush the wretch" in reference to Jesus Christ. Rí Lughaid (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you are very well informed about the issue : Voltaire only became freemason just before his death and he is generally seen as the very opposite of a fanatic (and the quote écrasez l'infâme is not directed toward the Christ himself but rather toward the clergy and the superstitions of his time). His ideas and, more generally, the ideas of the enlightenment and of the revolution are deeply rooted in French modern society and it is why they are present in this section. Catholicism is present in the section about religions and, implicitly, in other parts of the text like the one about architecture. Eleventh1 (talk) 12:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The formal name of the country is the French Fifth Republic, not simply the French Republic.
The French First Republic existed after the the monarchy was abolished but before the dictatorship of Robespierre. The French Second Republic lasted from the overthrow (and assassination) of Robespierre until Napoleon came to power. The French Third Republic lasted from the overthrow (and exile) of Napoleon to World War II. Established in 1945 when Nazi occupation ended, the French Fourth Republic was a tripartate (3 branches) republic like the USA, as opposed to a parliamentary republic as is typical in Old World Europe. Apparently the experiment failed, as the Fourth Republic was abolished in 1958 to create a parliamentary Fifth Republic.
No the Liberté in the motto of the French Republic, is actually Liberty, as it means the freedom of opinion, it is a political concept and doesn't imply freedom; as it would mean people are free to do whatever they like, which is not true, that would be in contradiction with the rule of Law. Blastwizard (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The long list of 'regional languages' listed in the infobox...
The list alongside the "regional languages" parameter in the infobox is very long and it doesn't match up with the languages listed in Languages of France. Exactly which languages are officially recognised (I see the list is titled "official and not official", should that be unofficial?) and which ones can we remove and clear up? Articles like Guadeloupe and French Polynesia only list French as official and AFAIK only the official languages need to be listed in infoboxes. -- PeterTalk page19:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one language officially recognised and it's French. France is one of the few countries where the official language is enshrined in the constitution. Regional languages are not recognised as official, however they may have a particular status recognised by the state as being part of the cultural heritage and can be taught in some schools as a second language. Regional languages can also be used on road signs, for example, alongside the French language.Blastwizard (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a /t/ in the English pronunciation, thus /frants/ or /frɑnts/. You can't say it without it. If you try to say it without a /t/, you say /franz/ which isn't how it's said. In case you doubt it, say it slowly and listen for the plosion after the /n/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Coat of Arms of Brittany (see right) is missing in the Administrative divisions paragraph. I would try to edit an add it but I am completely lost how to do this. Hopefully someone who knows how to do it will dot it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Very minor edit request: in the Development Aid part of the Politics section it says, "The organism managing the French help...". This should be "organisation" rather than "organism" - an organism would be a specific plant or animal, whereas an organisation could be an administrative or statutory body, which seems to be the sense intended here.
Meanwhile, China has one (that the gov't counts)! Go Europe!
Fwiw, France actually has 61. Those asterisks mean the people left, did their work elsewhere, and didn't come back (i.e., are "French" the same way — even much less than — "France"'s award for Gao Xingjian is "Chinese"). — LlywelynII02:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was a puppet state and a short-lived one, the Second Mexican Empire probably doesn't warrant being included in a lede section that omits Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, Philip II, and Napoleon. All the same, the fact that France not only "intervened" but briefly puppeted one of the world's major countries deserves more mention. — LlywelynII02:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know the full argument for this is lost somewhere else in admin or MOS land in the metawikis, but feel free to add my voice there to the people who think adding pronunciation to such common articles is an insane disservice to the Wikipedia.
If someone can't read "France" already, they can't read the rest of this article and should be at simple:France.
If someone can't read "France" already, they can't read IPA. Hell, Americans can't read IPA.
This material belongs at wikt:France, not cluttering the lede here. [A good compromise would be to link the bolded headwords directly to their Wiktionary entries. It could also be used for the mass of translations that sometimes builds up as well, although sometimes (eg, Chinese pages) the translations and alternate romanizations include very relevant information that should be included in the encyclopedia entry anyway. Regardless, that's certainly not the case here.] — LlywelynII02:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither here nor there, but the mess is also buggy: my updated Chrome browser w/way too many fonts displays the English IPA fine and then goes on to show French: [fs] and French pronunciation: [epyblik fsz]. I can cut and paste it elsewhere to see it, but just another reason (aside from the bad formatting that gives English no colon, but French one; puts the sound file before the English pronunciation with no comment, but after the French one with a "listen" tag; &c.) that this belongs at Wiktionary. — LlywelynII03:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As France's overseas regions are universally considered integral parts of the French Republic, of equal status to any regions in Metropolitan France, I contend that this article's Geography section should reflect this. Currently, the second paragraph erroneously refers to these five regions as territories; elsewhere on Wikipedia they are referred to as full-fledged departments and regions (currently, each region is coextensive with a single department), in keeping with, to my knowledge, the unanimous understanding of the international community.
I know that's all pretty long, but it's actually a stunningly complex geopolitical situation (France occupies more time zones than any other country in the world, to put it in some perspective), and I'm trying to strike the right balance between concision and depth. Either way, it's in your hands now, registered editors, so have at it! I don't mind if you don't use my suggest paragraph, but you do have some factual errors when it comes to the political status of parts of France, regardless.
This is just a full disclosure per WP:SOCK: I made this edit request shortly before creating my account; I now plan on touching up this section a bit more, but all concerned editors should be aware that these are not two separate editors, that any changes I make should be considered contiguous with any implemented upon my proposal as an IP, and that I do not in any way intend to misrepresent this situation as the consensus of two independent accounts. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler)01:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone mind if I changed the footnotes style to a "note 1," "note 2" type? I just added a footnote, and since it's the twelfth to be added, it reads [l], which looks more like a code error than a footnote. Furthermore, we should take into account this is a very high-visibility page, and thus likely to be read by some of the least Wikipedia-familiar readers, who might not know the difference between a lettered footnote (explanatory) and a numbered one (referential); saying "Note X" is clearer. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler)03:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From page four:
Le champ géographique du bilan démographique de 2011 reste la France métropolitaine et les DOM, mais sans Mayotte, dont la transformation en département d’outre-mer date du 31 mars 2011. En ajoutant les 803 000 habitants des collectivités d’outre-mer et de Mayotte, la population des territoires de la République française au 1 er janvier 2012 est estimée à 66,2 millions d’habitants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.15.69 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not the 'Republic of France' or 'French Republic' the English translation of the French name, if so, why does not the title of the page reflect that? ÓCorcráin (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French Republic (république francaise) is the official/formal name, but "France" is the common, colloquial name. The use of "french" (to describe the Republic) already implies that the common name is France. The constitution also uses "France" in parts. -- HazhkTalk to me16:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello,
I work for the Information Service of the French government.
I wish to propose the external link for France.fr, the official french website.
Here is the URL redirection in English version : http://www.france.fr/en
Here is the appropriate title: "The official french website"
The link can be in "Government" paragraph
Thank you in advance.
Best regards.
I looked at the link in question. While it looks like a commercial site at first glance, the "Legal" section of the website states "The contents of this site, published by the Service d’information du Gouvernement (SIG, Government Information Service)..." (emphasis added), which leads me to believe the OP's claim that it is a government website. I will leave this edit request open for others more familiar with this article to decide whether it is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk15:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please check the external links being added by the user (see contribs). Clearly the purpose of the account is to promote the website. I should mention this at WP:ELN but it would be handy if someone with knowledge in this area could comment on whether the links are helpful for the articles (they don't seem to satisfy WP:EL to me). Johnuniq (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request to fix past tense of "last" to "lasted"
Could an established editor please fix the following fragment:
"the civil war between the Bleus (the "Blues", supporters of the Revolution) and the Blancs (the "Whites", supporters of the Monarchy) last from"
The past tense of "to last" is "lasted" (since it refers directly to the singular "war"):
"the civil war between the Bleus (the "Blues", supporters of the Revolution) and the Blancs (the "Whites", supporters of the Monarchy) lasted from" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.106.37 (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the intro it says "...and the third-largest in Europe as a whole". Isn't it the fourth largest country behind Russia, Ukraine and Turkey, as long as Turkey is considered European? Jørgen88 (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The population figures in the infobox are extremely confusing. Why do we need separate figures for overseas and metropolitan France? Also, on the main page of Insee the population is listed as 65,800,000. And why, in the infobox, does it say 'overseas territories excluded' even though the only overseas territory, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, has no permanent population? Liam987(talk)17:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Bonjour,
La république est un échec, merci de modifier la page et d'attribuer la France au Royaume à qui elle revient de droit depuis plus de 1000 ans, vous êtes priés aussi d'enlever toute référence aux juifs et au christianisme, vous en avez sûrement inventé les trois quarts en plus. Autrement vous êtes un agent des juifs et vous serez traités en tant que tels.
Not done: Google Translation of the above comment follows:
Hello, The republic is a failure, thank you to modify the page and assign France and the United entitled to it right for more than 1000 years, you are also asked to remove all references to Jews and Christianity, you probably have invented three quarters more. Otherwise you are an agent of the Jews and you will be treated as such. Sincerely Frijouworld (talk) 8:32 am, Today (UTC-7)
Based on that I am closing this edit request as a vague comment to the accuracy of this article with no specific request to edit the article. —KuyaBriBriTalk15:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to edit a protected page on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I think it's valuable that I point out an error that I have just found. TV5MONDE is NOT a Franco-German television channel, it's a worldwide Francophone channel (Quebec, France, South Belgium, Switserland, and all other French speaking regions and countries). I think that the one who wrote that confused TV5MONDE with ARTE. ARTE is the only Franco-German television channel (and a very very very very very very very good one as a matter of fact) that I know of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.249.20 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a copy and paste from same conversation as at Talk:Italy#Defining Italy - were third parties have posted
Could the pro-European Union Wikipedia editors calm down a little bit? The European Union is NOT a country; it's just an organization.
A country or sovereign state usually has all its member states use the same currency. The United Kingdom has opted out from using the euro, and chances are it will withdraw from that organization soon or later.
You can't just define France as a "republic within the European Union," though you may explain later that the country is a member of this organization.
Therefore I'm changing the definition to "a republic in Western Europe." --Nosugarcoating (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to your edit. This is your private opinion. We know, EU is not country (anywhere in Wikipedia does not say that this is country) and this is not "just" organization. EU is a'la supranational entity, similarly to federation, operates on the similarly principle as the country. Topic about UK and euro is not related to this because EU is not country. Could the anty-European Union Wikipedia editors (including you) calm down a little bit? Subtropical-man (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, you have decided to stalk me by following all my edits. I won't even say anything as I know you're just looking for trouble. Meanwhile, I have to leave this message just in case: (I'm using the UK relevantly as an example because it is also a member of the EU) the UK is a country that is a member of the EU, however the UK isn't defined as "a republic within the European Union." Uniform style is a known style of Wikipedia. It's enough that it is explained later that the countries are members of the EU, but you can't just start the first sentence of the definition as "a republic within the European Union." I also believe the recent Oxford dictionary definition of each European country is accurate (which doesn't say they are republics within the European Union). The EU is also not a federation, no matter how close it looks like or you wish it to be. Have a nice day. Stay away from trouble. It seems I need to inspect all articles that mention the EU to make sure things are presented accurately. Nice to meet you. I'm a citizen of United Nations confederation. Ha! No, I'm a citizen of the United States, a real federation, a real country with all states using the same currency, and a real superpower :) --Nosugarcoating (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "can't just start the first sentence...", no, you wrong, one can. United Nations is organisation, mode of action is very different from USA or EU. You wrote: " I'm a citizen of the United States, a real federation, a real country with all states using the same currency, and a real superpower" - I guessed, had to be a reason for this anti-EU behavior. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is perfect to define France the way it's been defined by reputable dictionaries. It's perfect that within the article there's a description that France is a founding member of the EU. The article is very okay the way it currently is. Oh and, even though I'm American, I support the EU. I have British relatives in Europe. The UK has its own monarch, so that disqualifies EU's status as confederation or federation. The British Empire had only one emperor or monarch, and none of the member countries had its own separate monarch. The USSR had one centralized Head of Government, and all the member countries adopted and used the same Soviet currency. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "The UK has its own monarch, so that disqualifies EU's status as confederation or federation" - no, does not disqualify. You have very little knowledge of political science. It does not matter. A federation is a political entity characterized by a union of self-governing states. Simple. Your text about British Empire and USSR is littering discussion. You still repeating the same nonsense. Status of UK anyone not interested here. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is like arguing with a child. I'll just walk away and watch the articles instead. Remember my promise in case you vandalize the articles. You won't hear from me in this section again unless I'm required to. I have to put this into the hands of more experienced editors, to make sure the articles are not vandalized. Thank you and goodbye. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
(Collapsing texts is new to me actually.. how do you do that?) You can add my text to the collapsed group.[reply]
The current readable prose size is 108 kB (or 17,401 words), of which 23 kB (3660 words) are in the history section, and 34 kB (5593 words) in the culture section. A high word count is rarely a virtue, or an indication of an article's quality: if an article grows too much, there is a progressive accumulation of dubious, unsourced, or even nonsensical material that is greatly detrimental to the overall quality. A full reading of this article at average reading speed would require 1 to 1:30 hours, which means it is probably rarely checked for inconsistencies or mistakes in its entirety. Featured articles about countries rarely exceed 8,000 words when they are promoted. A Wikipedia guideline offers a rule of thumb (WP:SIZERULE), according to which anything over 60kb of readable prose "probably should be divided".--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge problem with a map caption: it says "Territory of the French Republic.a" But Guiana isn't a "Territory of the French Republic", which is a legal term; It's an Overseas Department" (département d’outre-mer) which, unlike a pays d'outre-mer such as French Polynesia, is considered as part of France as Iowa is the United States of America.
I don't know how to quite fix the caption, as to remove the map completely would leave out Overseas Departments all together, and under French law, Overseas Departments are fully integrated into the French Republic, so not representing them for sake of convenience wouldn't be telling the whole picture...
There is a huge problem with a map caption: it says "Territory of the French Republic.a" But Guiana isn't a "Territory of the French Republic", which is a legal term; It's an Overseas Department" (département d’outre-mer) which, unlike a pays d'outre-mer such as French Polynesia, is considered as part of France as Iowa is the United States of America.
I don't know how to quite fix the caption, as to remove the map completely would leave out Overseas Departments all together, and under French law, Overseas Departments are fully integrated into the French Republic, so not representing them for sake of convenience wouldn't be telling the whole picture...
I suggest that "kinship" is a misspelling of "kingship"
Charles IV (The Fair) died without an heir in 1328.[39] Under the rules of the Salic law
adopted in 1316, the crown of France could not pass to a woman nor could the line of
kinship
pass through the female line.
There is a one paragraph on climate in this article. Not sure if there used to be more, but I'll check into it. In the meantime, I've added a section heading and adjusted the redirect link. Rivertorch (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on a project for Cornell, as a newbie to Wikipedia, with the topic of Bread . I found this great article from the Today Show about the decline of the baguette culture in France. I think this would be a great addition to this page! This is the link to the article Today ShowBthuglas (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you click to hear the national anthem, the words underneath scroll by in Spanish. I would assume that they should be in French.
Melfal (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a little strange, isn't it? I'm guessing that the sound file was created by someone active on the Spanish Wikipedia, although it is used on wikis of various languages (and also here on en.wp in the article on the anthem). There is another version available on Commons, but it is of an inferior performance and has slightly poorer sound quality. I have no idea how to edit an .ogg file to change or remove the text. Do you think we should just use the other version or would it be worthwhile to seek out someone who can edit the current file? Rivertorch (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"France does not recognize religious law, nor does it recognize religious beliefs or morality as a motivation for the enactment of prohibitions. As a consequence, France has long had neither blasphemy laws nor sodomy laws (the latter being abolished in 1791). However, "offenses against public decency" (contraires aux bonnes mœurs) or disturbing public order (trouble à l'ordre public) have been used to repress public expressions of homosexuality or street prostitution. With such emphasis on public order, laws sentencing racism, sexism or antisemitism are also old and important. For instance, laws prohibiting discriminatory speech in the press are as old as 1881.[93] Some consider however that hate speech laws in France are too broad or severe and damage freedom of speech."
This has to be removed, or at least re-written, because it is incorrect, and not supported by the source given. The fact that France does not recognize religious law is true, this can and should stay. The fact that is doesn't recognize 'morality' as a source of law is not. If so, why was adultery illegal until 1975?? Even worse, why were 'children born from adultery' discriminated in inheritance up until 2001(!), when France was forced to change its law by the European Court of Human Rights[11][12]?? In regard to sexism, which is addressed here - France was one of the last Western countries to recognize the rights of women - vote for women only in 1944, women could not work without the consent of husband until 1965, leniency for 'crimes of passion' under the Napoleonic Code etc. Let's not even open this subject... Also the source given does not support what the paragraph is saying, it only explains some laws against racism and antisemitism. I'm removing the paragraph.Skydeepblue (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added information from William Godwin concerning Pope Sylvester II; the articles for England and Poland both mention their first popes; and the article on Italy mentions Leonardo da Vinci 6 times. Either as the first French pope or for his discoveries of Islamic sciences Gerbert d'Aurillac should be mentioned. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one that finds the introduction to be too muddled with super-relatives? Granted, some of them are merited, but it seems like too much at the expense of a brief summary of French history (compare to the UK, Canada, or Germany for example). Thoughts? --Zurkhardo (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to ask to the Wikipedia editor of France, that add to the principal and also in the corespondent economy section, that this country is not just the 9th economy by PPP, France is the 5th economy of the world by nominal index and actually is the official and principal index to midd the economy. Thank you and wait for your answer.--NY89 (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The hymn has spanish subtitles instead of french. Is that intentionally?
It's embedded within the file, probably because it was intended for the Spanish Wikipedia; so it can't be changed without uploading a new file. In future, please sign your comments with 4 tides like this: '~~~~' (without the quotes), and start new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 23:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Reaching its height during the 19th and early 20th centuries"
'The intro states that "France has been a major power in Europe since the Late Middle Ages, reaching its height during the 19th and early 20th centuries, when it possessed what was then the second-largest colonial empire, and one of the largest in history.
I guess this is true in terms of the amount of land under French control, but France was not as dominant a power on the European stage during this time as it was under Louis XIV or Napoleon, when it was clearly the most powerful state on the European continent. The 19th century (post-1815) was a period of French demographic and military decline vis-à-vis Germany. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The summary section of the France article states total area is 640,679 km2.
The body states:
The European territory of France covers 547,030 square kilometres ... France's total land area, with its overseas departments and territories (excluding Adélie Land), is 674,843 km2.
So, how is the number 640,679 determined? KathonWiki (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excludes overseas territories and collectivities. Many editors are unwilling to accept that these are part of France. Should be corrected to figure in body (674,843 km2). Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 17:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please use Template:cite book. If you need to pull the information from online, the easiest way to do it without using a spamlink is to find the work on Google books and use this utility to convert it to an acceptable reference: http://reftag.appspot.comJay Dubya (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
Done FFMG (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Done Mcewan (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Google Translation of the above comment follows:
