![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In the "France" article. "Government and politics" section, 5th paragraph. "...its successor the Union pour un Jonathan Paul Michael Gibbs Mouvement Populaire (UMP)" should be "...its successor the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP)".
Some one deleted the France page and posted something stupid
The article gives the impression that Airbus is a French company. AFAIK it's a European joint-venture. Shouldn't this be clearified? It is often criticized that the French start cooperations with European partners in order to create "European champions" and then, down the road, slowly convert these companies into "pure" French enerprises by buying the other ones out and replacing the leadership with their own people "based on competence". This leitmotiv of national industrial policy, including the "econonic patriotism" has created a lot of anger and mistrust against them.
Could anyone fix the overlapping table in the first paragraph? It renders it unreadable.
What is the difference in the powers between the prime minister and the president in France? Sorry, just curious. --qbertsoul
From LaurelBush 16:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC): I suggest the article's opening sentence should read:
The expression 'sovereign power' places the power on a map in relation to other sovereign powers, such as the UK (centred on London or Westminster), Ireland (Dublin) and the US (Washington DC). Perhaps ' UN-recognised sovereign power' is more precise.
There is still a problem with the correct area of France. The article currently says its ranked 47th in the list of countries by area. However, it is ranked 42th at the moment (the list also refers to Metropolitan France and the French Republic separately) and the areas given in both places are different. If this article is right then France would even be higher up in the ranking. Any authoritative source on this issue (maybe some french governmental website etc.)? The list says it refers to the CIA Factbook, but I did not check whether this is true. -- Markus Krötzsch 15:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Garsen 11:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Google says that area of france is 547,030 SQ KM and references to this site: http://www.intersites.co.uk/307/
To whoever added : '*If only strict France is considered this number lows to some 40 million', the least you could do is explain to the rest of us what on earth you mean by 'strict France.' The first time I read it I thought you meant the Metropole, but then I saw the entry for Spain and realize that you're removing some groups (Basques? Catalans? Occitans?). --MichaelTinkler
I wonder why someone has added, among the languages spoken in France, German and Dutch. These are not spoken in France, except by tourists. --GP
I've replaced Alsatien by Alsacien. First because it's the way we write it. Then, because by judging the number of hits on google (35 instead of 28 200 for Alsacien), most being personal pages or wikipedia page, it's obviously not the english way to write it. Mispelling probably. -- user:anthere
The article regions of France says there are 22 regions, whereas this one says 23: what is the actual number? Why is there this difference? -- User:Oliver
I'd like to know what defines an "important" city. Honestly, I have never heard of Doue-la-Fontaine, and other cities listed here seems not to be major cities to me at all. If the definition of an important city is its size and maybe something very particular about its activity, I'd like the size and maybe the specific activity to be clearly defined. It seems to me some cities added here are not much more than big villages, and it does not look "serious" at all. It sounds as if some are the big villages where the editor is living. I totally agree these cities could have a room in wikipedia, but not listed as major cities. We could link them directly from their department rather, or from a tourism page. I'll do it if nobody objects.
-- user:anthere
préfecture... David.Monniaux 18:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up. No, I'm making nothing up: I have watched TV5 and read French publications, and yes, TV5 did call both Oklahoma City and Wichita "une petite ville" (pertaining to major news events there). True, French media discuss big elections in the "grandes villes" of Dijon and Tours, but those are local issues. That Wichita would be number 8 in France is splitting hairs on your part; the French media make more geographical mistakes than any others I've seen except our own U.S. media--a sad record. Ultimately, you stress that it's all a matter of "local" or "relative," and I accept your analysis.
I believe it is imperative that this be moved to Freedom Land. -- Susan Mason
It seems to be more of a jab at French bashing than at France.
Do the overseas collectives and the other small islands claimed by France belong to the EU? -- AxelBoldt 10:39, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Is it okay for me to make the article use British English? Since France is in Europe, I feel that British English is more relevant for the article. -- WhisperToMe 06:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
When I lived in France in the '70s, the English I heard was totally British. Britons were almost always preferred as lecteurs or lectrices d'anglais in your universities. (They hired few Americans in those days.) I guess times must change—and that's good. --M.
"British" English is also used in Australia, South Africa and India.
Nonsense -- as an American user often accused of writing or at least sounding British, I can tell you that the two versions get mixed up everywhere and all the time -- show us a canonical reference to your "British English is the international form of the language", a reference any significant group would accept as canon? Our two American kids studied English in a French school in France, and the correct spelling was "colour" on essays submitted to the teacher from the UK, while "color" was "OK" for the teachers from France. Not that it all wasn't argued over...
But there is no "international form". Sure, India once spoke British English, but The Raj has been replaced there by Silicon Valley & Bollywood & other things, so now it's Indian English. Further east, Chinese kids are growing up with American English, thanks to modern media -- as are kids in England itself, further east than that -- all those iPods, and that hip-hop & rap. Chinese English, then... So insisting here, on either the one or the other between just "British" and "American", to me seems simplistic and anachronistic: Wikipedia's policy that either one may be used, interchangeably, makes far more sense to me, and conforms better with both national and international usage -- until the kids all start speaking hip-hop & rap, and then I'll be entirely out.
-- Kessler 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's chapter-and-verse on current Wikipedia policy on this, I think: they talk about -- abouut -- something called "Canadian English" (think Peter Jennings, "abouut") --
-- makes eminently good sense to me... there I go "sounding British" again, that "eminently"...
-- Kessler 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to what some users believe, there is in fact a difference between American and British English. If you think that the whole world has gone American, try traveling: You might just notice the differences. From my experience in French Lycée, American diction and above all American spelling is looked down upon and marked as an error. While Americanisms may be «ok» at some schools, it is definitely not the more accepted form in France. Therefore, I argue that this article be in British English. (For those of you wondering, I am an American) -Dustin, dustin_bradley@web.de
It's not correct to state in the table that the currency of France is both the Euro and French euro coins respectively. One have to distinguish between a currency and legal tender. The currency of France is just the Euro. French euro coins, along with all other "national" euro coins are legal tender (in France and in the rest of euroland). Thus, if the table wants to give information about coins and banknotes having the status of legal tender, it is uncomplete (since in this case all other "national" coins have to be stated as well). If the table refers to the currency, it is just correct to mention Euro. -- Gugganij 15:32, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's OK in terms of content. But the grammar in the article needs a lot of work. Not anything to change the sense or even the tone of the article - Bog forbid - it just needs tiny little adjustments so it reads as if whoever wrote it speaks English competently as their first language. Little details like "it's vs. its" and unnecessary plurals drive me crazy. I care about France very much, (my daughter goes to a French school!) and I want the article to read more easily and represent the country better that way. Facts I leave to the natives, but I can help with the English. When I have some extra time, I'll go through and fix these minor things a little bit here and there as I can. My best to all. -- Hwarwick 16.40 PST, 30 June 04
does anyone know anything about the Frog association with France? mnemonic 23:49, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
Frogs legs are delightful it tastes like fish but it has the consistance of chicken. We French really love it but it is true that we only eat some in special occasions because it's expensive and it's hard to cook. Paul C.
I agree that some restaurants can offer frogs for less than ten euros but they will not be very good to eat!
Some French (including me) also profoundly dislike the taste of frog legs. Fgabolde 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should care of what the Anglophones things which is good or not to eat... I never thought that many Anglophones are interesting under that point of view... :-) With all respect! PS: the Argot word to call an english is "Crustacée" because they are rigids, walking on the wrong sense and eating shit and corpses ! :-) so... ;-)
Someones Bitter
"Eating shit and corpses !"- What? The British Royal Navy is no longer a haven for cannibalism. We have that problem relatively under control.
another argot word to call an english is "Rosbeef". I don't know the origin of this term.
82.125.199.247 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) julateufree
The origin of the argot "rosbeef" is said to be refering to the delicate skin colors english people get when they head south to france. 220.134.178.133 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)popersman
Wouldn't it be better to add a footnote which specifies where the CFA- and the CFP-Francs are used? Otherwise one might get the impression, that those are currencies which are also used in the mainland. -- Gugganij 14:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The sentence It holds nuclear weapons does not belong in the introduction. Was it francophobic vandalism? -- Liberlogos 14:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you think there's an accuracy or POV problem in the "religion" section, please clearly state what you think is wrong and why on the talk page; merely glueing a "the following paragraph is dubious" label does not contribute much. -- David.Monniaux 10:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I found that the edits made by 213.140.6.103 where reverted by Evercat, why? -- Surcouf 30/08/2004 14:08 CET
The new text that has been added in the last month or so clutters the top of the page and is contrary to the WikiProject Countries template and intention. -- Joy [shallot] 14:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know of international schools (K-12) in France (that is, schools that teach in English)? I already know of the two in Paris and one in Toulouse but I am pretty sure there are a few more out there...
I don't know how to properly fix this, but there's obviously an error on the main page. Someone has added some slanders french history and possibly deleted some stuff.
Not sure whether this is the right place to point that out, but what's with that picture of Spain in the history section. It is not even referenced in the text, I think that ought to be removed.
Please don't overuse the definite articles le/la when citing French phrases (a common error of many anglophones). One normally doesn't put le/la in front of an expression like France or République Française unless it is inside a sentence of its own. For instance, some official letterhead may start with République Française but will never start with La République Française. -- David.Monniaux 09:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How come this page says "This is cool. I can write on the page and no one will care." ??? but I can't find out where it was added. I tend to see such strange things after 'nuclear weapons' is mentioned on wikipedia.
Where is the article on this? Fascinating subject, complicated interplay.
I'm sick and tired the infobox being moved around. -- David.Monniaux 09:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What's with this lock? what are the editing disputes related to this lock? -- Izwalito
Whoever wrote the article, you forget to mention 'Marianne', which is the symbol of the French Republic. I got you a link with an actual picture... It's french though:
http://www.elysee.fr/instit/symb6.htm
"Marianne is the symbol of France since the constitution of 1958 made the Blue-White-Red flag official. She is a sign of Liberty"
As one of the most important nations in the world (exery nation may have it's beauty and so on, but you know what i mean.), I think France's military should get an own section in the article. BTW, the main article on it is very messy. -- Predator capitalism 18:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What happened?? We all need to work together as a team to act more quickly a vandal starts messing with wikipedia articles. -- nicksukh
Il n'y a aucune raison pour protéger cet article. Il faut simplement exclure les idiots qui détruisent la page. C'est ça. - Heimdal 15:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Erm...the entire page has just disappeared.
Note: by the 2nd of May, 2005 part of the conversation had become jumbled up. I used the history to figure out who wrote what when. Shinobu
Why is it that so many people like to vandalise pages about france or the french?
I don't want annoy Mason.Jones, but I think that he's comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand, we have the choice of étatsuniens, a precise and descriptive term, though not widely used; on the other hand, we have people posting caricatures of political leaders as weasels, schoolyard-level insults, and other vulgarities. It does not take high casuistic skills to recognize that the latter exhibit more blind hate than the former. On the Francophone wikipedia, I've never seen this level of vulgar, uninformed, hateful anti-Americanism, while this kind of francophobia is regularly exhibited on the English-speaking wiki. 10:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't have the impression that the France article is more often vandalised than other pages. I also see a lot of vandalism on the United States page, for that matter. Besides, it seems to me that it's always the same few individuals who disrupt the pages. Perhaps a stricter policy against vandalism would help. People should be warned, and if they do it again, their IP should be blocked. - Heimdal 13:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have a little personal story that may help stop all the bashing of France and the vandalism of the France page (And Dave, one of the schools that may have been vandalizing the page might have been mine; the opinion on the French there is pretty negative).
One time my Dad was sitting in a chatroom on AOL. Now, we all know how nasty some of those pages can be, and this story is proof of that. The room was entirely made up of United States citizens (and proud ones at that), save for one French citizen. Every single American in the room was bashing the person, using every stereotype and insult in the book. Finally he got everyone in the room to be quiet long enough for him to type, "Look, we've been dealing with the Iraqis for a rather long time now, and we've learned one thing about them after all these years. Its that the Iraqis really aren't all that ready for Democracy. And they won't be for the next 200 years. You really have to trust us on this one." Shortly after he said this, the entirety of the American citizens in the room was cheering the man on.
In case anybody reading this didn't know what the Frenchman was referring to, it was the current situation with the war in Iraq. I hope that this of all things helps to end the vandalization of the France page on Wikipedia. Of course, for anyone to read this, they would have to come and click the discussion link and sit through and read all of this. :wink:
-- Nelson || Hit Me Up 04:51, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I believe it is totally okay to bash the French. I mean, they bash on us a lot more than we bash on them. And lets not forget to mention the corruption prevalent in the French government. I mean, they have had the same darn president for the last 18 years, corruption is bound to sink in when your in office that long. Also, the reason that I despise the French the most is that the majority of the French are liberal Roman Catholics, which I should also mention that corruption plagues the Holy Roman Catholic Church too. 05:17 January 31 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you're an idiot. May I ask which country you come from ? And while we're at it, have you ever been to France ? Do you speak a bit of French ? Do you know a lot of French people ? I can see by your writing that you are very concerned with the current state of affairs in the political realm in France. Might I ask the name of this president who has been in office for the past 18 years ? Let me save you some time; his name is Jacques Chirac and he has been in office since 1995. Being that we are 2006, that counts 11 years this May. Try searching Wikipedia:Jacques Chirac for further information. - Dustin, dustin_bradley@web.de
My bad about the 18 years thing. You are right about the current state affairs in France. My problem is with the wide spread corruption within the French government, including your beloved Jacques Chirac. He has been implicated to have been involved with the Oil-for-food scandal and the French government has excepted bribes from Saddam Hussein to oppose a US led liberation of Iraq. What angers me the most is that the French government is totally unable or is unwilling to impeach Chirac from his "11" year regieme even though he has been proved to have conections with the Oil-for-food scandal. If a US President was found to have accepted bribes, no question he would have been impeached. It is also annoying that Chirac has many immunities from impeachment (I may be wrong about this so correct me). 07:39 January 31 2006 (UTC)
128.231.88.4 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You guys, despite your liberal views and your stand on "tolerance," have shown very little openness to this idea that Chirac was possible more involved in the Oil-for-food scandal than Cheney ever was. You continue to say that all governments are corrupt, and I agree with you, but not all governments are as corrupt as others. If you think that the French government is so good, why don't you move their and live in denial like most of the other French citizens do. All I am trying to do is present the truth so that I might save a few from the coming firestorm. 06:01 February 6 2006 (UTC)
The previous argument is possibly one of the most idiotic I have ever heard. Guess what? It's not un-American to look at other governments to see what we could be doing better!! Try not being such an isolationist, xenophic idiot next time you decide to post your opinions on this forum. And try signing your name, or I'll tack on --Republican in Denial at the end. Jacques Chirac wasn't awarded a multi-billion dollar contract for the Oil for Food program. He didn't lie to his people in order to further his agenda. Where are the WMDs??? Would you care to address that issue in your next discharge of wisdom (sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm!!) ?? -- Aquarelle 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This may just be me, but I think those involved here could stand to chill out a bit. Fightindaman 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It is nice too know that I incite such feelings in you Aquarelle. I hope to have such debates with you in the future. But know this, the older a country gets, the more corrupt it gets, and the French consider themselves the pinnicle of human nature because of the age of their country. And even if Chirac was not "awarded" multi-billion dollar contract in the Oil-for-Food program, he most certanly had knowladge of it. [3] LordRevan 03:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You have to remember that France does not have a hard-core market economy like the United States does. If you want to compare corruption in France to corruption in the US, you're going to have to work a little bit harder (it's not easy to compare apples and oranges :) ). As you probably know, the French government has large holdings in my companies considered to be important to the national well-being. By nature, public companies have major differences to private ones. Are they more corrupt ? Maybe, but then we have things like Enron and Haliburton (Dick Cheney). You can't simplify the issue to the point that «because France is old, it's corrupt» or «because Chirac (and many others, including Canada, Germany, and most of the world) didn't want to help the US with their bogus invasion, they all must be criminals.» I would rather that Bush kicked back a couple of million $$$ and bought himself a new car, then having him proceed with whatever he thinks he's doing now. By the way, how do you like paying for the war ? Not exactly a small bill, is it (Bush just asked for another 130 billion)? Might have used that money for something else...education, social security, you know, junk like that. -- Aquarelle 05:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Say that "the French consider themselves the pinnicle of human nature" is maybe a little bit excessive. French people are the most consumers of anti-depressive drug. If all the french were so full of their person, i don't think that they'll be so depressive. I'm french, and i understand that many people, especially united states, doesn't like the french lesson-giver. But we are not all like that. 82.125.199.247 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC) julafrite
I wonder whether the quoted figures include the budget of the Gendarmerie (which, for the vast majority of its missions, acts like a civilian police force and would not be counted into the military budgets of some other countries). David.Monniaux 16:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I noticed while reading the article that many sentences were somehow trying to show France in a positive light by showing statistics about economics and nuclear power. I do not get that feeling while reading articles about United States, Japan or Germany. Maybe someone can help tidy up the article. Strangely even the article on India seems to suffer from the same problem. Is it got to do with an inner feeling of the people of nations truly great at some point in time? -- coolmallu 22:45, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
I'm obviously not alone in perceiving bias—some of it blatant—against the U.S. but not against France. Many articles about the United States, especially those in French Wiki, are loaded with negativity. When it comes to the world's superpower, the tone is distinctly leftist. Mason.Jones 19:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, as in "left" == "the ONLY way we see the racist, imperialist superpower in French Wikipedia". The fact that the article "États-Unis" is less virulently anti-American now may be because some of us Amerloques with good skills in French edited it to be a tad less one-sided. It was a chore, Mr. Schloss, believe me. Mason.Jones 17:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can the two columns be aligned somewhat more?
The white flag is also used for surrendering,and no,I wont go there about Hitler parading through Paris.
Someone needs to revise the part about the referendum on the European Constitution. The French people rejected it. -Amit
The only edit war I see coming is from one highly pushy individual who wants his point of view heard, and no other, "Hardouin". This points to the entire problem with the Wikipedia concept. The site is, in effect, written in act of sequential censorship, especially so when certain individuals decide to show up. - Joseph (65.182.172.89)
Failing to include any reference to the rejection of the European Constitutional treaty by France (er, Non means Non, Hardouin) makes this article weaker. JDancer 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph:
Can the first sentence be backed up with any sort of facts? If we set aside for a moment the issue of what it means for a country to lose and then regain territory, there are several other locations that could legitimately lay claim to the distinction -- for example, Poland, Israel, Egypt, and parts of the former USSR; it all depends on how you count it. The definition of such is too messy and subjective to be put into an encyclopedia. Andrew Levine 23:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the Bastille article, it says that the Fête de la Fédération was a celebration of Bastille Day. If this was the case, it makes more sense to regard the July 14 holiday as a celebration of Bastille Day than a celebration of its first anniversary!
Either way one of the articles needs altering.
Would somebody please kindly explain to me why people such as Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity hate the French so much?(My apologies for only naming Conservatives, but those are the only people I know of that seriously hate France.) For those who date our friends the Francsters, I have something to say. First, the only time they've ever majorly disagreed with us was in the Iraq war. All they said was that they didn't think it was a good idea to invade Iraq. They never ever supported Saddam or the insurgents. Secondly, if it wasn't for France, our Revoultion for our freedoms that French-haters proudly brag about would most likely have lasted a lot longer, and we may not have won it at all. Finally, because of the revoultion, France has been our oldest ally. For crying out loud, they gave us The Statue of Liberty, and we thank them by renaming their fries?! Something's wrong. I studied French at school last year, and found their culture to be more welcoming and friendly than most Americans I know. Thank you very much for reading my thoughts, and I look forward to having my questions answered.
To the guy above, France did support Saddam Hussein. There have been reports that France was selling weapons to Saddam before Bush decided to liberate Iraq. And lets not forget that France received many bribes from Saddam Hussein and in return, France promised that they would oppose the US if they were to make a move for military measures in the UN. Check this site out. http://www.blogicus.com/archives/extensive_bribery_by_saddam_included_unsc_member_nations.php 07:04 January 31 2006 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe those statistics??? I believe that statistics is one of the liberals biggest weapons. The major problem with statistics is that they take the opinion of several thousand people, and apply them to the rest of the citizens of the country with supposedly "2-5 percent buffer." Tell me, how can they accurately predict what a person thinks or believes by polling 100,000 people (could be more or less) and apply it to a nation of 60 million. When you can answer that I will concede to your view above. 06:55 January 31 2006 (UTC)
There you guys go again with your psycho liberal thinking, you just do not want to see the truth for what it is. And that link you showed me explain to me why you are unwilling to still see the truth. LordRevan [4] [5]
This article is about France, not about US media; furthermore, this talk page is about improving the article, not expressing personal views which, typically, only interest those who hold them. I would be grateful if it was possible to stick to the point, and refrain from saturating this page with irrelevant comments. Thank you. Rama 10:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've started making this Wikipedia:Wikiportal/France wikiportal thing. I have no idea how to draw tables and pretty things like that, so if someone can gimme a push forward, and collaborate with me on it, I'd appreciate it -- Expurgator t (c) 23:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the Portal link below the country infobox. I've added a table to help in positioning the portal link at the top right of the article, making it more easily accessible. There is likely a more elegant way of doing this, but after tinkering about a bit with the mechanics, this is the best method I could find. Courtland 16:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous editor just put forward a rather interesting point of the perenity of France during the Second World War, but what was said was incorrect:
In fact, first a part, then whole France was under Nazi occupation, but the French State remained. One is left with the choice of allegiance to either Vichy France, or the Free France in exile in London.
In either case, the country did not cease to exist. Rama 4 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)
Should be shortened and only mention the 26 regions - a reference to the full list would suffice. Longs lists never positively contribute to a good article. Themanwithoutapast 00:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I added a link to the France page, which was deleted. As I'm a novice here and the person deleting is an experienced editor, I tried to contact him to discuss. I've gone to his user page and left a message but had no response (perhaps on vacation or perhaps doesn't consider my message worth responding to).
Rather than just re-adding the link (to probably have it re-deleted), I would like to discuss the reason behind the deletion. Is there anyway to find the EMAIL address of a Wikipedia editor to communicate directly? Is there a better way to proceed than merely posting on his user page?
Suggestions and comments welcome. Following is the text of my original posting (not yet responded to) and my EMAIL address in case anyone wants to respond direct.
Moncrief
This morning I added a link to my site, which I believe you've deleted. I would like to discuss why the link was deleted and whether there is anything I can do to have it readded.
First, some background. My site (www.france-property-and-information.com) is 95% informational and 5% commercial. To make it more attractive to Wikipedia, I've separated the informational portion from the commercial portion, creating a 'pseudo home page' for the informational side at http://www.france-property-and-information.com/france_and_french_property.htm.
I consider the information at this link to be substantial and interesting. Furthermore, it is expanding weekly, so I see its value continuing to increase. As it deals with France (food, culture, wine, regions, etc.) I feel the FRANCE portion of Wikipedia is a suitable place for it.
If the link was removed because it was considered unsuitable, could you let me know what I would need to do to correct this problem?
Doug Stewart (dougstewart@france-property-and-information.com)
The article Napoleonic Wars has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. To support the article, you can add your vote there.-- Fenice 08:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The French flag was not inspired by the flag of the Netherlands. This theory put forward by an anonymous user repeatedly in the last days is simply not supported by any proof and seems to be only a (chauvinistic?) guess from that anonymous user. Actually, ironically, I found out that it seems the Netherlands designed their flag in the 17th century based on the blue-white-red colors of the Bourbon of France. According to the French Wikipedia it is King Henry IV of France who suggested these colors to the newly independent Netherlands. Finally, the Netherlands did not have borders with France at the time of the Revolution as the anonymous user wrote. France had borders with the Austrian Low Countries, but not with the independent Netherlands. Hardouin 30 June 2005 11:06 (UTC)
The original colours of the Dutch flag were orange, white and blue. King Henry V of France did not suggest to the Netherlands to use red, white and blue. The Dutch started using red because the orange colour was unstable in flag making.
This is not chauvinism. Here are some sources:
http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ460652
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frflag.htm#tricolor
http://www.languedoc-france.info/06141201_tricolore.htm
scotthatton 11 August 2005 16:19 (UTC)
I noticed while browsing about some Wikipedia statistics pages that this article appears on a 100 most accessed articles statistics page as #100. (accessed August 27, 2005) Courtland 16:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The IP address 216.229.18.122 appears to have only been used to vandalise articles about France, starting in March 2005. Is it possible to get this IP # on a block list (I'm ignorant of how that might be done and whether it would be approved). Courtland 21:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
There was an edit that carried the comment "Fixing overlapping images. This article needs a lot of work." Overlapping images? Not in my browser (Firefox 1.0.4) and not using the MonoBook (default) skin. I'm curious if others feel this article needs a tremendous amount of work or not from a formatting perspective. Courtland 00:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello! I've started translating the English article in a foreign Wikipedia & I was wondering about the meaning of this phrase from the history section: "The eastern part (which would soon unite with the central portion as the Holy Roman Empire) can be regarded the beginnings of what is now Germany, the western part that of France." Isn't something missing from this phrase? Thanks! -- Vlad 21:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so, it means: "The eastern part (...) can be regarded [as] the beginnings of what is now Germany, the western part as [the beginnings] of France." David.Monniaux 05:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The info-box mentions French[1] as the language:
1 See [ Languages section] for regional languages
The link doesn't work! Isto Ylisirkka 20:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
This article is very far from the FA status. Many things have to be done:
In this aim I have tried to strongly edit the article. Many things I did have been reversed. I'll try to do this once again. I hope it will be more successful this time. Compare with FA like South Africa, Nepal, India, Hong Kong or People's Republic of China to see what should be a kind of aim. Vb 19:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
There has to be some mention or notice at the top directing you to the article on the current rioting in France just like when you lookup New Orleans it has a link to Katrina's effects on New Orleans. Come on people riots have been going for 16 days, the New Orleans articles were made days after. 68.63.88.28 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Compared to Hurricane Katrina, "these incidents are hardly a significant part of the contemporary history of France." Are you totally serious? After days of rioting, France's image in the rest of the world has been set back thirty years. The reports in U.S., Canadian, European and Latin American media (I read them all) weren't just negative, they were withering. A Wiki link to "French riots" is justified. Mason.Jones 16:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not speaking of the "Anglo-Saxon press," Rama, but the WORLD press. I read German, Spanish, French, and English, and the reporting has been similar: France has a HUGE problem. It doesn't help Wikipedia at all when it studies U.S. society but refuses to study and analyze France and French society. French hypersensitivity is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Mason.Jones 17:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The recent riots in France gained front page coverage in major newspapers around the globe, and French thinkers and politicians across the political spectrum repeatedly underlined their significance. Your repeated and obstinate refusal to accept neutral and generally-accepted facts, Rama, raises doubts in my mind that you can be trusted to edit this article from a neutral point of view. JDancer 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to know the daily newspaper infos....and some nation information.....like colonies and stuff....argggg
209.158.115.244 14:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Nelson Martinez 209.158.115.244 14:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The French daily newspaper that is most sold is Ouest France, but it's a regional newspaper. In the category of national daily newspapers, the most famous are Le Monde, viewed as the reference newspaper (much the same as NYT in the US, or The Times in the old days in the UK), Le Figaro, the oldest newspaper in France, center-right, and Libération, the main voice of the left. Hardouin 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Another daily newspaper is La Croix which is an apolitical christian newspaper. It is considered by journalists as the best newspaper (the most independant, objective...)
Never heard that La Croix was the best newspaper, objective or independant... I wonder who are the journalists you speak about.
The section predicting the population of France in 2050 seems misleading. The figures quoted are from a single report and contradict others made by the French government and other organisations. If this section is to remain, I think it needs to clarify this, perhaps with other estimates. Maybe just remove it altogether since it comes across as fairly pro-French?
UK National Office of Statistics Projection 83.67.205.202 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This article reads as if written by the French Tourism Bureau. Fascinatingly, the history section glosses over all history between 987 and 1792 and claims a victory for France in WWII! No mention is made of either the corruption scandals or the recent riots which have rocked the political system. This is supposed to be an encylopedia and not a marketing piece. The standard of English often slips quite noticably, which makes we wonder if there's a link between this and the ... upbeat? ... tone of the writing (ahem)? About time someone got to work on bringing this article up to an acceptable standard. JDancer 17:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Very general and yet only specific where the gloss is positive towards France. This is unworthy of an encyclopedia. I suppose my shock at the statement that France was victorious in WWII is based on the defeat and occupation of the French state by the Nazi regime - this is incongruous and needs to be redrafted. As of the riots:
2 November: Rioters ransack a police station at Aulnay-sous-Bois, police report coming under fire from at least two live bullets at La Courneuve, and 177 vehicles are burnt.
3 November: Violence spreads beyond the Paris region to the eastern city of Dijon and parts of the south and west, with 400 vehicles burnt.
8 November: The cabinet authorises a range of emergency powers to tackle the unrest, under which local authorities can impose curfews and restrict people's movements. It is the first time the 1955 law has been implemented on mainland France. The move follows a night during which 1,173 cars are burnt and 330 arrests made, with 12 police officers injured.
11 November: The city of Paris announces a ban on all public meetings likely to provoke disturbances, to run from 0900 GMT on Saturday 12 to 0700 GMT on Sunday 13.
13 November: The European Union offers France 50m euros ($59m; £34m) to help recover from the riots.
Source: [8] Perhaps this is normal in France. Me, I think this is something which needs to be covered in a 'general' article which seeks to inform the user on the condition of the France. Anyone agree? JDancer 16:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't say I've ever read The Sun in my life, and the point where you can only support the inclusion of misleading elements in an article by denigrating the motives of another editor is the point where: 1) it's clear that you do not have a balanced approach to the neutrality of this article and 2) that someone needs to review your status as an administrator of Wikipedia. I'll discuss this with the Stewards. JDancer 08:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Steady on. We can work it out with a bit of goodwill. Rama, your comment was entirely uncalled for. France was defeated in World War II. It's ridiculous to suggest it won. It may have ended up on the winning side, but it did not have a "victory". The article is indeed very thin on history in the Middle Ages, having too little to say about France's important part in European history, thought and culture in those times. I don't think the stuff about the EEZ should be omitted, but it simply isn't a matter of much interest, and could probably be cut a bit. James James 09:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that goes without saying, alongside Soviet Russia. Free Poles arguable produced a more significant impact on the outcome of the war than did the Free French (but nobody's arguing Poland won WWII). France's defeat by the Nazis was complete, definite and humiliating, with France surrendering to protect Paris from bombardment and thereby allowing genocide on her territory. Without the massed US liberation launched from British soil, France would be Nazi (or possible Communist) to this day. Facts, gentlemen, facts. I dispute the neutrality of a number of the editors of this article; they make the Wikipedia a poorer place. JDancer 00:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Not neutral to request that 'France was vistorious in WWII' might be ameded to be more factually correct? Obvious POV pushing to push that this article should be more balanced and neutral? Lack of factual accuracy in noting that France was militarily crushed by Nazi Germany before allowing a Fascist puppet state to be set up on her territory? Guilty as charged. But then I'm not a native French speaker as you are, so perhaps I'm failing to understand that all has been and will be rosy in the French Republic. Please try to contribute to a better Wikipedia article for France. JDancer 00:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, let's keep a lid on it. We're not contesting the war all over again! I've amended the text to mention that France achieved victory after an initial heavy defeat in WWII. I think it's fair to say France won in the end, but also fair not to suggest that it was completely straightforward. Comments very welcome. James James 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I remodeled the sentence to look more like the Norway article mentionning invasion and occupation. Guerby 18:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi ALL! I have read the article. but I have not seen any reference to genocides which have been committed by France aganist Algerians and other african nations. Does it not a mistake?
Yes! For exmaple, Algerian Genocide. French colonialist lilled more 1.5 million Algerians. Does it not qualify as a genocide?
why? Because they are not white?
Genocide is any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: "Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The situation in Algeria perfectly sits into this definition. Also, as far as I know French colonialist army used gas chambers againist local Algerians which is also a symbol of the Holocaust.
Should Gallia really directly get routed here to France? This makes it really hard to add historical data about the Roman province (data which is maybe a bit out of place here). Note also that afaik the only connection is a rough overlap with the area, since most of the tribes migrated in the migrations after the Romans. (when the Francs arrived that gave France its name), and the earliest I can think of a "France" is after the Treaty of Verdun when the larger Charlemanic Franconian Empire is split up in the kernels of France and Germany with Lotharia inbetween.
Also large parts of the northeast parts of France belonged to the Germania provinces, and probably all other borders are also not as clear cut. 84.35.55.47 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, Gallia redirects to Gaul. If you have found a mention of "Gallia" in an article that redirects here, please change the redirect to Gaul. If you don't know how, drop me a message at my talkpage and I'll do it for you. James James 06:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What is the source for the GDP and trade rankings shown in the article?:
-- that "World Bank data" cite shown in the article doesn't offer much. CIA World Factbook puts France at 7th in GDP, as of 2004:
-- and I expect France is lower than 4th in foreign trade value, as well. No particular axe to grind for CIA, but such stats do need some form of citation. No axe to grind for or against the French, either: 7th & 4th ain't bad -- but best to be accurate, here...
-- Kessler 15:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the formatting of the infobox?? Oh no itsJamie Talk 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Should French Guiana and other Région d'outre-mers be included on the map of France Fabhcún 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
TOM's should also be added, they are part of France even if they have a different status.
Sorry, I really don't know how to edit things in Wikipedia, so I really hope I don't screw the discussion page up, haha, but anyway, did anyone actually add the DOM ? If so, they're impossible to see…would it be possible to have a few little boxes zooming in on the DOM on the map, kind of like you see for Alaska and Hawaii under the rest of the states on a lot of US maps, or like you see on Euro notes (I think) for the DOM ? Does that make any sense ? Anyway, sorry, thanks ! (Update: if you look at the US map on any US state's page, that's what I'm talking about ! :-) )
No mention that the cock (chicken) is a widely recognised French emblem Jonto 12:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This phrase "France is also the second most productive country in the OECD (excluding Norway and Luxembourg where productivity data are inflated by oil revenues in Norway, and by investments in off-shore banks in Luxembourg)." sounds somewhat apologetic and therefore really strange. It's like saying "Well yeah, I won the race (excluding the two guys in front of me who were faster, but they had better shoes". I suggest to revise it "France is also ranked as the fourth productive country in the OECD". Any comments? SignumPolis 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I find the current wording to be accurate and more explanatory. I disagree with your opinion that it should be changed : I find it to be another one of your attempts to reflect France in an excessively negative light. I encourage you to refrain from making any more major edits to this article until you have the support of other wikipedians. -- Aquarelle 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say change it. It sounds like it's trying to make France sound more important as it is. The rank is the rank and trying to discount other countries because they have resources (either goods or capital) that France does not makes no sense. Fightindaman 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that Norway and Luxembourg's data would be genuinely skewed by things like oil or offshore banks. But the real issue is to find sources. Is this way of describing France's productivity commonly done? Is it frequently said that its "real" productivity is second highest, because Luxembourg and Norway are skewed? If so, the current phrasing is fine. If not, we ought to change it, because it's original research. john k 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It just depends on the way you look at the data. If we go by GDP per hours worked, then France usually comes in at number one or two. But as mentioned in the article, French people just don't work as much as others, such as Americans, Polish, Czech, or Koreans. That's why I'm fine with the article the way it is. I don't understand the comments of user "SignumPolis" about how the DOM/TOM section is Franglais. Once again, user "SignumPolis" is misleading people. What were formerly known as DOM (départements d'outre-mer) are now technically called DROM (départements et régions d'outre-mer). What were formerly known as TOM (territoire d'outre-mer) are now technically called POM (pays d'outre-mer), except the TAAF (terres australes et antarctiques françaises) which are still referred to as TOM. Perhaps user "SignumPolis" makes a good point that this section of the article could use some updating, but we need to be accurate as we go about it. It is still very common for these places to be called by their former names, and I'm guessing that most French people (including the inhabitants of said places) are not aware of the change. -- Aquarelle 06:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this article too biased towards the positive aspects of France ? There is no mention of the Vichy-Regime, the colonial past, especially the atrocities in Algeria and the current riots (every day 30 cars are burned), which are mainly due to the discrimination of the non-white (essentially Arab and black) population. I know these are difficult issues in France and they don't like to talk about it. Chirac is actually picking up on this denial by admitting the French responsability in the holocaust and introducing a day to commemorate slavery. In addition, the French have not really won any war since 1871 without the help of the Americans, so speaking of an "ultimate victory of France" is somewhat simplified. Any thoughts?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1690206,00.html Let me quote parts of it: "The riots in the French suburbs late last year, mainly among disaffected and unemployed second generation immigrant youth, helped bring a new focus to the government of Dominique de Villepin in the run-up to next year's presidential election. [...] But his [de Villepin's] plans prompted Le Figaro, the conservative daily, to quote Sir William Beveridge, architect of Britain's welfare state, on how the great evil of unemployment can generate hatred and fear - precisely the experience of Aulnay-sous-Bois and other French suburbs."
SignumPolis 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Without any support, I don't see how you found the grounds to add your paragraph. Why did you put it under Economy anyways? I would find it more appropriately placed under Miscellaneous Issues, maybe with a subheading of Current Social Matters. This is why you need to consult with other people before making a controversial edit for your agenda. Aquarelle 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a plan. I put it under ecomomy because I think the tension have mainly economic reasons. If you give people work and allow them to live in dignity they don't burn your cars. Fine, do you want me to go ahead or do you want to do it? SignumPolis 21:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
SignumPolis 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Bob 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
How does France have a border with the netherlands? -- Astrokey44| talk 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
So why did we remove the part about the DROM's boarders? As already mentioned, they are a fully integrated part of the French republic. It seems obvious to me that we need to mention their boarders along with the rest of France. -- Aquarelle 13:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The introduction to this article states that France has a Land Border with the UK under the channel tunnel. Although there is a white line marking the divide between the two countries, most people would not consider this a land border, as it is under the sea (and hence not land!). The UK article makes no mention of this 'border' and most other sources (example: [ CIA world fact book UK page]) regard the UK as having one border only, with the Republic of Ireland. -- Steverwanda 10:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This section is by far too long, too wordy and full of information that are not relevant for a general article about a county. It should be considerably condensed. SignumPolis 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not an ugly place - however, the phrase as it is, is clearly POV and should be revised. Every time I ask my friends from Paris: 9/10 consider it too crowded, too expensive and too stressful to live in: Metro-boulot-dodo. SignumPolis 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
France is the number one tourist destination. It must not be so bad after all. I find nothing wrong with the bit about Paris. Do you disagree that many pepople consider Paris to be beautiful? Yes, it's true that when living in the same place for a long time you begin to get tired of it, but I think we are looking for a bit broader point of view for this article; something that pertains to more people than just the ones who live there. I've reverted your change. I've also deleted that bit you tacked on with those old statistics. 1) they're outdated 2) this is not an article about the riots. -- Aquarelle 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
"Paris est la plus belle ville du monde", "Paris is the most beautifull city" is just a formule. For me, Pujols is the most beautifull city in the world altough it's a village. This expression give pleasure to us, poor little frenchies which haven't anithing else.Don't deprive of it, please. 82.125.199.247 15:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC) julateufree
hi, i wanted to ask for help. i actually was wondernig if anybody has a comprehensive detail descreption about france's partipitation in world war one if you could please give the site. thanks ___________________
Can anybody explain me why the French think their population is growing without immigration? According to the EUROSTAT 2004 numbers, the number of children per woman in France is 1.9 while 2.1 is considered the population replacement level? Is this another myth on this page we need to address? http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema= PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=Yearlies_new_population&root=Yearlies_new_population/C/C1/C12/cab12048
Between 1993 and today the numbers were between 1.63 and 1.9 and never reached 2.1. How are they trying to fool us here? Were "sans-papiers" legalized and not counted under immigration? Thank you, SignumPolis 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
French people think their population is growing because it went from 62 518 571 to 62 886 171. -- Aquarelle 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Nope, the French are just having babies again. Children per woman is not the most accurate indicator since it is a very long-term measurement. Look below:
Sorry to disappoint you, France is just growing. You can read French, right ? I would offer, but honestly I don't feel like translating it for you.
By the way, your link doesn't work, but I'm pretty sure EuroStat would be consistent with this (if not exactly the same) -- Aquarelle 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
No-where can I find any info in Wikipedia of the origin of the French using a cockerel as their mascot ? Could somebody kindly consider this for insertion if they know ? Thanks --jrleighton 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The Embassy of France in U.S. web page explains that French people choose like their mascot under the July Monarchy and the Second French Republic when it was seen on the pole of regiments' flags and 1830 the rooster replaced like official emblem of France to fleur - des -lis. Elthon73 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is the Swedish flag being shown on this page? I realise that the Swedish royal family is French, but still... fledgist 13:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's sad that a country with such a significant contribution to humanity and its history is hated by so many narrow-minded idiots. AllStarZ 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I see someone replaced France infobox with a more standard country infobox. I thought this had already been debated and the agreement was that we don't need the standard infobox, as long as France infobox respects the style of the standard infobox. France is not the only country in that case. A lot of information is lost with the standard infobox, and the conclusion of the debate was that there's no need to standardize everything. So I am restoring France infobox in the article. Also please note for the zillionth time that figures from the CIA World Factbook are INACCURATE, and only official French figures should be used. Hardouin 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the sentence;
"In some of its overseas parts, France also shares land borders with Brazil, Suriname, and the Netherlands Antilles."
France had Brazil as colony for a short period of time, and Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles were dutch colonies. The latter is a bunch of islands, that don't have land borders.
Or is it alluding to French Guiana, sharing a land border with Brazil and Suriname? If it is, then that seems incorrect. France doesn't share a border, one of its colonies does.
Sclozza 04:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that the denotation of France in German (Frankreich) is by no means an unusual one, but in fact quite common among non-english speaking countries, in spite of what was previously implied under Origin of the country's name. I edited this, and my edits were without any reasonable reason reverted by Instantnood, back to the earlier and ambigious version. Yet, the fact stands, the German denotation of France is not in itself an unusual one. Therefore I have decided to re-insert my edit, since the information is otherwise put in an ambigious way, it implies that the German denotation of France is an unusual or noticable one. We either put it in a way that states that this denotation of France is still quite common, or we leave it out completely. Otherwise, it will be ambigious. Please, feel free to change my (or anyone else's) edits, but do it in a careful and responsible manner. It is easy, maybe too easy, to revert back to an earlier version, but we should not revert unless all changes must be undone. Reverting is primarily a way to fight vandalism. Take some time to rewrite instead of reverting. Thank you. / Magore 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed for the second time the mention that metropolitan France is party located in Southern Europe. This keeps being added by an anonymous user with IP code starting with 82. France is first and foremost part of Western Europe, that's how it is presented in most encylopedias and dictionaries. If indeed the south of France is part of Southern Europe, then the north of France is also part of Northern Europe, so are we going to end up with saying that France is a country in Western Europe which is also partly in Southern Europe and partly in Northern Europe? A bit silly. Not to mention that Alsatians may add that Alsace is in Central Europe, so do we end up with "France is a country in Western Europe which is also partly in Southern Europe, partly in Northern Europe, and partly in Central Europe"? Even more silly. The most reasonable thing to do is to leave it as "metropolitan France is located in Western Europe", which fits all parts of metropolitan France. Hardouin 13:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is not stupid to mention its links with southern Europe. Especially in a linguistic cultural meaning, but also geographic and climatic for its southern Part. We have mentioned its caribean side, why not its mediterranean one wich is much more important. On the other side, "western Europe" is a good classification, but it doesn't say much. Spain, Norway, Finland, Portugal, UK, Iceland or Italy are all Western European countries as much as France is.
Category:Overseas departments, collectivities and territories of France
A pair of Rafale fighter aircraft: not so relevant
The CdG is the biggest piece of weaponry in the French republic while the picture of soldiers in Afghanistan emphasis on the French presence worldwide.
Wheat fields near the village of Usson: lovely but does not bring much information on French agriculture.
- Two pictures is too much for this small question, either keep the Mont St Michel or Versailles but not both.
- While I'm not sure a picture is needed here, I think Lourdes deserves the place above Basilique du Sacré-Cœur is there is to be a picture here.
- Louis-Pasteur Hospital in Cherbourg: not representative of current healthcare in France
- Christophe Lemaitre is the first Caucasian to break the 10-second barrier.: useless, it's a personnal achievement and does not represent French culture
- Overall there are way too many pictures of artists!
Matthieu ( talk) 15:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In the "France" article. "Government and politics" section, 5th paragraph. "...its successor the Union pour un Jonathan Paul Michael Gibbs Mouvement Populaire (UMP)" should be "...its successor the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP)".
Some one deleted the France page and posted something stupid
The article gives the impression that Airbus is a French company. AFAIK it's a European joint-venture. Shouldn't this be clearified? It is often criticized that the French start cooperations with European partners in order to create "European champions" and then, down the road, slowly convert these companies into "pure" French enerprises by buying the other ones out and replacing the leadership with their own people "based on competence". This leitmotiv of national industrial policy, including the "econonic patriotism" has created a lot of anger and mistrust against them.
Could anyone fix the overlapping table in the first paragraph? It renders it unreadable.
What is the difference in the powers between the prime minister and the president in France? Sorry, just curious. --qbertsoul
From LaurelBush 16:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC): I suggest the article's opening sentence should read:
The expression 'sovereign power' places the power on a map in relation to other sovereign powers, such as the UK (centred on London or Westminster), Ireland (Dublin) and the US (Washington DC). Perhaps ' UN-recognised sovereign power' is more precise.
There is still a problem with the correct area of France. The article currently says its ranked 47th in the list of countries by area. However, it is ranked 42th at the moment (the list also refers to Metropolitan France and the French Republic separately) and the areas given in both places are different. If this article is right then France would even be higher up in the ranking. Any authoritative source on this issue (maybe some french governmental website etc.)? The list says it refers to the CIA Factbook, but I did not check whether this is true. -- Markus Krötzsch 15:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Garsen 11:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Google says that area of france is 547,030 SQ KM and references to this site: http://www.intersites.co.uk/307/
To whoever added : '*If only strict France is considered this number lows to some 40 million', the least you could do is explain to the rest of us what on earth you mean by 'strict France.' The first time I read it I thought you meant the Metropole, but then I saw the entry for Spain and realize that you're removing some groups (Basques? Catalans? Occitans?). --MichaelTinkler
I wonder why someone has added, among the languages spoken in France, German and Dutch. These are not spoken in France, except by tourists. --GP
I've replaced Alsatien by Alsacien. First because it's the way we write it. Then, because by judging the number of hits on google (35 instead of 28 200 for Alsacien), most being personal pages or wikipedia page, it's obviously not the english way to write it. Mispelling probably. -- user:anthere
The article regions of France says there are 22 regions, whereas this one says 23: what is the actual number? Why is there this difference? -- User:Oliver
I'd like to know what defines an "important" city. Honestly, I have never heard of Doue-la-Fontaine, and other cities listed here seems not to be major cities to me at all. If the definition of an important city is its size and maybe something very particular about its activity, I'd like the size and maybe the specific activity to be clearly defined. It seems to me some cities added here are not much more than big villages, and it does not look "serious" at all. It sounds as if some are the big villages where the editor is living. I totally agree these cities could have a room in wikipedia, but not listed as major cities. We could link them directly from their department rather, or from a tourism page. I'll do it if nobody objects.
-- user:anthere
préfecture... David.Monniaux 18:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up. No, I'm making nothing up: I have watched TV5 and read French publications, and yes, TV5 did call both Oklahoma City and Wichita "une petite ville" (pertaining to major news events there). True, French media discuss big elections in the "grandes villes" of Dijon and Tours, but those are local issues. That Wichita would be number 8 in France is splitting hairs on your part; the French media make more geographical mistakes than any others I've seen except our own U.S. media--a sad record. Ultimately, you stress that it's all a matter of "local" or "relative," and I accept your analysis.
I believe it is imperative that this be moved to Freedom Land. -- Susan Mason
It seems to be more of a jab at French bashing than at France.
Do the overseas collectives and the other small islands claimed by France belong to the EU? -- AxelBoldt 10:39, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Is it okay for me to make the article use British English? Since France is in Europe, I feel that British English is more relevant for the article. -- WhisperToMe 06:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
When I lived in France in the '70s, the English I heard was totally British. Britons were almost always preferred as lecteurs or lectrices d'anglais in your universities. (They hired few Americans in those days.) I guess times must change—and that's good. --M.
"British" English is also used in Australia, South Africa and India.
Nonsense -- as an American user often accused of writing or at least sounding British, I can tell you that the two versions get mixed up everywhere and all the time -- show us a canonical reference to your "British English is the international form of the language", a reference any significant group would accept as canon? Our two American kids studied English in a French school in France, and the correct spelling was "colour" on essays submitted to the teacher from the UK, while "color" was "OK" for the teachers from France. Not that it all wasn't argued over...
But there is no "international form". Sure, India once spoke British English, but The Raj has been replaced there by Silicon Valley & Bollywood & other things, so now it's Indian English. Further east, Chinese kids are growing up with American English, thanks to modern media -- as are kids in England itself, further east than that -- all those iPods, and that hip-hop & rap. Chinese English, then... So insisting here, on either the one or the other between just "British" and "American", to me seems simplistic and anachronistic: Wikipedia's policy that either one may be used, interchangeably, makes far more sense to me, and conforms better with both national and international usage -- until the kids all start speaking hip-hop & rap, and then I'll be entirely out.
-- Kessler 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's chapter-and-verse on current Wikipedia policy on this, I think: they talk about -- abouut -- something called "Canadian English" (think Peter Jennings, "abouut") --
-- makes eminently good sense to me... there I go "sounding British" again, that "eminently"...
-- Kessler 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to what some users believe, there is in fact a difference between American and British English. If you think that the whole world has gone American, try traveling: You might just notice the differences. From my experience in French Lycée, American diction and above all American spelling is looked down upon and marked as an error. While Americanisms may be «ok» at some schools, it is definitely not the more accepted form in France. Therefore, I argue that this article be in British English. (For those of you wondering, I am an American) -Dustin, dustin_bradley@web.de
It's not correct to state in the table that the currency of France is both the Euro and French euro coins respectively. One have to distinguish between a currency and legal tender. The currency of France is just the Euro. French euro coins, along with all other "national" euro coins are legal tender (in France and in the rest of euroland). Thus, if the table wants to give information about coins and banknotes having the status of legal tender, it is uncomplete (since in this case all other "national" coins have to be stated as well). If the table refers to the currency, it is just correct to mention Euro. -- Gugganij 15:32, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's OK in terms of content. But the grammar in the article needs a lot of work. Not anything to change the sense or even the tone of the article - Bog forbid - it just needs tiny little adjustments so it reads as if whoever wrote it speaks English competently as their first language. Little details like "it's vs. its" and unnecessary plurals drive me crazy. I care about France very much, (my daughter goes to a French school!) and I want the article to read more easily and represent the country better that way. Facts I leave to the natives, but I can help with the English. When I have some extra time, I'll go through and fix these minor things a little bit here and there as I can. My best to all. -- Hwarwick 16.40 PST, 30 June 04
does anyone know anything about the Frog association with France? mnemonic 23:49, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
Frogs legs are delightful it tastes like fish but it has the consistance of chicken. We French really love it but it is true that we only eat some in special occasions because it's expensive and it's hard to cook. Paul C.
I agree that some restaurants can offer frogs for less than ten euros but they will not be very good to eat!
Some French (including me) also profoundly dislike the taste of frog legs. Fgabolde 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should care of what the Anglophones things which is good or not to eat... I never thought that many Anglophones are interesting under that point of view... :-) With all respect! PS: the Argot word to call an english is "Crustacée" because they are rigids, walking on the wrong sense and eating shit and corpses ! :-) so... ;-)
Someones Bitter
"Eating shit and corpses !"- What? The British Royal Navy is no longer a haven for cannibalism. We have that problem relatively under control.
another argot word to call an english is "Rosbeef". I don't know the origin of this term.
82.125.199.247 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) julateufree
The origin of the argot "rosbeef" is said to be refering to the delicate skin colors english people get when they head south to france. 220.134.178.133 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)popersman
Wouldn't it be better to add a footnote which specifies where the CFA- and the CFP-Francs are used? Otherwise one might get the impression, that those are currencies which are also used in the mainland. -- Gugganij 14:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The sentence It holds nuclear weapons does not belong in the introduction. Was it francophobic vandalism? -- Liberlogos 14:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you think there's an accuracy or POV problem in the "religion" section, please clearly state what you think is wrong and why on the talk page; merely glueing a "the following paragraph is dubious" label does not contribute much. -- David.Monniaux 10:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I found that the edits made by 213.140.6.103 where reverted by Evercat, why? -- Surcouf 30/08/2004 14:08 CET
The new text that has been added in the last month or so clutters the top of the page and is contrary to the WikiProject Countries template and intention. -- Joy [shallot] 14:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know of international schools (K-12) in France (that is, schools that teach in English)? I already know of the two in Paris and one in Toulouse but I am pretty sure there are a few more out there...
I don't know how to properly fix this, but there's obviously an error on the main page. Someone has added some slanders french history and possibly deleted some stuff.
Not sure whether this is the right place to point that out, but what's with that picture of Spain in the history section. It is not even referenced in the text, I think that ought to be removed.
Please don't overuse the definite articles le/la when citing French phrases (a common error of many anglophones). One normally doesn't put le/la in front of an expression like France or République Française unless it is inside a sentence of its own. For instance, some official letterhead may start with République Française but will never start with La République Française. -- David.Monniaux 09:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How come this page says "This is cool. I can write on the page and no one will care." ??? but I can't find out where it was added. I tend to see such strange things after 'nuclear weapons' is mentioned on wikipedia.
Where is the article on this? Fascinating subject, complicated interplay.
I'm sick and tired the infobox being moved around. -- David.Monniaux 09:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What's with this lock? what are the editing disputes related to this lock? -- Izwalito
Whoever wrote the article, you forget to mention 'Marianne', which is the symbol of the French Republic. I got you a link with an actual picture... It's french though:
http://www.elysee.fr/instit/symb6.htm
"Marianne is the symbol of France since the constitution of 1958 made the Blue-White-Red flag official. She is a sign of Liberty"
As one of the most important nations in the world (exery nation may have it's beauty and so on, but you know what i mean.), I think France's military should get an own section in the article. BTW, the main article on it is very messy. -- Predator capitalism 18:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What happened?? We all need to work together as a team to act more quickly a vandal starts messing with wikipedia articles. -- nicksukh
Il n'y a aucune raison pour protéger cet article. Il faut simplement exclure les idiots qui détruisent la page. C'est ça. - Heimdal 15:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Erm...the entire page has just disappeared.
Note: by the 2nd of May, 2005 part of the conversation had become jumbled up. I used the history to figure out who wrote what when. Shinobu
Why is it that so many people like to vandalise pages about france or the french?
I don't want annoy Mason.Jones, but I think that he's comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand, we have the choice of étatsuniens, a precise and descriptive term, though not widely used; on the other hand, we have people posting caricatures of political leaders as weasels, schoolyard-level insults, and other vulgarities. It does not take high casuistic skills to recognize that the latter exhibit more blind hate than the former. On the Francophone wikipedia, I've never seen this level of vulgar, uninformed, hateful anti-Americanism, while this kind of francophobia is regularly exhibited on the English-speaking wiki. 10:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't have the impression that the France article is more often vandalised than other pages. I also see a lot of vandalism on the United States page, for that matter. Besides, it seems to me that it's always the same few individuals who disrupt the pages. Perhaps a stricter policy against vandalism would help. People should be warned, and if they do it again, their IP should be blocked. - Heimdal 13:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have a little personal story that may help stop all the bashing of France and the vandalism of the France page (And Dave, one of the schools that may have been vandalizing the page might have been mine; the opinion on the French there is pretty negative).
One time my Dad was sitting in a chatroom on AOL. Now, we all know how nasty some of those pages can be, and this story is proof of that. The room was entirely made up of United States citizens (and proud ones at that), save for one French citizen. Every single American in the room was bashing the person, using every stereotype and insult in the book. Finally he got everyone in the room to be quiet long enough for him to type, "Look, we've been dealing with the Iraqis for a rather long time now, and we've learned one thing about them after all these years. Its that the Iraqis really aren't all that ready for Democracy. And they won't be for the next 200 years. You really have to trust us on this one." Shortly after he said this, the entirety of the American citizens in the room was cheering the man on.
In case anybody reading this didn't know what the Frenchman was referring to, it was the current situation with the war in Iraq. I hope that this of all things helps to end the vandalization of the France page on Wikipedia. Of course, for anyone to read this, they would have to come and click the discussion link and sit through and read all of this. :wink:
-- Nelson || Hit Me Up 04:51, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I believe it is totally okay to bash the French. I mean, they bash on us a lot more than we bash on them. And lets not forget to mention the corruption prevalent in the French government. I mean, they have had the same darn president for the last 18 years, corruption is bound to sink in when your in office that long. Also, the reason that I despise the French the most is that the majority of the French are liberal Roman Catholics, which I should also mention that corruption plagues the Holy Roman Catholic Church too. 05:17 January 31 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you're an idiot. May I ask which country you come from ? And while we're at it, have you ever been to France ? Do you speak a bit of French ? Do you know a lot of French people ? I can see by your writing that you are very concerned with the current state of affairs in the political realm in France. Might I ask the name of this president who has been in office for the past 18 years ? Let me save you some time; his name is Jacques Chirac and he has been in office since 1995. Being that we are 2006, that counts 11 years this May. Try searching Wikipedia:Jacques Chirac for further information. - Dustin, dustin_bradley@web.de
My bad about the 18 years thing. You are right about the current state affairs in France. My problem is with the wide spread corruption within the French government, including your beloved Jacques Chirac. He has been implicated to have been involved with the Oil-for-food scandal and the French government has excepted bribes from Saddam Hussein to oppose a US led liberation of Iraq. What angers me the most is that the French government is totally unable or is unwilling to impeach Chirac from his "11" year regieme even though he has been proved to have conections with the Oil-for-food scandal. If a US President was found to have accepted bribes, no question he would have been impeached. It is also annoying that Chirac has many immunities from impeachment (I may be wrong about this so correct me). 07:39 January 31 2006 (UTC)
128.231.88.4 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You guys, despite your liberal views and your stand on "tolerance," have shown very little openness to this idea that Chirac was possible more involved in the Oil-for-food scandal than Cheney ever was. You continue to say that all governments are corrupt, and I agree with you, but not all governments are as corrupt as others. If you think that the French government is so good, why don't you move their and live in denial like most of the other French citizens do. All I am trying to do is present the truth so that I might save a few from the coming firestorm. 06:01 February 6 2006 (UTC)
The previous argument is possibly one of the most idiotic I have ever heard. Guess what? It's not un-American to look at other governments to see what we could be doing better!! Try not being such an isolationist, xenophic idiot next time you decide to post your opinions on this forum. And try signing your name, or I'll tack on --Republican in Denial at the end. Jacques Chirac wasn't awarded a multi-billion dollar contract for the Oil for Food program. He didn't lie to his people in order to further his agenda. Where are the WMDs??? Would you care to address that issue in your next discharge of wisdom (sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm!!) ?? -- Aquarelle 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This may just be me, but I think those involved here could stand to chill out a bit. Fightindaman 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It is nice too know that I incite such feelings in you Aquarelle. I hope to have such debates with you in the future. But know this, the older a country gets, the more corrupt it gets, and the French consider themselves the pinnicle of human nature because of the age of their country. And even if Chirac was not "awarded" multi-billion dollar contract in the Oil-for-Food program, he most certanly had knowladge of it. [3] LordRevan 03:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You have to remember that France does not have a hard-core market economy like the United States does. If you want to compare corruption in France to corruption in the US, you're going to have to work a little bit harder (it's not easy to compare apples and oranges :) ). As you probably know, the French government has large holdings in my companies considered to be important to the national well-being. By nature, public companies have major differences to private ones. Are they more corrupt ? Maybe, but then we have things like Enron and Haliburton (Dick Cheney). You can't simplify the issue to the point that «because France is old, it's corrupt» or «because Chirac (and many others, including Canada, Germany, and most of the world) didn't want to help the US with their bogus invasion, they all must be criminals.» I would rather that Bush kicked back a couple of million $$$ and bought himself a new car, then having him proceed with whatever he thinks he's doing now. By the way, how do you like paying for the war ? Not exactly a small bill, is it (Bush just asked for another 130 billion)? Might have used that money for something else...education, social security, you know, junk like that. -- Aquarelle 05:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Say that "the French consider themselves the pinnicle of human nature" is maybe a little bit excessive. French people are the most consumers of anti-depressive drug. If all the french were so full of their person, i don't think that they'll be so depressive. I'm french, and i understand that many people, especially united states, doesn't like the french lesson-giver. But we are not all like that. 82.125.199.247 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC) julafrite
I wonder whether the quoted figures include the budget of the Gendarmerie (which, for the vast majority of its missions, acts like a civilian police force and would not be counted into the military budgets of some other countries). David.Monniaux 16:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I noticed while reading the article that many sentences were somehow trying to show France in a positive light by showing statistics about economics and nuclear power. I do not get that feeling while reading articles about United States, Japan or Germany. Maybe someone can help tidy up the article. Strangely even the article on India seems to suffer from the same problem. Is it got to do with an inner feeling of the people of nations truly great at some point in time? -- coolmallu 22:45, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
I'm obviously not alone in perceiving bias—some of it blatant—against the U.S. but not against France. Many articles about the United States, especially those in French Wiki, are loaded with negativity. When it comes to the world's superpower, the tone is distinctly leftist. Mason.Jones 19:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, as in "left" == "the ONLY way we see the racist, imperialist superpower in French Wikipedia". The fact that the article "États-Unis" is less virulently anti-American now may be because some of us Amerloques with good skills in French edited it to be a tad less one-sided. It was a chore, Mr. Schloss, believe me. Mason.Jones 17:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can the two columns be aligned somewhat more?
The white flag is also used for surrendering,and no,I wont go there about Hitler parading through Paris.
Someone needs to revise the part about the referendum on the European Constitution. The French people rejected it. -Amit
The only edit war I see coming is from one highly pushy individual who wants his point of view heard, and no other, "Hardouin". This points to the entire problem with the Wikipedia concept. The site is, in effect, written in act of sequential censorship, especially so when certain individuals decide to show up. - Joseph (65.182.172.89)
Failing to include any reference to the rejection of the European Constitutional treaty by France (er, Non means Non, Hardouin) makes this article weaker. JDancer 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph:
Can the first sentence be backed up with any sort of facts? If we set aside for a moment the issue of what it means for a country to lose and then regain territory, there are several other locations that could legitimately lay claim to the distinction -- for example, Poland, Israel, Egypt, and parts of the former USSR; it all depends on how you count it. The definition of such is too messy and subjective to be put into an encyclopedia. Andrew Levine 23:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the Bastille article, it says that the Fête de la Fédération was a celebration of Bastille Day. If this was the case, it makes more sense to regard the July 14 holiday as a celebration of Bastille Day than a celebration of its first anniversary!
Either way one of the articles needs altering.
Would somebody please kindly explain to me why people such as Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity hate the French so much?(My apologies for only naming Conservatives, but those are the only people I know of that seriously hate France.) For those who date our friends the Francsters, I have something to say. First, the only time they've ever majorly disagreed with us was in the Iraq war. All they said was that they didn't think it was a good idea to invade Iraq. They never ever supported Saddam or the insurgents. Secondly, if it wasn't for France, our Revoultion for our freedoms that French-haters proudly brag about would most likely have lasted a lot longer, and we may not have won it at all. Finally, because of the revoultion, France has been our oldest ally. For crying out loud, they gave us The Statue of Liberty, and we thank them by renaming their fries?! Something's wrong. I studied French at school last year, and found their culture to be more welcoming and friendly than most Americans I know. Thank you very much for reading my thoughts, and I look forward to having my questions answered.
To the guy above, France did support Saddam Hussein. There have been reports that France was selling weapons to Saddam before Bush decided to liberate Iraq. And lets not forget that France received many bribes from Saddam Hussein and in return, France promised that they would oppose the US if they were to make a move for military measures in the UN. Check this site out. http://www.blogicus.com/archives/extensive_bribery_by_saddam_included_unsc_member_nations.php 07:04 January 31 2006 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe those statistics??? I believe that statistics is one of the liberals biggest weapons. The major problem with statistics is that they take the opinion of several thousand people, and apply them to the rest of the citizens of the country with supposedly "2-5 percent buffer." Tell me, how can they accurately predict what a person thinks or believes by polling 100,000 people (could be more or less) and apply it to a nation of 60 million. When you can answer that I will concede to your view above. 06:55 January 31 2006 (UTC)
There you guys go again with your psycho liberal thinking, you just do not want to see the truth for what it is. And that link you showed me explain to me why you are unwilling to still see the truth. LordRevan [4] [5]
This article is about France, not about US media; furthermore, this talk page is about improving the article, not expressing personal views which, typically, only interest those who hold them. I would be grateful if it was possible to stick to the point, and refrain from saturating this page with irrelevant comments. Thank you. Rama 10:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've started making this Wikipedia:Wikiportal/France wikiportal thing. I have no idea how to draw tables and pretty things like that, so if someone can gimme a push forward, and collaborate with me on it, I'd appreciate it -- Expurgator t (c) 23:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the Portal link below the country infobox. I've added a table to help in positioning the portal link at the top right of the article, making it more easily accessible. There is likely a more elegant way of doing this, but after tinkering about a bit with the mechanics, this is the best method I could find. Courtland 16:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous editor just put forward a rather interesting point of the perenity of France during the Second World War, but what was said was incorrect:
In fact, first a part, then whole France was under Nazi occupation, but the French State remained. One is left with the choice of allegiance to either Vichy France, or the Free France in exile in London.
In either case, the country did not cease to exist. Rama 4 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)
Should be shortened and only mention the 26 regions - a reference to the full list would suffice. Longs lists never positively contribute to a good article. Themanwithoutapast 00:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I added a link to the France page, which was deleted. As I'm a novice here and the person deleting is an experienced editor, I tried to contact him to discuss. I've gone to his user page and left a message but had no response (perhaps on vacation or perhaps doesn't consider my message worth responding to).
Rather than just re-adding the link (to probably have it re-deleted), I would like to discuss the reason behind the deletion. Is there anyway to find the EMAIL address of a Wikipedia editor to communicate directly? Is there a better way to proceed than merely posting on his user page?
Suggestions and comments welcome. Following is the text of my original posting (not yet responded to) and my EMAIL address in case anyone wants to respond direct.
Moncrief
This morning I added a link to my site, which I believe you've deleted. I would like to discuss why the link was deleted and whether there is anything I can do to have it readded.
First, some background. My site (www.france-property-and-information.com) is 95% informational and 5% commercial. To make it more attractive to Wikipedia, I've separated the informational portion from the commercial portion, creating a 'pseudo home page' for the informational side at http://www.france-property-and-information.com/france_and_french_property.htm.
I consider the information at this link to be substantial and interesting. Furthermore, it is expanding weekly, so I see its value continuing to increase. As it deals with France (food, culture, wine, regions, etc.) I feel the FRANCE portion of Wikipedia is a suitable place for it.
If the link was removed because it was considered unsuitable, could you let me know what I would need to do to correct this problem?
Doug Stewart (dougstewart@france-property-and-information.com)
The article Napoleonic Wars has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. To support the article, you can add your vote there.-- Fenice 08:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The French flag was not inspired by the flag of the Netherlands. This theory put forward by an anonymous user repeatedly in the last days is simply not supported by any proof and seems to be only a (chauvinistic?) guess from that anonymous user. Actually, ironically, I found out that it seems the Netherlands designed their flag in the 17th century based on the blue-white-red colors of the Bourbon of France. According to the French Wikipedia it is King Henry IV of France who suggested these colors to the newly independent Netherlands. Finally, the Netherlands did not have borders with France at the time of the Revolution as the anonymous user wrote. France had borders with the Austrian Low Countries, but not with the independent Netherlands. Hardouin 30 June 2005 11:06 (UTC)
The original colours of the Dutch flag were orange, white and blue. King Henry V of France did not suggest to the Netherlands to use red, white and blue. The Dutch started using red because the orange colour was unstable in flag making.
This is not chauvinism. Here are some sources:
http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ460652
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frflag.htm#tricolor
http://www.languedoc-france.info/06141201_tricolore.htm
scotthatton 11 August 2005 16:19 (UTC)
I noticed while browsing about some Wikipedia statistics pages that this article appears on a 100 most accessed articles statistics page as #100. (accessed August 27, 2005) Courtland 16:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The IP address 216.229.18.122 appears to have only been used to vandalise articles about France, starting in March 2005. Is it possible to get this IP # on a block list (I'm ignorant of how that might be done and whether it would be approved). Courtland 21:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
There was an edit that carried the comment "Fixing overlapping images. This article needs a lot of work." Overlapping images? Not in my browser (Firefox 1.0.4) and not using the MonoBook (default) skin. I'm curious if others feel this article needs a tremendous amount of work or not from a formatting perspective. Courtland 00:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello! I've started translating the English article in a foreign Wikipedia & I was wondering about the meaning of this phrase from the history section: "The eastern part (which would soon unite with the central portion as the Holy Roman Empire) can be regarded the beginnings of what is now Germany, the western part that of France." Isn't something missing from this phrase? Thanks! -- Vlad 21:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so, it means: "The eastern part (...) can be regarded [as] the beginnings of what is now Germany, the western part as [the beginnings] of France." David.Monniaux 05:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The info-box mentions French[1] as the language:
1 See [ Languages section] for regional languages
The link doesn't work! Isto Ylisirkka 20:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
This article is very far from the FA status. Many things have to be done:
In this aim I have tried to strongly edit the article. Many things I did have been reversed. I'll try to do this once again. I hope it will be more successful this time. Compare with FA like South Africa, Nepal, India, Hong Kong or People's Republic of China to see what should be a kind of aim. Vb 19:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
There has to be some mention or notice at the top directing you to the article on the current rioting in France just like when you lookup New Orleans it has a link to Katrina's effects on New Orleans. Come on people riots have been going for 16 days, the New Orleans articles were made days after. 68.63.88.28 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Compared to Hurricane Katrina, "these incidents are hardly a significant part of the contemporary history of France." Are you totally serious? After days of rioting, France's image in the rest of the world has been set back thirty years. The reports in U.S., Canadian, European and Latin American media (I read them all) weren't just negative, they were withering. A Wiki link to "French riots" is justified. Mason.Jones 16:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not speaking of the "Anglo-Saxon press," Rama, but the WORLD press. I read German, Spanish, French, and English, and the reporting has been similar: France has a HUGE problem. It doesn't help Wikipedia at all when it studies U.S. society but refuses to study and analyze France and French society. French hypersensitivity is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Mason.Jones 17:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The recent riots in France gained front page coverage in major newspapers around the globe, and French thinkers and politicians across the political spectrum repeatedly underlined their significance. Your repeated and obstinate refusal to accept neutral and generally-accepted facts, Rama, raises doubts in my mind that you can be trusted to edit this article from a neutral point of view. JDancer 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to know the daily newspaper infos....and some nation information.....like colonies and stuff....argggg
209.158.115.244 14:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Nelson Martinez 209.158.115.244 14:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The French daily newspaper that is most sold is Ouest France, but it's a regional newspaper. In the category of national daily newspapers, the most famous are Le Monde, viewed as the reference newspaper (much the same as NYT in the US, or The Times in the old days in the UK), Le Figaro, the oldest newspaper in France, center-right, and Libération, the main voice of the left. Hardouin 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Another daily newspaper is La Croix which is an apolitical christian newspaper. It is considered by journalists as the best newspaper (the most independant, objective...)
Never heard that La Croix was the best newspaper, objective or independant... I wonder who are the journalists you speak about.
The section predicting the population of France in 2050 seems misleading. The figures quoted are from a single report and contradict others made by the French government and other organisations. If this section is to remain, I think it needs to clarify this, perhaps with other estimates. Maybe just remove it altogether since it comes across as fairly pro-French?
UK National Office of Statistics Projection 83.67.205.202 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
This article reads as if written by the French Tourism Bureau. Fascinatingly, the history section glosses over all history between 987 and 1792 and claims a victory for France in WWII! No mention is made of either the corruption scandals or the recent riots which have rocked the political system. This is supposed to be an encylopedia and not a marketing piece. The standard of English often slips quite noticably, which makes we wonder if there's a link between this and the ... upbeat? ... tone of the writing (ahem)? About time someone got to work on bringing this article up to an acceptable standard. JDancer 17:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Very general and yet only specific where the gloss is positive towards France. This is unworthy of an encyclopedia. I suppose my shock at the statement that France was victorious in WWII is based on the defeat and occupation of the French state by the Nazi regime - this is incongruous and needs to be redrafted. As of the riots:
2 November: Rioters ransack a police station at Aulnay-sous-Bois, police report coming under fire from at least two live bullets at La Courneuve, and 177 vehicles are burnt.
3 November: Violence spreads beyond the Paris region to the eastern city of Dijon and parts of the south and west, with 400 vehicles burnt.
8 November: The cabinet authorises a range of emergency powers to tackle the unrest, under which local authorities can impose curfews and restrict people's movements. It is the first time the 1955 law has been implemented on mainland France. The move follows a night during which 1,173 cars are burnt and 330 arrests made, with 12 police officers injured.
11 November: The city of Paris announces a ban on all public meetings likely to provoke disturbances, to run from 0900 GMT on Saturday 12 to 0700 GMT on Sunday 13.
13 November: The European Union offers France 50m euros ($59m; £34m) to help recover from the riots.
Source: [8] Perhaps this is normal in France. Me, I think this is something which needs to be covered in a 'general' article which seeks to inform the user on the condition of the France. Anyone agree? JDancer 16:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't say I've ever read The Sun in my life, and the point where you can only support the inclusion of misleading elements in an article by denigrating the motives of another editor is the point where: 1) it's clear that you do not have a balanced approach to the neutrality of this article and 2) that someone needs to review your status as an administrator of Wikipedia. I'll discuss this with the Stewards. JDancer 08:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Steady on. We can work it out with a bit of goodwill. Rama, your comment was entirely uncalled for. France was defeated in World War II. It's ridiculous to suggest it won. It may have ended up on the winning side, but it did not have a "victory". The article is indeed very thin on history in the Middle Ages, having too little to say about France's important part in European history, thought and culture in those times. I don't think the stuff about the EEZ should be omitted, but it simply isn't a matter of much interest, and could probably be cut a bit. James James 09:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that goes without saying, alongside Soviet Russia. Free Poles arguable produced a more significant impact on the outcome of the war than did the Free French (but nobody's arguing Poland won WWII). France's defeat by the Nazis was complete, definite and humiliating, with France surrendering to protect Paris from bombardment and thereby allowing genocide on her territory. Without the massed US liberation launched from British soil, France would be Nazi (or possible Communist) to this day. Facts, gentlemen, facts. I dispute the neutrality of a number of the editors of this article; they make the Wikipedia a poorer place. JDancer 00:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Not neutral to request that 'France was vistorious in WWII' might be ameded to be more factually correct? Obvious POV pushing to push that this article should be more balanced and neutral? Lack of factual accuracy in noting that France was militarily crushed by Nazi Germany before allowing a Fascist puppet state to be set up on her territory? Guilty as charged. But then I'm not a native French speaker as you are, so perhaps I'm failing to understand that all has been and will be rosy in the French Republic. Please try to contribute to a better Wikipedia article for France. JDancer 00:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Please, let's keep a lid on it. We're not contesting the war all over again! I've amended the text to mention that France achieved victory after an initial heavy defeat in WWII. I think it's fair to say France won in the end, but also fair not to suggest that it was completely straightforward. Comments very welcome. James James 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I remodeled the sentence to look more like the Norway article mentionning invasion and occupation. Guerby 18:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi ALL! I have read the article. but I have not seen any reference to genocides which have been committed by France aganist Algerians and other african nations. Does it not a mistake?
Yes! For exmaple, Algerian Genocide. French colonialist lilled more 1.5 million Algerians. Does it not qualify as a genocide?
why? Because they are not white?
Genocide is any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: "Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The situation in Algeria perfectly sits into this definition. Also, as far as I know French colonialist army used gas chambers againist local Algerians which is also a symbol of the Holocaust.
Should Gallia really directly get routed here to France? This makes it really hard to add historical data about the Roman province (data which is maybe a bit out of place here). Note also that afaik the only connection is a rough overlap with the area, since most of the tribes migrated in the migrations after the Romans. (when the Francs arrived that gave France its name), and the earliest I can think of a "France" is after the Treaty of Verdun when the larger Charlemanic Franconian Empire is split up in the kernels of France and Germany with Lotharia inbetween.
Also large parts of the northeast parts of France belonged to the Germania provinces, and probably all other borders are also not as clear cut. 84.35.55.47 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, Gallia redirects to Gaul. If you have found a mention of "Gallia" in an article that redirects here, please change the redirect to Gaul. If you don't know how, drop me a message at my talkpage and I'll do it for you. James James 06:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
What is the source for the GDP and trade rankings shown in the article?:
-- that "World Bank data" cite shown in the article doesn't offer much. CIA World Factbook puts France at 7th in GDP, as of 2004:
-- and I expect France is lower than 4th in foreign trade value, as well. No particular axe to grind for CIA, but such stats do need some form of citation. No axe to grind for or against the French, either: 7th & 4th ain't bad -- but best to be accurate, here...
-- Kessler 15:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the formatting of the infobox?? Oh no itsJamie Talk 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Should French Guiana and other Région d'outre-mers be included on the map of France Fabhcún 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
TOM's should also be added, they are part of France even if they have a different status.
Sorry, I really don't know how to edit things in Wikipedia, so I really hope I don't screw the discussion page up, haha, but anyway, did anyone actually add the DOM ? If so, they're impossible to see…would it be possible to have a few little boxes zooming in on the DOM on the map, kind of like you see for Alaska and Hawaii under the rest of the states on a lot of US maps, or like you see on Euro notes (I think) for the DOM ? Does that make any sense ? Anyway, sorry, thanks ! (Update: if you look at the US map on any US state's page, that's what I'm talking about ! :-) )
No mention that the cock (chicken) is a widely recognised French emblem Jonto 12:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This phrase "France is also the second most productive country in the OECD (excluding Norway and Luxembourg where productivity data are inflated by oil revenues in Norway, and by investments in off-shore banks in Luxembourg)." sounds somewhat apologetic and therefore really strange. It's like saying "Well yeah, I won the race (excluding the two guys in front of me who were faster, but they had better shoes". I suggest to revise it "France is also ranked as the fourth productive country in the OECD". Any comments? SignumPolis 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I find the current wording to be accurate and more explanatory. I disagree with your opinion that it should be changed : I find it to be another one of your attempts to reflect France in an excessively negative light. I encourage you to refrain from making any more major edits to this article until you have the support of other wikipedians. -- Aquarelle 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say change it. It sounds like it's trying to make France sound more important as it is. The rank is the rank and trying to discount other countries because they have resources (either goods or capital) that France does not makes no sense. Fightindaman 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that Norway and Luxembourg's data would be genuinely skewed by things like oil or offshore banks. But the real issue is to find sources. Is this way of describing France's productivity commonly done? Is it frequently said that its "real" productivity is second highest, because Luxembourg and Norway are skewed? If so, the current phrasing is fine. If not, we ought to change it, because it's original research. john k 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It just depends on the way you look at the data. If we go by GDP per hours worked, then France usually comes in at number one or two. But as mentioned in the article, French people just don't work as much as others, such as Americans, Polish, Czech, or Koreans. That's why I'm fine with the article the way it is. I don't understand the comments of user "SignumPolis" about how the DOM/TOM section is Franglais. Once again, user "SignumPolis" is misleading people. What were formerly known as DOM (départements d'outre-mer) are now technically called DROM (départements et régions d'outre-mer). What were formerly known as TOM (territoire d'outre-mer) are now technically called POM (pays d'outre-mer), except the TAAF (terres australes et antarctiques françaises) which are still referred to as TOM. Perhaps user "SignumPolis" makes a good point that this section of the article could use some updating, but we need to be accurate as we go about it. It is still very common for these places to be called by their former names, and I'm guessing that most French people (including the inhabitants of said places) are not aware of the change. -- Aquarelle 06:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this article too biased towards the positive aspects of France ? There is no mention of the Vichy-Regime, the colonial past, especially the atrocities in Algeria and the current riots (every day 30 cars are burned), which are mainly due to the discrimination of the non-white (essentially Arab and black) population. I know these are difficult issues in France and they don't like to talk about it. Chirac is actually picking up on this denial by admitting the French responsability in the holocaust and introducing a day to commemorate slavery. In addition, the French have not really won any war since 1871 without the help of the Americans, so speaking of an "ultimate victory of France" is somewhat simplified. Any thoughts?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1690206,00.html Let me quote parts of it: "The riots in the French suburbs late last year, mainly among disaffected and unemployed second generation immigrant youth, helped bring a new focus to the government of Dominique de Villepin in the run-up to next year's presidential election. [...] But his [de Villepin's] plans prompted Le Figaro, the conservative daily, to quote Sir William Beveridge, architect of Britain's welfare state, on how the great evil of unemployment can generate hatred and fear - precisely the experience of Aulnay-sous-Bois and other French suburbs."
SignumPolis 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Without any support, I don't see how you found the grounds to add your paragraph. Why did you put it under Economy anyways? I would find it more appropriately placed under Miscellaneous Issues, maybe with a subheading of Current Social Matters. This is why you need to consult with other people before making a controversial edit for your agenda. Aquarelle 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a plan. I put it under ecomomy because I think the tension have mainly economic reasons. If you give people work and allow them to live in dignity they don't burn your cars. Fine, do you want me to go ahead or do you want to do it? SignumPolis 21:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
SignumPolis 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Bob 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
How does France have a border with the netherlands? -- Astrokey44| talk 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
So why did we remove the part about the DROM's boarders? As already mentioned, they are a fully integrated part of the French republic. It seems obvious to me that we need to mention their boarders along with the rest of France. -- Aquarelle 13:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The introduction to this article states that France has a Land Border with the UK under the channel tunnel. Although there is a white line marking the divide between the two countries, most people would not consider this a land border, as it is under the sea (and hence not land!). The UK article makes no mention of this 'border' and most other sources (example: [ CIA world fact book UK page]) regard the UK as having one border only, with the Republic of Ireland. -- Steverwanda 10:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This section is by far too long, too wordy and full of information that are not relevant for a general article about a county. It should be considerably condensed. SignumPolis 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It is not an ugly place - however, the phrase as it is, is clearly POV and should be revised. Every time I ask my friends from Paris: 9/10 consider it too crowded, too expensive and too stressful to live in: Metro-boulot-dodo. SignumPolis 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
France is the number one tourist destination. It must not be so bad after all. I find nothing wrong with the bit about Paris. Do you disagree that many pepople consider Paris to be beautiful? Yes, it's true that when living in the same place for a long time you begin to get tired of it, but I think we are looking for a bit broader point of view for this article; something that pertains to more people than just the ones who live there. I've reverted your change. I've also deleted that bit you tacked on with those old statistics. 1) they're outdated 2) this is not an article about the riots. -- Aquarelle 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
"Paris est la plus belle ville du monde", "Paris is the most beautifull city" is just a formule. For me, Pujols is the most beautifull city in the world altough it's a village. This expression give pleasure to us, poor little frenchies which haven't anithing else.Don't deprive of it, please. 82.125.199.247 15:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC) julateufree
hi, i wanted to ask for help. i actually was wondernig if anybody has a comprehensive detail descreption about france's partipitation in world war one if you could please give the site. thanks ___________________
Can anybody explain me why the French think their population is growing without immigration? According to the EUROSTAT 2004 numbers, the number of children per woman in France is 1.9 while 2.1 is considered the population replacement level? Is this another myth on this page we need to address? http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema= PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=Yearlies_new_population&root=Yearlies_new_population/C/C1/C12/cab12048
Between 1993 and today the numbers were between 1.63 and 1.9 and never reached 2.1. How are they trying to fool us here? Were "sans-papiers" legalized and not counted under immigration? Thank you, SignumPolis 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
French people think their population is growing because it went from 62 518 571 to 62 886 171. -- Aquarelle 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Nope, the French are just having babies again. Children per woman is not the most accurate indicator since it is a very long-term measurement. Look below:
Sorry to disappoint you, France is just growing. You can read French, right ? I would offer, but honestly I don't feel like translating it for you.
By the way, your link doesn't work, but I'm pretty sure EuroStat would be consistent with this (if not exactly the same) -- Aquarelle 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
No-where can I find any info in Wikipedia of the origin of the French using a cockerel as their mascot ? Could somebody kindly consider this for insertion if they know ? Thanks --jrleighton 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The Embassy of France in U.S. web page explains that French people choose like their mascot under the July Monarchy and the Second French Republic when it was seen on the pole of regiments' flags and 1830 the rooster replaced like official emblem of France to fleur - des -lis. Elthon73 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is the Swedish flag being shown on this page? I realise that the Swedish royal family is French, but still... fledgist 13:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's sad that a country with such a significant contribution to humanity and its history is hated by so many narrow-minded idiots. AllStarZ 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I see someone replaced France infobox with a more standard country infobox. I thought this had already been debated and the agreement was that we don't need the standard infobox, as long as France infobox respects the style of the standard infobox. France is not the only country in that case. A lot of information is lost with the standard infobox, and the conclusion of the debate was that there's no need to standardize everything. So I am restoring France infobox in the article. Also please note for the zillionth time that figures from the CIA World Factbook are INACCURATE, and only official French figures should be used. Hardouin 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the sentence;
"In some of its overseas parts, France also shares land borders with Brazil, Suriname, and the Netherlands Antilles."
France had Brazil as colony for a short period of time, and Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles were dutch colonies. The latter is a bunch of islands, that don't have land borders.
Or is it alluding to French Guiana, sharing a land border with Brazil and Suriname? If it is, then that seems incorrect. France doesn't share a border, one of its colonies does.
Sclozza 04:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that the denotation of France in German (Frankreich) is by no means an unusual one, but in fact quite common among non-english speaking countries, in spite of what was previously implied under Origin of the country's name. I edited this, and my edits were without any reasonable reason reverted by Instantnood, back to the earlier and ambigious version. Yet, the fact stands, the German denotation of France is not in itself an unusual one. Therefore I have decided to re-insert my edit, since the information is otherwise put in an ambigious way, it implies that the German denotation of France is an unusual or noticable one. We either put it in a way that states that this denotation of France is still quite common, or we leave it out completely. Otherwise, it will be ambigious. Please, feel free to change my (or anyone else's) edits, but do it in a careful and responsible manner. It is easy, maybe too easy, to revert back to an earlier version, but we should not revert unless all changes must be undone. Reverting is primarily a way to fight vandalism. Take some time to rewrite instead of reverting. Thank you. / Magore 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed for the second time the mention that metropolitan France is party located in Southern Europe. This keeps being added by an anonymous user with IP code starting with 82. France is first and foremost part of Western Europe, that's how it is presented in most encylopedias and dictionaries. If indeed the south of France is part of Southern Europe, then the north of France is also part of Northern Europe, so are we going to end up with saying that France is a country in Western Europe which is also partly in Southern Europe and partly in Northern Europe? A bit silly. Not to mention that Alsatians may add that Alsace is in Central Europe, so do we end up with "France is a country in Western Europe which is also partly in Southern Europe, partly in Northern Europe, and partly in Central Europe"? Even more silly. The most reasonable thing to do is to leave it as "metropolitan France is located in Western Europe", which fits all parts of metropolitan France. Hardouin 13:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is not stupid to mention its links with southern Europe. Especially in a linguistic cultural meaning, but also geographic and climatic for its southern Part. We have mentioned its caribean side, why not its mediterranean one wich is much more important. On the other side, "western Europe" is a good classification, but it doesn't say much. Spain, Norway, Finland, Portugal, UK, Iceland or Italy are all Western European countries as much as France is.
Category:Overseas departments, collectivities and territories of France
A pair of Rafale fighter aircraft: not so relevant
The CdG is the biggest piece of weaponry in the French republic while the picture of soldiers in Afghanistan emphasis on the French presence worldwide.
Wheat fields near the village of Usson: lovely but does not bring much information on French agriculture.
- Two pictures is too much for this small question, either keep the Mont St Michel or Versailles but not both.
- While I'm not sure a picture is needed here, I think Lourdes deserves the place above Basilique du Sacré-Cœur is there is to be a picture here.
- Louis-Pasteur Hospital in Cherbourg: not representative of current healthcare in France
- Christophe Lemaitre is the first Caucasian to break the 10-second barrier.: useless, it's a personnal achievement and does not represent French culture
- Overall there are way too many pictures of artists!
Matthieu ( talk) 15:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)