![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The image Image:Schuman Declaration.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC) HOLY CRAP I CANT FEEL MY LEGS;]<<<< whoever typed this rocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.107.203.30 ( talk) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franks" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 ( talk) 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Please move the name discussion from the "Rome to revolution" section to the "Origin of name" section and make it consistent. Fig ( talk) 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I am French and, at the school, we teached that the name of France is assigned at the tribe named "Franc" who invaded the Gaul-- ZOTHOP ( talk) 10:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Again several users found interesting to add lots of pictures to this page. We agreed it wasn't a touristic brochure and I'm not certain many of these have any use here but showing how beautiful our country is. I agree it's a lovely place but here it's just not the place to show this. I'm making a list here of pictures that I believe serve no purpose but showing a beautiful picture in itself. If people agree they should be removed Matthieu ( talk) 15:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC).
It is written in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_NATO#Member_states "France withdrew from the integrated military command in 1966 to pursue an independent defence system. However, there were plans for it to rejoin sometime in 2008, but hadn't joined until now". This should be mentioned, shouldn't it? -- Schwarzschachtel ( talk) 06:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The only official symbol of French Republic is its flag... (Constitution de 1958) The other symbol (looking like coat of arms) have no real legal status. It is just in use for rare specific circumstances (like passport) when French authories have no other solutions than using it, because all other countries have similar stuffs... So, as a frenchman and teatcher of history, it is really strange seeing Wikipedia could considerate that as "symbol of France" !!!... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.101.42 ( talk) 02:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
this symbol is used at the cover of passport and french diplomacy were using it since 1912, so we can considr it as a symbol of France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.158.249 ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 March 2009
Can I ask how "Francia" "literally" "means" "Land of the Franks"? "Land of the franks" would in fact be "terra Francorum". Translating literally, Francia can only be transliterated, since the land known as Francia covered areas much larger than modern france. I don't know where "Frankland" has come from since this is an invented word. -- 86.146.215.169 ( talk) 15:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody needs to write something about France's achievements in the fields of science and technology and perhaps how they compare to other nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.119.65 ( talk) 02:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
On the page, you can read
"France is a secular country as freedom of religion is a constitutional right, although some religious organisations such as Scientology, Children of God, the Unification Church, and the Order of the Solar Temple are considered CULTS.[42]"
Read the link [42], all those movements are considered as SECTS, please change.
== France was Victorious in ww1 & 15
Someone please explain that one to me. I thought France was lost in ww2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.104.45 ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 March 2009
French fries and French toast were not officially made in France —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.237.22 ( talk) 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Was France even part of ww2 and who cares about french fries and french toast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.237.22 ( talk) 01:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
In WW2 Germany invaded after 6 weeks of battle France fell but several resistance groups fought throughout the enemey ocupation of France and into Allied insertion. they may have fallen Millitary wise but the citezens refused to give up. so yes they did fall at first but they managed to keep from total control by weakening German forces through guerrilla tactics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance go to that page that wil lclear some up for you alwo look at France history
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.255.65.203 (
talk)
23:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The Free-French also fought all over the world as part of the Allies and once France was liberated she was able to raise an army to carry on fighting. France was one of the four occupying nations of defeated Nazi Germany, along with UK, USA & USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.119.85 ( talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The photo of the train named "TGV" is taken in Avignon's railway station.
it is not a "TGV atlantique" but "TGV méditerrannén " I'm not shore sorry
do you kmow what paris is famous for now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.201.22 ( talk) 14:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
France is the third largest country in Europe not second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanqner ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC) If this is a protected page - does anybody bother to read the remarks of unauthorised editors? -- Lanqner ( talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Since a few days, a very persistent user is repeatedly changing the maps of many European countries without caring to discuss these changes. The situation before these changes was this: Every country in the EU has an identical map, in which the EU is shown in light green and the country itself in dark green. To the best of my of knowledge, there has been no discussion on changing these 27 maps. Given that, I fail to see why some users now rush in to support these unsupported changes. I would be interested in hearing these users argue for why we should have a completely different kind of map for France than for the other 26 EU countries. In the meantime, I'm restoring the map that it is line with all the other maps. JdeJ ( talk) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
In the "Economy" section of this article, it says in the part about energy that "France is also the most energy independent Western country due to heavy investment in nuclear power (Nuclear power in France)". This strikes me as a bit odd, as you also have Switzerland which gets 95% of its power from co2 free sources, in form of nuclear power and water power. And as a even more energy independent country you have Norway, which does not rely on imported uranium, but is a large net exporter of oil. The same goes for Canada.
I think it would be more precise to say that "France is one of the least CO2 emitting western counties(...)".
TheFreeloader (
talk)
19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Flags for most regions are wrong, e.g. for region Aquitaine this page gives File:Aquitaine_flag.svg but the correct one is File:Bandera_Regió_Aquitània.png as described on the page Aquitaine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.110.6 ( talk) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
In the section named "Foreign relations", it is writed that France leaved the joint military command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It could interesting to write that this decision of president Charles de Gaulle has been cancelled by president Nicolas Sarkozy in 2009.-- Pierrick42 ( talk) 10:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph addressing France's land mass states that it is second in Europe after Ukraine (as in its principle shape which is the France that everybody knows, north of Spain, south-west of Germany etc). It also states that France is largest if including its "extra-European territories". This is clearly incorrect however you look at it: the largest land mass in Europe to include non-European territory is the Russian Federation (regardless of whether that external territory is far greater). Europe is an economical and non-geographical continent, and Russia belongs only to European institutions such as UEFA and the Eurovision (that is not to say that Israel is European). But you'll find that this is more down to Russia's European lands have a higher population than the rest of Russia, and the dominant Slavic nations (mainly ethnic Russians themselves) mostly living in and originating from west of the Urals. In addition, Turkey and Kazakhstan are both larger in land mass than Ukraine and both extend onto European terrain. Then you have Denmark which has sovereignty over the whole of Greenland. Greenland's ice sheet alone is over three times larger than the French territory of Europe despite the island being populated by fewer than 60,000. Whilst the addition of extra-European lands may allow France to overtake Ukraine (which is not very much bigger than France), those territories will certainly not catch Denmark. So here are some notes for consideration with France and its land mass:
My list is not conclusive because I am not an expert on world affairs. Greenland is obvious because you cannot examine the globe and not see it! I suggest modifying the sentence to be more accuracte regarding France's ranking. My area of interest on WP is the Balkans, so I don't really wish to make changes to this article without a concensus; as such I will not take the liberty of changing any part of it unless nobody responds to this note. Evlekis ( talk) 07:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think france should ranked 3rd in Europe after Russia and Ukraine. Since we refer to Europe we should limit ourselves to the area each country has within Europe, excluding all areas outside Europe. -- Lanqner ( talk) 06:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
France has no official language, see e.g. the CIA factbook or Ethnologue: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=FR Either delete it on the infobox or delete 'official' and replace it for 'de facto' or just 'language'. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.173.113.122 ( talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Ethnologue is not a reference on French law; yet it does cite French as France's official language. The Constitution of France certainly is a reference on what is official or not. David.Monniaux ( talk) 21:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
French has been the official language of France for almost six centuries, since king François Ier signed the Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts in August 1539.
The French people still spoke in their various dialects or patois, but all official documents, which had previously been written in Latin, had to be written in French from then on.
In addition, the French Constitution Article 2 states:
La langue de la République est le français
Anymore doubt as to whether French is the official language of France or not? Frania W. ( talk) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I am french and I can say than the official language of France IS The french everyhere the territory of France but there are, in certain regions, some informal dialects -- ZOTHOP ( talk) 18:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of this page is using the US standard ".", but the Labour market section has "," as in 39,9%. I guess this is a cut-n-paste issue. Should this page be made consistent? And which way would be the right way, the US style "." or the French style ","? 128.221.197.55 ( talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC) doug
The coordinates need the following fixes:
121.54.2.115 ( talk) 09:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
They speak French in Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfet ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I don't think that the so-called stats about the french population are relevant nor factual, I won't consider an US Evangelical Christian website aggregating others Evangelical Christian websites like anything close to a serious source... Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.238.37.74 ( talk) 11:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
How come do you use ethnic group statistics from an non-neutral christian evangelist group which aim is to christianize the entire world ? (The "Joshua Project") Ethnic statistics are not used in France. How come there is NO ethnic statistics on the USA Wikipedia page used from The Joshua Project ? Are you doubtful of your sources for the USA and not for other countries ? Who is white ? Asian ? Eurasian ? mixed raced ? How do you define that exactly ? Ethnic groups statistics are racist, biased, dangerous and should be removed. JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.241.98 ( talk) 02:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
tHE CAPITOL IS Paris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.73.220 ( talk) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm kind of curious : why is the only link in that section to Language Imperialism ? Is this really so notable that it is the only article we encourage people to look at ? Especially as that article deals mostly with English... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.208.34.100 ( talk) 16:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "but consequently rivaling the UK and limiting the influence of newly inducted East European nations." is an absolutely subjective judgement. Actually, France is happy to boost a few Eastern European countries because they are either francophone (Romania) or counter-balance the english-language domination because their citizens speak very little english (Hungary). Actually, "rivaling the UK" is not a policy of France at all since the 19th century, especially given that following the credit crunch, recent France's growth exceeds UK's growth, that the British pound has lost over 20% of its value and that the financial policy of the UK has been completely discredited along with its stance in favour of military intervention in Iraq, based on British Intelligence that was grounded on hearsay about Weapons of Mass Destruction by an iraqi taxi-driver. Sacredceltic ( talk) 20:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: The discussion in this section has been moved to
Talk:France#Recent edits below. New topics should always be added to the BOTTOM of this page. Thank you very much!
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
19:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
La Marseillaise in English is The Marseillaise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.61.31 ( talk) 08:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
France is a rich europian country .I LOOKED AT THE ECONOMY SECTION OF FRANCE AND SAW THAT CHANGES HAVE NOT BEEN MADE YET. GDP NOMINAL IS FROM 2006 AND WE ARE NOW IN 2008, IT SHOULD BE 2.8 TRILLION USD (not 2,100 Trillion) AND 41,000 USD PER CAPITA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisbajro ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
France is no longer the sixth largest economy but [the eighth] as of 2007 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2004/rankorder/2001rank.html Per PPP, France is just [33rd.] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreizhAtav ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, France has just the EIGHT GDP at PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) and the SIX at nominal prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.110.3 ( talk) 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
and there empire was not one of the largest it was the 7th largest jeez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owehweghksdqgkedg ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The coin depicted as a Euro was minted in 1999, therefore not a Euro
France doesn't have a definition for what is a "black" or what is a "white" person or any other "colour" for that purpose, so assessing the number of "blacks" in France is absolutely meaningless. Where does this illegal definition come from ? On what data is it based ? How has the data been collected ? If it is not either administratively nor scientifically grounded, the number of "black people in France" should be removed straightaway because it doesn't mean a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredceltic ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
You are right insofar as the number of Black people is extremly hard to assess. However, it is 100% sure that France is the European country with the largest number of Black people on his territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakuzanodon ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently says, "In computing, a bit is called a bit yet a byte is called an octet." Should this be on the French language page instead? Anyway, I have marked this as [citation needed] because in English, byte and octet have different definitions (as you can see at their respective articles). Although a layman, to me it seems more likely that the French are just more precise on this matter, in which case the following wording might be better "In computing, quantities of digital data are normally expressed in terms of octets rather than [byte]s." Open4D ( talk) 12:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The sound file and suggested pronunciation in the English language represents only one possible pronunciation. It is possibly a North American rendering. Typically in many countries it is pronounced with a longer A sound (sorry I'm not a linguist). I suggest that both pronunciations be given or the NA rendering be removed. Ozdaren ( talk) 11:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Found in labor market: "These low employment rates are explained by the high minimum wages which prevent low productivity workers – such as young people – from easily entering the labour market,ineffective university curricula that fail to prepare students adequately for the labour market,[55] and, concerning the older workers, restrictive legislation on work and incentives for premature retirement"
Mmmmm...REALLY?...I didn't know Friedman was writing on wikipedia! And i never imagined the OECD did encyclopedias too! So i guess anybody has the right to put a radical left-wing analysis after this, to counter-balance? OH NO! It's locked! What a surprise! "High minimum wages are a problem"...and maybe, minimum dignity is another too? Not enough slaves in France, i guess? Minimum means guaranteed, and what is not guaranteed by law is smoke and tales for kids, especially when dealing with businessmen. Later : "Universities are failing at preparing us"...apart from the ill-chosen "failing", THAT'S RIGHT LUV! Because contrarily to most develloped countries, France has (some) real universities, in which knowledge is not (yet?) linked to rentability. Their goal is emancipation, which is precisely the opposite of the nice-packaged preparation to slavery you received...or not, i guess it's not free in your country? If you want to learn a job, you can learn it everywhere, but if you wanna enlarge your head, you should try at the university, cause there's few other places...really. "Restrictive legislation on work"? My ancestors, and millions of others in hundreds of countries, spilt their blood, facing cavalry charges and various other niceties to gain these laws, which enabled themselves to, slowly, improve their everyday life and dream of something better for their own childrens. Now these laws are being destroyed everywhere on purely monetarist ideas, supported by powerful lobbies, creating huge problems such as the subprime crisis and poor paid workers in develloped countries (but not only, sadly...). "Incentives for premature retirement". Yeah, we want fresh blood and we find it shameful to kill grandpas at work, after 40 years of sweating, don't you? Big corporations, or their official (or not) representatives want french people to burn their labor laws, through Wikipedia, they're not even TRYING to disguise it correctly, and this is, of course, on the frontpage about our country. I thought we worked to live and not lived to work, but i guess i was wrong. See : i even thought there was some serious on Wikipedia, at least on major countries' frontpages! How ridiculous! My comment is, obviously, one-sided, and i'm certainly not considering myself competent to edit this article, but i can tell you the person(s) who did this should never write in an encyclopedia again, and doesn't even has the basic courage to recognize his one-sidedness (maybe because it was done purposely...) Before leaving you to fix (or not, just look at the meaningless article on OECD...) this stinking ideologic propaganda, two intranslatable french words that explains everything : "Acquis sociaux". Goodbye. 90.52.6.161 ( talk) 00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: After verification, all the sources for this statement are linked to right-wing OECD, apart from one which refers to right-wing economists, of which one works for a brussel think-tank, which is, as you may have guessed, not committed to humanist ideals. Or maybe, some of you consider the OECD as a "neutral" source? In this case, some of you should consider opening some serious books before writing.
A user keeps removing the regional languages from the infobox claiming that they are not officially recognized. Well this is incorrect - since a 2008 ammendment to the French Constitution, France officially recognizes all its regional languages. The languages are not explicitely named in the constitution but they are listed in other official documents such as these: [6], [7] and [8]. See also this news report. Laurent ( talk) 18:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
To FFMG: Please do not be offended at my bolding your name! We are having a long discussion with some persons adding comments inside comments, and I figure that my own reply catches the eye of the person whom I am addressing if I "bold" the name. If you go through my comments on talk pages, you will see that I often "bold" or "italicise" the name of my interlocutor, it is only a way of making it obvious that this is the person I am talking to. This has to be taken as my personal way of writing, just as I often close with "cordialement !" or "aurevoir !". And as this is the second time you seem to misunderstand what I write, or the way I write, maybe the problem lies with my English, so I will ask (1) for your forgiveness, and (2) for your patience until I have mastered your language as well as you have mine.
Now on the subject at hand: Please note that my first comment opened with "I hate to see an edit war on whether or not to list the regional languages of France in the infobox..." and this is what I meant & hope. Because I am still trying to figure out whether the regional languages belong in the infobox or not, I never said that they should be there. What I am saying, and this in agreement with Laurent & Xavier, is that the regional languages (of France, DOM TOM etc.) are now officially recognised by a sentence included in the French constitution, while there is no list given of them, fact explained very well by Xavier. Moreover, the French do know what these regional languages are, so there is not need to include a list of them in their constitution. Take as an example: "All citizens are born equal", after this, do you need to give a list of the "citizens" ?
Cordialement à vous ! Frania W. ( talk) 16:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The issue is quite simple really. There are two points to consider:
So in order not to mislead people, and also to prevent a free-for-all, I propose to remove this "regional languages" section from the infobox, if only because it is original research. Der Statistiker ( talk) 01:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiLaurent, there is no "list from the ministry of culture". The ministry of culture never defined the regional languages of France. What happened is the ministry of culture asked a private researcher, Bernard Cerquiglini, to survey the regional languages of France and to submit a report to the ministry. Mr Cerquiglini submitted a report in 1999 in which he 75 identified regional languages. A second report was submitted in 2008 identifying 79 regional languages. And that's it! The government has never officially approved those lists made by a private researcher. It has never given them any legal recognition. There is no loi, no décret, no arrêté passed by the Parliament or issued by the French government which lists the regional languages or certify Mr. Cerquiglini's lists as official. The report of Mr. Cerquiglini was published on the ministry's website, but that's about it. There are many reports that are published on ministry's websites. That doesn't make them official law. Besides you chose to copy your list of regional languages from the 1999 list (with many omissions), but you chose to ignore the enlarged list of 2008. Like I said, original research at its worst. And a call for a free-for-all.
Der Statistiker (
talk)
14:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: Here are the 79 regional languages of France identified in the two reports that I mentioned: ajië, alpin-dauphinois, dialecte allemand d'Alsace et de Moselle, aluku, arabe dialectal, arawak proprement dit (ou lokono), arhâ, arhö, arménien occidental, auvergnat-limousin, basque, berbère, bourguignon-morvandiau, breton, caac, catalan, cèmuhî, corse, créole guadeloupéen, créole guyanais, créole martiniquais, créole réunionnais, drehu, drubéa, émerillon, fagauvea, flamand occidental, franc-comtois, francoprovençal, futunien, fwâi, galibi (ou kalina), gallo, gascon, hmong, iaai, jawe, kumak, languedocien, lorrain, langue mangarévienne, marquisien, njuka, neku, nemi, nengone, normand, numèè, nyelâyu, ôrôwe, paicî, palikur, paramaca, picard, pije, poitevin-saintongeais, provençal, pwaamei, pwapwâ, langue de Ra'ivavae, langue de Rapa, romani chib, langue de Ruturu, saramaca, shibushi, shimaoré, sîchë, tahitien, tîrî, langue des Tuamotu, dialectes de la région de Voh-Koné, walissien, wallon, wayampi, wayana, xârâcùù, xârâgùrè, yiddish, yuaga.
Der Statistiker (
talk)
14:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the more complete list of regional languages from the C.N.R.S
[11]:
basque,
breton,
catalan,
corse,
flamand occidental,
francoprovençal,
occitan,
gascon,
languedocien,
provençal,
auvergnat-limousin,
alpin-dauphinois,
franc-comtois,
wallon,
picard,
normand,
gallo,
poitevin-saintongeais,
bourguignon-morvandiau,
lorrain,
berbère,
arabe dialectal,
yiddish,
romani chib,
arménien occidental,
martiniquais,
guadeloupéen,
guyanais,
réunionnais,
saramaca,
aluku,
njuka,
paramaca,
galibi(or
kalina),
wayana,
palikur,
arawak,
lokono,
wayampi,
émerillon,
hmong
nyelâyu,
kumak,
caac,
yuaga,
jawe,
nemi,
fwâi,
pije,
pwaamei,
pwapwâ,
cèmuhî,
paicî,
ajië,
arhâ,
arhö,
ôrôwe,
neku,
sîchë,
tîrî,
xârâcùù,
xârâgùrè,
drubéa,
numèè,
nengone,
drehu,
iaai,
fagauvea,
tahitien,
marquisien, langue Tuamotu, langue mangarévienne, langue de Ruturu, langue de Ra'ivavae, langue de Rapa,
walissien,
futunien,
shimaoré,
shibushi.
Shall I update the article accordingly?
FFMG (
talk)
14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that this discussion will be endless if we do not agree first on the terms and definitions being used and what this "regional language" field is all about.
For example, some have been using the term "official language" from the beginning of the discussion. This field has nothing to do with an official language. As stated above, by definition a regional language is not official. This field is defined as "officially recognized languages". There is a huge difference between the "official language(s)" of a country and other "officially recognized languages". I hope this is obvious for everyone. Can we all agree about this?
Now, is there an official definition of what an officially recognized regional language is? Is there a wikipedia definition? I haven't found any, so here is mine: "a regional language, as defined in international law, whose existence has gained official recognition through legal texts" (and, with due care, to other official communication -- government websites, despite their lack of legal status, are carefully checked).
It's obvious to me that, when a government denies that something exists, it doesn't mention it in its official texts: although extra-terrestrial languages may theoretically exist, you won't find any law or decree about them. Do you believe the government would write a decree about the protection of brown bears in the Pyrenees if there weren't any brown bears there? Can you find a similar decree about the protection of pandas in Corsica? No.
Therefore, if you can find any legal text naming a particular language, then the existence of this language is de jure officially recognized, be it regional, national or foreign. If it is explicitly cited as a regional language, then it belongs to this infobox field.
“ | Les langues régionales pouvant donner lieu à épreuve obligatoire sont définies par la loi n° 51-46 du 11 janvier 1951 codifiée et les décrets pris ultérieurement pour élargir son champ d'application à d'autres langues. La liste de ces langues régionales est la suivante : basque, breton, catalan, corse, créole, langues mélanésiennes, occitan-langue d'oc, tahitien. Outre les langues énumérées à l'alinéa précédent, peuvent donner lieu à une épreuve facultative : le gallo, les langues régionales d'Alsace, les langues régionales des pays mosellans. | ” |
— Arrêté du 26 janvier 2006 modifiant l'arrêté du 15 septembre 1993 |
“ | Le français, le tahitien, le marquisien, le paumotu et le mangarevien sont les langues de la Polynésie française. Les personnes physiques et morales de droit privé en usent librement dans leurs actes et conventions ; ceux-ci n'encourent aucune nullité au motif qu'ils ne sont pas rédigés dans la langue officielle. | ” |
— Loi organique n°2004-192 du 27 février 2004 portant statut d'autonomie de la Polynésie française |
“ | Le juge n’est pas tenu de recourir à un interprète lorsqu’il connaît la langue dans laquelle s’expriment les parties | ” |
— Article 23 du Code de procédure civile |
My opinion on this infobox field:
Sorry for this lengthy comment and thanks for your attention. — Xavier, 02:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a note to say that the {{ Collapsible list}} template that I recently added to the ibox for the "Recognised regional languages" is an improvement that helps to keep iboxes from extending deeply down into their articles. It allows for as many additions as editors deem appropriate. See also India.
Also, if there is any dislike for the word "Recognised", then instead of using the "regional_languages" ibox field, use two other fields, the "languages_type" and the "languages" fields, in the following manner:
|languages_type = "[[
Regional languages]]"
|languages = {{collapsible list |title={{nbsp}} |
Alsatian;
Basque;
Breton;
New Caledonian languages2;
Catalan; . . .}}
This will also place the regional languages in their very own section, beneath the "Official languages" section, as shown here:
Template talk:Infobox country#What languages should go in the regional languages field? -- Thank you very much, and I sincerely hope this helps!
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please change: France is a one of the most developped countries -> France is a one of the most developed countries
A request for comment related to this article has been opened here. Any thoughts are appreciated. Cptnono ( talk) 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we really include such precise estimations? I know they are from the cited Washington Post article, but we have no way of knowing from where the Post obtained those numbers. The North African number seems high, given that only six years before that Post article was written, in 1999, the French government estimated that there were 3.7 million people of "possible Muslim faith" (and virtually all North Africans would seem to fit under that category). I think we should probably avoid precise figures and just say something like "Several million French citizens are of North African or black ancestry. Funnyhat ( talk) 21:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The article seems rather confused about this. It starts out
France ... officially the French Republic ... is a member state of the Europen Union located in its Western region, with several overseas territories and islands located on other continents.
This is rather unclear in itself. Is it supposed to imply that those territories & islands are part of France? Or just that it owns them?
Then, in the section Administrative divisions, we get
France is divided into 26 ... regions ... 4 are overseas regions. The regions are further subdivided into 100 departments.
From this it would seem that the overseas departments are part of France, but the overseas collectivities aren't.
But in the subsection Overseas regions/departments, collectivities, and territories we have
Overseas collectivities and territories form part of the French Republic.
That seems to contradict the previous quotation, unless there's a difference between France & the French Republic, which would contradict the opening of the article quoted above.
Maybe the reality is just as confused as the article, terms being used inconsistently. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone's interested, I give here some sources using the name in 3 different senses:
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I see this question is actually discussed at Metropolitan France, which seems a rather odd place for it. It appears from that that diferent French government departments differ between senses 2 & 3, & some used to use 1. If the government doesn't know what the country is ... Peter jackson ( talk) 15:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The edits in question are from editor Thome66:
See HERE. The first edit removed referenced material that was dated and replaced it with material from 2010. This is fine on the surface, however the existing reference is the source usually cited for this information, and the source cited by Thome66 may not be a reliable source. The second edit is also questionable since the link referenced to the World Health Organization lands on a page that is not available in the
English language. So until better sources can be supplied, the dated information must remain in the article per
WP:PRESERVE.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
21:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I brought this down from the first topic on this Talk page:
So maybe France isn't 1st after all.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
11:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that Rama, you have once again deleted the controversial material against WP:PRESERVE policy. I'm going to put it back in as per that policy, however I will first give my reasons.
Please let's follow the PRESERVE policy and, if the challenging editors so wish, see if the source is too old (five years) or inherently unreliable. Thank you very much!
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
02:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
There is an old Quality of life index from 2005 from Economist Intelligence Unit's Quality of Life Index http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf,, in which France is ranked 25th for Quality of Life with their overseas departement included. Later on the Quality of life index has been published by the International Living Magazine in co-operation with the World Health Organization, UNESCO and also The Economist etc, where France ranks 1st for the 5th year in a row (without overseas departement). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index
We Admit It—We’re Biased— For the record, we're biased. For every category, we had to make decisions. And, when the numbers our research returned seemed incredible to us...we favored our own experience over published government statistics.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the name of the Prime Minister of France in section "Government". Manuel Valls is Prime Minister since April 2th 2014
[...] and the Government, led by the president-appointed Prime Minister, currently Jean-Marc Ayrault.
must be changed to
[...] and the Government, led by the president-appointed Prime Minister, currently Manuel Valls (formaly Jean-Marc Ayrault).
92.151.241.247 ( talk) 21:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Reliable source? Come on, this is public knowledge and can be easily verified on any public newspaper or media site or on the sites of the French government. It is pitiful that Wikipedia still cites Ayrault as French prime minister 25 days after he has been replaced by Manuel Valls (I am writing this on April 27th, 2014). BTW, it might be of interest to mention that the new prime minister Valls was born a Spaniard and became a French citizen only when he was about 21 years old. Many people from Spain were delighted to see that a person coming from their country became French Prime Minister, just a few days after a woman of Spanish origin, Anne Hidalgo, became mayor of France's capital and largest city, Paris. The change must be done. Laurent r ( talk) 21:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Laurent r — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent r ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
And, BTW, if you need reliable source, check the French Wikipedia page for France, at least they have it right (see the box on the right). Laurent r ( talk) 21:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Laurent r
Quote: " France (UK: /ˈfrɑːns/; US: /ˈfræns/). " This is wrong. Firstly because the most common US pronunciation is actually /freæ̯ns/ or something like that, but more importantly because /fræns/ is indeed used in more than half of Britain. Why not say more simply and more correctly: France (/fræns/ or /frɑːns/) ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.166.71 ( talk) 21:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
On April 2, 2014, Manuel Valls replaced Jean-Marc Ayrault as France's prime minister. This is just a fact that is easy to check. The next day, on April 3, 2014, someone asked for an update on this article on France. On the same day, someone else refused, based on the preposterous claim that the request's author had not provided reliable source supporting the proposed change, whereas it was a simple fact that was easy to verify. Twenty-five days later, on April 27, I tried to help and commented that "this is public knowledge and can be easily verified on any public newspaper or media site or on the sites of the French government. It is pitiful that Wikipedia still cites Ayrault as French prime minister 25 days after he has been replaced by Manuel Valls (I am writing this on April 27th, 2014)." As of today, another 10 days later, this is still uncorrected, and this is even more pitiful that Wikipedia still has the wrong information 36 days after Valls' nomination. It is so easy to check the fact that I do not understand how Wikipedia can fall into such bureaucratic stupidity. Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia, I am an occasional content contributor (French and English versions of Wikipedia) and my wife and myself have also contributed money to Wikipedia in 2012 and 2013. As I said earlier, the French Wikipedia has the right information on the subject. This a link to the Official French Government portal: [1]. Anything else needed? I will be happy to provide it. Please make the change, this is getting really ridiculous. Laurent r ( talk) 22:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I am happy to see that this is finally corrected. Laurent r ( talk) 23:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The wikilinks in the infobox regarding France/Metropolitan France population rank should be to List of countries by population and not to the specific 2005 list of countries by population. Argovian ( talk) 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The leads for the USA and Germany articles both make a brief mention of WW II in the lead. I think that the massive changes that France underwent during WW II, such as occupation, and having 76,000 Jews deported to death camps, should be mentioned in the lead. This is not a minor footnote in France's history, these are major 20th century events (Nazi occupation and the deportation of French citizens to death camps). The lead should not just list the celebrated achievements of France; it should also make reference to the major negative events in French history. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 20:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe that there is a tendency to create a lead section in which only positive achievements and accomplishments are listed. Sort of what you expect to see in a promotional travel guide. However, this is an encyclopedia article, so the darker elements in a country's past, such as France deporting Jews to death camps, or the War in Algeria involving the French government torturing and executing FLN fighters, can be mentioned. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 19:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Blaue Max deleted this sentence about the French Army in Indochina: "The French Army tortured Vietnamese prisoners. [2]." This seems like a policy to remove any factual information which casts a negative light on France. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 17:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
References
Interesting you should raise the U.S. article, because I have been working on it. The US article now mentions the Vietnam War in the lead, and the sentence on the Vietnam war has been expanded to give more information about the conflict. I hope to add the information about Vietnam war crimes soon. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 19:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Blaue Max deleted the following sentence, calling it an epiphenomenon: "Between 18,000 to 22,000 French men joined the Waffen-SS, an organization linked to numerous war crimes. [1]." It may be an epiphenomenon, but it a pertinent one, as it shows the support that existed for the Nazis. This isn't a figure for French people joining the Germany Army, it is the figure for French people joining the Waffen-SS, an organization closely linked to the Nazi Party. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 16:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
References
New proposed paragraph for the lead, a summary of the excellent lead from History of France in one paragraph, with the addition of the Indochina war. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 03:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
During the Iron Age, what is now France was inhabited by the Gauls, a Celtic people. The Gauls were conquered by the Roman Empire in 51 BC, which held Gaul until 486. The Gauls faced raids and migration from the Germanic Franks, who dominated the region for hundreds of years, eventually creating the medieval Kingdom of France. France's victory in the Hundred Years' War (1337 to 1453) strengthened French nationalism and made France a centralized absolute monarchy. A worldwide colonial empire was established in the 16th century. In the late 18th century, the monarchy was overthrown in the French Revolution. The country was governed as a Republic, until the French Empire was declared by Napoleon Bonaparte. Following Napoleon's defeat, France was ruled as a monarchy, then briefly as a Second Republic, and then as a Second Empire, until a more lasting French Third Republic was established in 1870. In World War I, France was one of the Triple Entente powers fighting against Germany and the Central Powers. France was one of the Allied Powers in World War II, but it was conquered by Nazi Germany in 1940. Following liberation in 1944, a Fourth Republic was established, but it lasted less than a decade and a half. After WW II, France was defeated in the First Indochina War. In the wake of the May 1958 crisis of the Algerian War, the Fourth Republic collapsed and was succeeded by the Charles de Gaulle-led French Fifth Republic. Into the 1960s decolonization saw most of the French colonial empire become independent.
I believe the lead should make a short reference to the colonial wars, perhaps "France fought two colonial wars after WW II, in Indochina, and in Algeria, with the latter almost leading to a civil war in France." Blaue Max has said an almost-civil war doesn't qualify for the lead. I disagree. It shows the impact that the war had in France. Thus far, in trying to negotiate changes to the lead, Blaue Max has allowed zero changes to the lead. The lead should mention these two wars, which had such a major impact on France. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 00:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If there is to be a mention of history in the lead, it should be balanced. As it stands this is the only history-related sentence I see in the lead: "France has been a major power in Europe since the Late Middle Ages, reaching the height of global prominence during the 19th and early 20th centuries, when it possessed the second-largest colonial empire in the world.[6]", which neglects to mention the subsequent decline in influence and breakup of the empire. I would either remove this "major power" sentence and leave history for the history section, or complete the picture by saying what happened. Noting individual wars gets too specific for the lead, there have been so many where would it end? My first reaction to the colonial wars sentence is: why that and not WWII? Then someone could say: why WWII but not WWI? A big rabbit hole there.... Vrac ( talk) 02:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Driven by the doctrine of manifest destiny, the United States embarked on a vigorous expansion across North America throughout the 19th century. [1] This involved displacing native tribes, acquiring new territories, and gradually admitting new states. [1] The American Civil War ended legal slavery in the country. [2] By the end of the 19th century, the United States extended into the Pacific Ocean, [3] and its economy began to soar. [4] The Spanish–American War and World War I confirmed the country's status as a global military power. The United States emerged from World War II as a global superpower, the first country with nuclear weapons, and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. As part of the Cold War, American troops fought Communist forces in the Korean War of 1950–53 and fought a proxy war in Southeast Asia with the Vietnam War (1955-1975). The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union left the United States as the sole superpower.
References
{{
cite news}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
France has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
France is not a complete peninsula it is actually a piece of a continent. and there are Asians that work in the Effie tower. 208.84.213.224 ( talk) 01:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The image Image:Schuman Declaration.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC) HOLY CRAP I CANT FEEL MY LEGS;]<<<< whoever typed this rocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.107.203.30 ( talk) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franks" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 ( talk) 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Please move the name discussion from the "Rome to revolution" section to the "Origin of name" section and make it consistent. Fig ( talk) 13:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I am French and, at the school, we teached that the name of France is assigned at the tribe named "Franc" who invaded the Gaul-- ZOTHOP ( talk) 10:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Again several users found interesting to add lots of pictures to this page. We agreed it wasn't a touristic brochure and I'm not certain many of these have any use here but showing how beautiful our country is. I agree it's a lovely place but here it's just not the place to show this. I'm making a list here of pictures that I believe serve no purpose but showing a beautiful picture in itself. If people agree they should be removed Matthieu ( talk) 15:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC).
It is written in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_NATO#Member_states "France withdrew from the integrated military command in 1966 to pursue an independent defence system. However, there were plans for it to rejoin sometime in 2008, but hadn't joined until now". This should be mentioned, shouldn't it? -- Schwarzschachtel ( talk) 06:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The only official symbol of French Republic is its flag... (Constitution de 1958) The other symbol (looking like coat of arms) have no real legal status. It is just in use for rare specific circumstances (like passport) when French authories have no other solutions than using it, because all other countries have similar stuffs... So, as a frenchman and teatcher of history, it is really strange seeing Wikipedia could considerate that as "symbol of France" !!!... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.101.42 ( talk) 02:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
this symbol is used at the cover of passport and french diplomacy were using it since 1912, so we can considr it as a symbol of France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.158.249 ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 March 2009
Can I ask how "Francia" "literally" "means" "Land of the Franks"? "Land of the franks" would in fact be "terra Francorum". Translating literally, Francia can only be transliterated, since the land known as Francia covered areas much larger than modern france. I don't know where "Frankland" has come from since this is an invented word. -- 86.146.215.169 ( talk) 15:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody needs to write something about France's achievements in the fields of science and technology and perhaps how they compare to other nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.119.65 ( talk) 02:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
On the page, you can read
"France is a secular country as freedom of religion is a constitutional right, although some religious organisations such as Scientology, Children of God, the Unification Church, and the Order of the Solar Temple are considered CULTS.[42]"
Read the link [42], all those movements are considered as SECTS, please change.
== France was Victorious in ww1 & 15
Someone please explain that one to me. I thought France was lost in ww2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.104.45 ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 March 2009
French fries and French toast were not officially made in France —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.237.22 ( talk) 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Was France even part of ww2 and who cares about french fries and french toast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.237.22 ( talk) 01:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
In WW2 Germany invaded after 6 weeks of battle France fell but several resistance groups fought throughout the enemey ocupation of France and into Allied insertion. they may have fallen Millitary wise but the citezens refused to give up. so yes they did fall at first but they managed to keep from total control by weakening German forces through guerrilla tactics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance go to that page that wil lclear some up for you alwo look at France history
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.255.65.203 (
talk)
23:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The Free-French also fought all over the world as part of the Allies and once France was liberated she was able to raise an army to carry on fighting. France was one of the four occupying nations of defeated Nazi Germany, along with UK, USA & USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.119.85 ( talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The photo of the train named "TGV" is taken in Avignon's railway station.
it is not a "TGV atlantique" but "TGV méditerrannén " I'm not shore sorry
do you kmow what paris is famous for now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.201.22 ( talk) 14:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
France is the third largest country in Europe not second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanqner ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC) If this is a protected page - does anybody bother to read the remarks of unauthorised editors? -- Lanqner ( talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Since a few days, a very persistent user is repeatedly changing the maps of many European countries without caring to discuss these changes. The situation before these changes was this: Every country in the EU has an identical map, in which the EU is shown in light green and the country itself in dark green. To the best of my of knowledge, there has been no discussion on changing these 27 maps. Given that, I fail to see why some users now rush in to support these unsupported changes. I would be interested in hearing these users argue for why we should have a completely different kind of map for France than for the other 26 EU countries. In the meantime, I'm restoring the map that it is line with all the other maps. JdeJ ( talk) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
In the "Economy" section of this article, it says in the part about energy that "France is also the most energy independent Western country due to heavy investment in nuclear power (Nuclear power in France)". This strikes me as a bit odd, as you also have Switzerland which gets 95% of its power from co2 free sources, in form of nuclear power and water power. And as a even more energy independent country you have Norway, which does not rely on imported uranium, but is a large net exporter of oil. The same goes for Canada.
I think it would be more precise to say that "France is one of the least CO2 emitting western counties(...)".
TheFreeloader (
talk)
19:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Flags for most regions are wrong, e.g. for region Aquitaine this page gives File:Aquitaine_flag.svg but the correct one is File:Bandera_Regió_Aquitània.png as described on the page Aquitaine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.110.6 ( talk) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
In the section named "Foreign relations", it is writed that France leaved the joint military command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It could interesting to write that this decision of president Charles de Gaulle has been cancelled by president Nicolas Sarkozy in 2009.-- Pierrick42 ( talk) 10:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph addressing France's land mass states that it is second in Europe after Ukraine (as in its principle shape which is the France that everybody knows, north of Spain, south-west of Germany etc). It also states that France is largest if including its "extra-European territories". This is clearly incorrect however you look at it: the largest land mass in Europe to include non-European territory is the Russian Federation (regardless of whether that external territory is far greater). Europe is an economical and non-geographical continent, and Russia belongs only to European institutions such as UEFA and the Eurovision (that is not to say that Israel is European). But you'll find that this is more down to Russia's European lands have a higher population than the rest of Russia, and the dominant Slavic nations (mainly ethnic Russians themselves) mostly living in and originating from west of the Urals. In addition, Turkey and Kazakhstan are both larger in land mass than Ukraine and both extend onto European terrain. Then you have Denmark which has sovereignty over the whole of Greenland. Greenland's ice sheet alone is over three times larger than the French territory of Europe despite the island being populated by fewer than 60,000. Whilst the addition of extra-European lands may allow France to overtake Ukraine (which is not very much bigger than France), those territories will certainly not catch Denmark. So here are some notes for consideration with France and its land mass:
My list is not conclusive because I am not an expert on world affairs. Greenland is obvious because you cannot examine the globe and not see it! I suggest modifying the sentence to be more accuracte regarding France's ranking. My area of interest on WP is the Balkans, so I don't really wish to make changes to this article without a concensus; as such I will not take the liberty of changing any part of it unless nobody responds to this note. Evlekis ( talk) 07:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think france should ranked 3rd in Europe after Russia and Ukraine. Since we refer to Europe we should limit ourselves to the area each country has within Europe, excluding all areas outside Europe. -- Lanqner ( talk) 06:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
France has no official language, see e.g. the CIA factbook or Ethnologue: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2098.html http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=FR Either delete it on the infobox or delete 'official' and replace it for 'de facto' or just 'language'. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.173.113.122 ( talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Ethnologue is not a reference on French law; yet it does cite French as France's official language. The Constitution of France certainly is a reference on what is official or not. David.Monniaux ( talk) 21:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
French has been the official language of France for almost six centuries, since king François Ier signed the Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts in August 1539.
The French people still spoke in their various dialects or patois, but all official documents, which had previously been written in Latin, had to be written in French from then on.
In addition, the French Constitution Article 2 states:
La langue de la République est le français
Anymore doubt as to whether French is the official language of France or not? Frania W. ( talk) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I am french and I can say than the official language of France IS The french everyhere the territory of France but there are, in certain regions, some informal dialects -- ZOTHOP ( talk) 18:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of this page is using the US standard ".", but the Labour market section has "," as in 39,9%. I guess this is a cut-n-paste issue. Should this page be made consistent? And which way would be the right way, the US style "." or the French style ","? 128.221.197.55 ( talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC) doug
The coordinates need the following fixes:
121.54.2.115 ( talk) 09:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
They speak French in Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfet ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I don't think that the so-called stats about the french population are relevant nor factual, I won't consider an US Evangelical Christian website aggregating others Evangelical Christian websites like anything close to a serious source... Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.238.37.74 ( talk) 11:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
How come do you use ethnic group statistics from an non-neutral christian evangelist group which aim is to christianize the entire world ? (The "Joshua Project") Ethnic statistics are not used in France. How come there is NO ethnic statistics on the USA Wikipedia page used from The Joshua Project ? Are you doubtful of your sources for the USA and not for other countries ? Who is white ? Asian ? Eurasian ? mixed raced ? How do you define that exactly ? Ethnic groups statistics are racist, biased, dangerous and should be removed. JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.241.98 ( talk) 02:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
tHE CAPITOL IS Paris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.73.220 ( talk) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm kind of curious : why is the only link in that section to Language Imperialism ? Is this really so notable that it is the only article we encourage people to look at ? Especially as that article deals mostly with English... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.208.34.100 ( talk) 16:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "but consequently rivaling the UK and limiting the influence of newly inducted East European nations." is an absolutely subjective judgement. Actually, France is happy to boost a few Eastern European countries because they are either francophone (Romania) or counter-balance the english-language domination because their citizens speak very little english (Hungary). Actually, "rivaling the UK" is not a policy of France at all since the 19th century, especially given that following the credit crunch, recent France's growth exceeds UK's growth, that the British pound has lost over 20% of its value and that the financial policy of the UK has been completely discredited along with its stance in favour of military intervention in Iraq, based on British Intelligence that was grounded on hearsay about Weapons of Mass Destruction by an iraqi taxi-driver. Sacredceltic ( talk) 20:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: The discussion in this section has been moved to
Talk:France#Recent edits below. New topics should always be added to the BOTTOM of this page. Thank you very much!
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
19:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
La Marseillaise in English is The Marseillaise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.61.31 ( talk) 08:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
France is a rich europian country .I LOOKED AT THE ECONOMY SECTION OF FRANCE AND SAW THAT CHANGES HAVE NOT BEEN MADE YET. GDP NOMINAL IS FROM 2006 AND WE ARE NOW IN 2008, IT SHOULD BE 2.8 TRILLION USD (not 2,100 Trillion) AND 41,000 USD PER CAPITA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisbajro ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
France is no longer the sixth largest economy but [the eighth] as of 2007 http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2004/rankorder/2001rank.html Per PPP, France is just [33rd.] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreizhAtav ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, France has just the EIGHT GDP at PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) and the SIX at nominal prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.110.3 ( talk) 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
and there empire was not one of the largest it was the 7th largest jeez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owehweghksdqgkedg ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The coin depicted as a Euro was minted in 1999, therefore not a Euro
France doesn't have a definition for what is a "black" or what is a "white" person or any other "colour" for that purpose, so assessing the number of "blacks" in France is absolutely meaningless. Where does this illegal definition come from ? On what data is it based ? How has the data been collected ? If it is not either administratively nor scientifically grounded, the number of "black people in France" should be removed straightaway because it doesn't mean a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredceltic ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
You are right insofar as the number of Black people is extremly hard to assess. However, it is 100% sure that France is the European country with the largest number of Black people on his territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakuzanodon ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently says, "In computing, a bit is called a bit yet a byte is called an octet." Should this be on the French language page instead? Anyway, I have marked this as [citation needed] because in English, byte and octet have different definitions (as you can see at their respective articles). Although a layman, to me it seems more likely that the French are just more precise on this matter, in which case the following wording might be better "In computing, quantities of digital data are normally expressed in terms of octets rather than [byte]s." Open4D ( talk) 12:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The sound file and suggested pronunciation in the English language represents only one possible pronunciation. It is possibly a North American rendering. Typically in many countries it is pronounced with a longer A sound (sorry I'm not a linguist). I suggest that both pronunciations be given or the NA rendering be removed. Ozdaren ( talk) 11:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Found in labor market: "These low employment rates are explained by the high minimum wages which prevent low productivity workers – such as young people – from easily entering the labour market,ineffective university curricula that fail to prepare students adequately for the labour market,[55] and, concerning the older workers, restrictive legislation on work and incentives for premature retirement"
Mmmmm...REALLY?...I didn't know Friedman was writing on wikipedia! And i never imagined the OECD did encyclopedias too! So i guess anybody has the right to put a radical left-wing analysis after this, to counter-balance? OH NO! It's locked! What a surprise! "High minimum wages are a problem"...and maybe, minimum dignity is another too? Not enough slaves in France, i guess? Minimum means guaranteed, and what is not guaranteed by law is smoke and tales for kids, especially when dealing with businessmen. Later : "Universities are failing at preparing us"...apart from the ill-chosen "failing", THAT'S RIGHT LUV! Because contrarily to most develloped countries, France has (some) real universities, in which knowledge is not (yet?) linked to rentability. Their goal is emancipation, which is precisely the opposite of the nice-packaged preparation to slavery you received...or not, i guess it's not free in your country? If you want to learn a job, you can learn it everywhere, but if you wanna enlarge your head, you should try at the university, cause there's few other places...really. "Restrictive legislation on work"? My ancestors, and millions of others in hundreds of countries, spilt their blood, facing cavalry charges and various other niceties to gain these laws, which enabled themselves to, slowly, improve their everyday life and dream of something better for their own childrens. Now these laws are being destroyed everywhere on purely monetarist ideas, supported by powerful lobbies, creating huge problems such as the subprime crisis and poor paid workers in develloped countries (but not only, sadly...). "Incentives for premature retirement". Yeah, we want fresh blood and we find it shameful to kill grandpas at work, after 40 years of sweating, don't you? Big corporations, or their official (or not) representatives want french people to burn their labor laws, through Wikipedia, they're not even TRYING to disguise it correctly, and this is, of course, on the frontpage about our country. I thought we worked to live and not lived to work, but i guess i was wrong. See : i even thought there was some serious on Wikipedia, at least on major countries' frontpages! How ridiculous! My comment is, obviously, one-sided, and i'm certainly not considering myself competent to edit this article, but i can tell you the person(s) who did this should never write in an encyclopedia again, and doesn't even has the basic courage to recognize his one-sidedness (maybe because it was done purposely...) Before leaving you to fix (or not, just look at the meaningless article on OECD...) this stinking ideologic propaganda, two intranslatable french words that explains everything : "Acquis sociaux". Goodbye. 90.52.6.161 ( talk) 00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: After verification, all the sources for this statement are linked to right-wing OECD, apart from one which refers to right-wing economists, of which one works for a brussel think-tank, which is, as you may have guessed, not committed to humanist ideals. Or maybe, some of you consider the OECD as a "neutral" source? In this case, some of you should consider opening some serious books before writing.
A user keeps removing the regional languages from the infobox claiming that they are not officially recognized. Well this is incorrect - since a 2008 ammendment to the French Constitution, France officially recognizes all its regional languages. The languages are not explicitely named in the constitution but they are listed in other official documents such as these: [6], [7] and [8]. See also this news report. Laurent ( talk) 18:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
To FFMG: Please do not be offended at my bolding your name! We are having a long discussion with some persons adding comments inside comments, and I figure that my own reply catches the eye of the person whom I am addressing if I "bold" the name. If you go through my comments on talk pages, you will see that I often "bold" or "italicise" the name of my interlocutor, it is only a way of making it obvious that this is the person I am talking to. This has to be taken as my personal way of writing, just as I often close with "cordialement !" or "aurevoir !". And as this is the second time you seem to misunderstand what I write, or the way I write, maybe the problem lies with my English, so I will ask (1) for your forgiveness, and (2) for your patience until I have mastered your language as well as you have mine.
Now on the subject at hand: Please note that my first comment opened with "I hate to see an edit war on whether or not to list the regional languages of France in the infobox..." and this is what I meant & hope. Because I am still trying to figure out whether the regional languages belong in the infobox or not, I never said that they should be there. What I am saying, and this in agreement with Laurent & Xavier, is that the regional languages (of France, DOM TOM etc.) are now officially recognised by a sentence included in the French constitution, while there is no list given of them, fact explained very well by Xavier. Moreover, the French do know what these regional languages are, so there is not need to include a list of them in their constitution. Take as an example: "All citizens are born equal", after this, do you need to give a list of the "citizens" ?
Cordialement à vous ! Frania W. ( talk) 16:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The issue is quite simple really. There are two points to consider:
So in order not to mislead people, and also to prevent a free-for-all, I propose to remove this "regional languages" section from the infobox, if only because it is original research. Der Statistiker ( talk) 01:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiLaurent, there is no "list from the ministry of culture". The ministry of culture never defined the regional languages of France. What happened is the ministry of culture asked a private researcher, Bernard Cerquiglini, to survey the regional languages of France and to submit a report to the ministry. Mr Cerquiglini submitted a report in 1999 in which he 75 identified regional languages. A second report was submitted in 2008 identifying 79 regional languages. And that's it! The government has never officially approved those lists made by a private researcher. It has never given them any legal recognition. There is no loi, no décret, no arrêté passed by the Parliament or issued by the French government which lists the regional languages or certify Mr. Cerquiglini's lists as official. The report of Mr. Cerquiglini was published on the ministry's website, but that's about it. There are many reports that are published on ministry's websites. That doesn't make them official law. Besides you chose to copy your list of regional languages from the 1999 list (with many omissions), but you chose to ignore the enlarged list of 2008. Like I said, original research at its worst. And a call for a free-for-all.
Der Statistiker (
talk)
14:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: Here are the 79 regional languages of France identified in the two reports that I mentioned: ajië, alpin-dauphinois, dialecte allemand d'Alsace et de Moselle, aluku, arabe dialectal, arawak proprement dit (ou lokono), arhâ, arhö, arménien occidental, auvergnat-limousin, basque, berbère, bourguignon-morvandiau, breton, caac, catalan, cèmuhî, corse, créole guadeloupéen, créole guyanais, créole martiniquais, créole réunionnais, drehu, drubéa, émerillon, fagauvea, flamand occidental, franc-comtois, francoprovençal, futunien, fwâi, galibi (ou kalina), gallo, gascon, hmong, iaai, jawe, kumak, languedocien, lorrain, langue mangarévienne, marquisien, njuka, neku, nemi, nengone, normand, numèè, nyelâyu, ôrôwe, paicî, palikur, paramaca, picard, pije, poitevin-saintongeais, provençal, pwaamei, pwapwâ, langue de Ra'ivavae, langue de Rapa, romani chib, langue de Ruturu, saramaca, shibushi, shimaoré, sîchë, tahitien, tîrî, langue des Tuamotu, dialectes de la région de Voh-Koné, walissien, wallon, wayampi, wayana, xârâcùù, xârâgùrè, yiddish, yuaga.
Der Statistiker (
talk)
14:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the more complete list of regional languages from the C.N.R.S
[11]:
basque,
breton,
catalan,
corse,
flamand occidental,
francoprovençal,
occitan,
gascon,
languedocien,
provençal,
auvergnat-limousin,
alpin-dauphinois,
franc-comtois,
wallon,
picard,
normand,
gallo,
poitevin-saintongeais,
bourguignon-morvandiau,
lorrain,
berbère,
arabe dialectal,
yiddish,
romani chib,
arménien occidental,
martiniquais,
guadeloupéen,
guyanais,
réunionnais,
saramaca,
aluku,
njuka,
paramaca,
galibi(or
kalina),
wayana,
palikur,
arawak,
lokono,
wayampi,
émerillon,
hmong
nyelâyu,
kumak,
caac,
yuaga,
jawe,
nemi,
fwâi,
pije,
pwaamei,
pwapwâ,
cèmuhî,
paicî,
ajië,
arhâ,
arhö,
ôrôwe,
neku,
sîchë,
tîrî,
xârâcùù,
xârâgùrè,
drubéa,
numèè,
nengone,
drehu,
iaai,
fagauvea,
tahitien,
marquisien, langue Tuamotu, langue mangarévienne, langue de Ruturu, langue de Ra'ivavae, langue de Rapa,
walissien,
futunien,
shimaoré,
shibushi.
Shall I update the article accordingly?
FFMG (
talk)
14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that this discussion will be endless if we do not agree first on the terms and definitions being used and what this "regional language" field is all about.
For example, some have been using the term "official language" from the beginning of the discussion. This field has nothing to do with an official language. As stated above, by definition a regional language is not official. This field is defined as "officially recognized languages". There is a huge difference between the "official language(s)" of a country and other "officially recognized languages". I hope this is obvious for everyone. Can we all agree about this?
Now, is there an official definition of what an officially recognized regional language is? Is there a wikipedia definition? I haven't found any, so here is mine: "a regional language, as defined in international law, whose existence has gained official recognition through legal texts" (and, with due care, to other official communication -- government websites, despite their lack of legal status, are carefully checked).
It's obvious to me that, when a government denies that something exists, it doesn't mention it in its official texts: although extra-terrestrial languages may theoretically exist, you won't find any law or decree about them. Do you believe the government would write a decree about the protection of brown bears in the Pyrenees if there weren't any brown bears there? Can you find a similar decree about the protection of pandas in Corsica? No.
Therefore, if you can find any legal text naming a particular language, then the existence of this language is de jure officially recognized, be it regional, national or foreign. If it is explicitly cited as a regional language, then it belongs to this infobox field.
“ | Les langues régionales pouvant donner lieu à épreuve obligatoire sont définies par la loi n° 51-46 du 11 janvier 1951 codifiée et les décrets pris ultérieurement pour élargir son champ d'application à d'autres langues. La liste de ces langues régionales est la suivante : basque, breton, catalan, corse, créole, langues mélanésiennes, occitan-langue d'oc, tahitien. Outre les langues énumérées à l'alinéa précédent, peuvent donner lieu à une épreuve facultative : le gallo, les langues régionales d'Alsace, les langues régionales des pays mosellans. | ” |
— Arrêté du 26 janvier 2006 modifiant l'arrêté du 15 septembre 1993 |
“ | Le français, le tahitien, le marquisien, le paumotu et le mangarevien sont les langues de la Polynésie française. Les personnes physiques et morales de droit privé en usent librement dans leurs actes et conventions ; ceux-ci n'encourent aucune nullité au motif qu'ils ne sont pas rédigés dans la langue officielle. | ” |
— Loi organique n°2004-192 du 27 février 2004 portant statut d'autonomie de la Polynésie française |
“ | Le juge n’est pas tenu de recourir à un interprète lorsqu’il connaît la langue dans laquelle s’expriment les parties | ” |
— Article 23 du Code de procédure civile |
My opinion on this infobox field:
Sorry for this lengthy comment and thanks for your attention. — Xavier, 02:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a note to say that the {{ Collapsible list}} template that I recently added to the ibox for the "Recognised regional languages" is an improvement that helps to keep iboxes from extending deeply down into their articles. It allows for as many additions as editors deem appropriate. See also India.
Also, if there is any dislike for the word "Recognised", then instead of using the "regional_languages" ibox field, use two other fields, the "languages_type" and the "languages" fields, in the following manner:
|languages_type = "[[
Regional languages]]"
|languages = {{collapsible list |title={{nbsp}} |
Alsatian;
Basque;
Breton;
New Caledonian languages2;
Catalan; . . .}}
This will also place the regional languages in their very own section, beneath the "Official languages" section, as shown here:
Template talk:Infobox country#What languages should go in the regional languages field? -- Thank you very much, and I sincerely hope this helps!
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please change: France is a one of the most developped countries -> France is a one of the most developed countries
A request for comment related to this article has been opened here. Any thoughts are appreciated. Cptnono ( talk) 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we really include such precise estimations? I know they are from the cited Washington Post article, but we have no way of knowing from where the Post obtained those numbers. The North African number seems high, given that only six years before that Post article was written, in 1999, the French government estimated that there were 3.7 million people of "possible Muslim faith" (and virtually all North Africans would seem to fit under that category). I think we should probably avoid precise figures and just say something like "Several million French citizens are of North African or black ancestry. Funnyhat ( talk) 21:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The article seems rather confused about this. It starts out
France ... officially the French Republic ... is a member state of the Europen Union located in its Western region, with several overseas territories and islands located on other continents.
This is rather unclear in itself. Is it supposed to imply that those territories & islands are part of France? Or just that it owns them?
Then, in the section Administrative divisions, we get
France is divided into 26 ... regions ... 4 are overseas regions. The regions are further subdivided into 100 departments.
From this it would seem that the overseas departments are part of France, but the overseas collectivities aren't.
But in the subsection Overseas regions/departments, collectivities, and territories we have
Overseas collectivities and territories form part of the French Republic.
That seems to contradict the previous quotation, unless there's a difference between France & the French Republic, which would contradict the opening of the article quoted above.
Maybe the reality is just as confused as the article, terms being used inconsistently. Peter jackson ( talk) 16:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone's interested, I give here some sources using the name in 3 different senses:
Peter jackson ( talk) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I see this question is actually discussed at Metropolitan France, which seems a rather odd place for it. It appears from that that diferent French government departments differ between senses 2 & 3, & some used to use 1. If the government doesn't know what the country is ... Peter jackson ( talk) 15:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The edits in question are from editor Thome66:
See HERE. The first edit removed referenced material that was dated and replaced it with material from 2010. This is fine on the surface, however the existing reference is the source usually cited for this information, and the source cited by Thome66 may not be a reliable source. The second edit is also questionable since the link referenced to the World Health Organization lands on a page that is not available in the
English language. So until better sources can be supplied, the dated information must remain in the article per
WP:PRESERVE.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
21:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I brought this down from the first topic on this Talk page:
So maybe France isn't 1st after all.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
11:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that Rama, you have once again deleted the controversial material against WP:PRESERVE policy. I'm going to put it back in as per that policy, however I will first give my reasons.
Please let's follow the PRESERVE policy and, if the challenging editors so wish, see if the source is too old (five years) or inherently unreliable. Thank you very much!
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
02:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
There is an old Quality of life index from 2005 from Economist Intelligence Unit's Quality of Life Index http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf,, in which France is ranked 25th for Quality of Life with their overseas departement included. Later on the Quality of life index has been published by the International Living Magazine in co-operation with the World Health Organization, UNESCO and also The Economist etc, where France ranks 1st for the 5th year in a row (without overseas departement). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index
We Admit It—We’re Biased— For the record, we're biased. For every category, we had to make decisions. And, when the numbers our research returned seemed incredible to us...we favored our own experience over published government statistics.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the name of the Prime Minister of France in section "Government". Manuel Valls is Prime Minister since April 2th 2014
[...] and the Government, led by the president-appointed Prime Minister, currently Jean-Marc Ayrault.
must be changed to
[...] and the Government, led by the president-appointed Prime Minister, currently Manuel Valls (formaly Jean-Marc Ayrault).
92.151.241.247 ( talk) 21:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Reliable source? Come on, this is public knowledge and can be easily verified on any public newspaper or media site or on the sites of the French government. It is pitiful that Wikipedia still cites Ayrault as French prime minister 25 days after he has been replaced by Manuel Valls (I am writing this on April 27th, 2014). BTW, it might be of interest to mention that the new prime minister Valls was born a Spaniard and became a French citizen only when he was about 21 years old. Many people from Spain were delighted to see that a person coming from their country became French Prime Minister, just a few days after a woman of Spanish origin, Anne Hidalgo, became mayor of France's capital and largest city, Paris. The change must be done. Laurent r ( talk) 21:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Laurent r — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent r ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
And, BTW, if you need reliable source, check the French Wikipedia page for France, at least they have it right (see the box on the right). Laurent r ( talk) 21:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Laurent r
Quote: " France (UK: /ˈfrɑːns/; US: /ˈfræns/). " This is wrong. Firstly because the most common US pronunciation is actually /freæ̯ns/ or something like that, but more importantly because /fræns/ is indeed used in more than half of Britain. Why not say more simply and more correctly: France (/fræns/ or /frɑːns/) ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.166.71 ( talk) 21:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
On April 2, 2014, Manuel Valls replaced Jean-Marc Ayrault as France's prime minister. This is just a fact that is easy to check. The next day, on April 3, 2014, someone asked for an update on this article on France. On the same day, someone else refused, based on the preposterous claim that the request's author had not provided reliable source supporting the proposed change, whereas it was a simple fact that was easy to verify. Twenty-five days later, on April 27, I tried to help and commented that "this is public knowledge and can be easily verified on any public newspaper or media site or on the sites of the French government. It is pitiful that Wikipedia still cites Ayrault as French prime minister 25 days after he has been replaced by Manuel Valls (I am writing this on April 27th, 2014)." As of today, another 10 days later, this is still uncorrected, and this is even more pitiful that Wikipedia still has the wrong information 36 days after Valls' nomination. It is so easy to check the fact that I do not understand how Wikipedia can fall into such bureaucratic stupidity. Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia, I am an occasional content contributor (French and English versions of Wikipedia) and my wife and myself have also contributed money to Wikipedia in 2012 and 2013. As I said earlier, the French Wikipedia has the right information on the subject. This a link to the Official French Government portal: [1]. Anything else needed? I will be happy to provide it. Please make the change, this is getting really ridiculous. Laurent r ( talk) 22:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I am happy to see that this is finally corrected. Laurent r ( talk) 23:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The wikilinks in the infobox regarding France/Metropolitan France population rank should be to List of countries by population and not to the specific 2005 list of countries by population. Argovian ( talk) 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The leads for the USA and Germany articles both make a brief mention of WW II in the lead. I think that the massive changes that France underwent during WW II, such as occupation, and having 76,000 Jews deported to death camps, should be mentioned in the lead. This is not a minor footnote in France's history, these are major 20th century events (Nazi occupation and the deportation of French citizens to death camps). The lead should not just list the celebrated achievements of France; it should also make reference to the major negative events in French history. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 20:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe that there is a tendency to create a lead section in which only positive achievements and accomplishments are listed. Sort of what you expect to see in a promotional travel guide. However, this is an encyclopedia article, so the darker elements in a country's past, such as France deporting Jews to death camps, or the War in Algeria involving the French government torturing and executing FLN fighters, can be mentioned. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 19:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Blaue Max deleted this sentence about the French Army in Indochina: "The French Army tortured Vietnamese prisoners. [2]." This seems like a policy to remove any factual information which casts a negative light on France. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 17:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
References
Interesting you should raise the U.S. article, because I have been working on it. The US article now mentions the Vietnam War in the lead, and the sentence on the Vietnam war has been expanded to give more information about the conflict. I hope to add the information about Vietnam war crimes soon. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 19:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Blaue Max deleted the following sentence, calling it an epiphenomenon: "Between 18,000 to 22,000 French men joined the Waffen-SS, an organization linked to numerous war crimes. [1]." It may be an epiphenomenon, but it a pertinent one, as it shows the support that existed for the Nazis. This isn't a figure for French people joining the Germany Army, it is the figure for French people joining the Waffen-SS, an organization closely linked to the Nazi Party. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 16:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
References
New proposed paragraph for the lead, a summary of the excellent lead from History of France in one paragraph, with the addition of the Indochina war. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 03:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
During the Iron Age, what is now France was inhabited by the Gauls, a Celtic people. The Gauls were conquered by the Roman Empire in 51 BC, which held Gaul until 486. The Gauls faced raids and migration from the Germanic Franks, who dominated the region for hundreds of years, eventually creating the medieval Kingdom of France. France's victory in the Hundred Years' War (1337 to 1453) strengthened French nationalism and made France a centralized absolute monarchy. A worldwide colonial empire was established in the 16th century. In the late 18th century, the monarchy was overthrown in the French Revolution. The country was governed as a Republic, until the French Empire was declared by Napoleon Bonaparte. Following Napoleon's defeat, France was ruled as a monarchy, then briefly as a Second Republic, and then as a Second Empire, until a more lasting French Third Republic was established in 1870. In World War I, France was one of the Triple Entente powers fighting against Germany and the Central Powers. France was one of the Allied Powers in World War II, but it was conquered by Nazi Germany in 1940. Following liberation in 1944, a Fourth Republic was established, but it lasted less than a decade and a half. After WW II, France was defeated in the First Indochina War. In the wake of the May 1958 crisis of the Algerian War, the Fourth Republic collapsed and was succeeded by the Charles de Gaulle-led French Fifth Republic. Into the 1960s decolonization saw most of the French colonial empire become independent.
I believe the lead should make a short reference to the colonial wars, perhaps "France fought two colonial wars after WW II, in Indochina, and in Algeria, with the latter almost leading to a civil war in France." Blaue Max has said an almost-civil war doesn't qualify for the lead. I disagree. It shows the impact that the war had in France. Thus far, in trying to negotiate changes to the lead, Blaue Max has allowed zero changes to the lead. The lead should mention these two wars, which had such a major impact on France. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 00:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If there is to be a mention of history in the lead, it should be balanced. As it stands this is the only history-related sentence I see in the lead: "France has been a major power in Europe since the Late Middle Ages, reaching the height of global prominence during the 19th and early 20th centuries, when it possessed the second-largest colonial empire in the world.[6]", which neglects to mention the subsequent decline in influence and breakup of the empire. I would either remove this "major power" sentence and leave history for the history section, or complete the picture by saying what happened. Noting individual wars gets too specific for the lead, there have been so many where would it end? My first reaction to the colonial wars sentence is: why that and not WWII? Then someone could say: why WWII but not WWI? A big rabbit hole there.... Vrac ( talk) 02:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Driven by the doctrine of manifest destiny, the United States embarked on a vigorous expansion across North America throughout the 19th century. [1] This involved displacing native tribes, acquiring new territories, and gradually admitting new states. [1] The American Civil War ended legal slavery in the country. [2] By the end of the 19th century, the United States extended into the Pacific Ocean, [3] and its economy began to soar. [4] The Spanish–American War and World War I confirmed the country's status as a global military power. The United States emerged from World War II as a global superpower, the first country with nuclear weapons, and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. As part of the Cold War, American troops fought Communist forces in the Korean War of 1950–53 and fought a proxy war in Southeast Asia with the Vietnam War (1955-1975). The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union left the United States as the sole superpower.
References
{{
cite news}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
France has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
France is not a complete peninsula it is actually a piece of a continent. and there are Asians that work in the Effie tower. 208.84.213.224 ( talk) 01:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)