After the Fire and Talk:France: Difference between pages

Archives
February 2002 – May 2006

Need some changes, France is the fourth world economic power !

Minor Errors in History

"The monarchy reached its height during the 17th century and the reign of Louis XIV."

This is subjective, and it could also be argued that the monarchy was at its height (relative to the rest of the world): - When Charlemagne was Holy Roman Emperor - in the late 12th to 13th centuries (when the Univ of Paris was established making it the center of the intellectual universe in Europe, the Phillipe-Auguste wall was erected, the gothic style and cathedrals were established, Paris was the most populous city on planet Earth, etc....). Plus, it was Louis XIV's withdrawal to Versailles that eventually led to a disconnect between the monarchy and the people, an erosion of power, and eventually the revolution. However, there is no question in my mind (or anyone else who has visited Versailles) that Louis XIV preferred to think of himself as the pinnacle of the French monarchy (e.g., statues of him dressed in Roman regalia identical to adjacent- smaller- statues of Caesar).

Another point:

"Following Napoleon's defeat in 1815 at the Battle of Waterloo, the French monarchy was re-established."

This is partly true, but it neglects to mention that Napoleon was first exiled after his first downturn...then escaped, returned and raised an army, and was THEN defeated at Waterloo (after which he was more carefully exiled).

Pentagon or Hexagon?

The article claims France is referred to as a hexagon, but I always thought it was more like a pentagon. For comparison:

Pentagon

France

File:HexRotated.png

Hexagon

I guess the Spanish border and the Med coast are regarded as two sides, but they form a more or less straight line so conform more to a single pentagon side. IMHO anyway. — SteveRwanda 13:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not really matter, this has been the nickname given by French people to the country for so many years that noone will change it now. FYI, yes the Spanish border and the Med are considered as two sides, and none of the other sides are equal, so lets call it an irregular hexagon, anyway this is an approximation. Perpignan is more South than Bayonne and Nice so that make two edges. Blastwizard 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's not really rational, but note that mainly journalists use this term, as a synonym, to avoid using the word 'france' ten times in the same sentence. You often here on TV: "Les quatres coins de l'hexagone" (the four corners of the hexagon)...JeDi 09:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Fine in Firefox but gobbledegook in IE. Can someone make it more universal? Rich Farmbrough 08:19 15 May 2006 (UTC).

It looked fine when I was using IE...Do you mean you don't want to use the IPA? SCHZMO ✍ 20:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Language stats

It doesn't quite work. Next to the 102% you have the smaller of the two numbers (45,xxx) and then in the notes you have the larger number (46,xxx). But 46,xxx is clearly 102%, while 45,xxx is the 100%. So they should probably be swapped round. I think. I confused myself just writing that. Damiancorrigan 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Le Tour de France

Alright, I can't add anything since this I only set this account up a day ago, but I would like to make a suggestion for the page. Shouldn't there be some reference to the Tour De France in here? Most of my friends and some of my teachers know only a few things about France. 1) That's where the Eiffel Tower is, 2) That's were berets are from, 3) They like dogs(especially poodles), 4) Oui means yes, au revoir means goodbye, and 5) Every year in the Tour de France Lance Armstrong kicks all the European's butts. Since this is what pretty much 95% of the people I hang out with know about France, I think it should get atleast a passing glance. Bobthellama9 01:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about the Tour de France, it is just a cycling comptetition, and I'm sure you can add something about it yourself. About Amstrong kicking European butts, maybe you can add a paragraph on Doping (sport) :). Just kidding. JeDi 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Year ! :) And this year Armstrong won't win ! - Lpn- 10:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kritik

Can we write about cited criticizm of the French government? .tg Tonyseeker 10:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Surely that should be in a different article, like "Corruption scandals of the Chirac presidency" or something? I don't think it belongs in the general page about the country.User: Jaganath 11:28 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of semi-protection

I wonder if it really was such a good idea to unprotect this article. This is the kind of article that will be vandalized very often and very frequently (there is a strong anti-french sentiment in some countries where English is spoken) if we don't protect it in one way or another. All edits that have been made since the protection was removed seem to be either to vandalize, or to fight vandalism. It's probably not a question of organized vandalism, but rather spontaneous things done by children and adolescents (as well as stupid and immature adults) who doesn't know better or have anything else to do with their time. And as long as they have access to the Internet, and some time to kill, the vandalism will most likely continue. Why not re-protect this article? It's really a shame that many editors and administrators here on Wikipedia have to take time to fight vandalism instead of doing more constructive things. /Magore 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:Magore removing the semi-protection was like opening the Pandora box a second time. Blastwizard 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:Magore there is such strong anti-french sentiment out there that soon this page will be trashed with "Go eat snails and die" or "Don't oui oui oui me punk!" The Holy Hand Grenade Attack Llama#42 01:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:Magore. Read what I wrote below. Hardouin 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:Magore. Francophobia is ridiculous but so real --Mgill 11:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits by PierreLarcin2

I have removed recent edits by User:PierreLarcin2. Not only these edits were written in barely understandable English (please at least use an English dictionary if you intend to edit articles on the English Wikipedia), but they were full of inaccuracies and POV. Here are a few examples:

• this user described Vendée as "a subpart of French Britain"
• this user removed the fact that France was eventually victorious in both WW1 and WW2 and replaced the sentence with a lengthy paragraph about the Vichy Regime and its wrongdoings. The history section is only a brief presentation of 2000 years of French history. If you want to write more in detail about the Vichy regime, try Vichy France.
• in the following sentence (about France's birth rate), the user added what's in bold: "France is now well ahead of all other European countries (except for the Republic of Ireland), despite a pro-abortion legislation." I am surprised nobody reverted that earlier.
• this user added the following sentence (referring to French agriculture and EU subsidies): "This allow many conflicts in the European Union, due to the support of France to the European PAC (Politique Agricole Commune - Common Land Politics), which allows subsidiation of land farmers across Europe." That sounds like straight from the English tabloid press, although the English press wouldn't use the Frenglish word "subsidiation".
• in the economic section the user explained that the reason why the French GDP per capita is significantly lower than the US GDP per capita, despite France having a higher productivity than the US, is because of delocalizations to China. That's simply economic nonsense.
• this user wrote that the euro "replaced all major european moneys (except Norway and United Kingdom)". Beyond the bad use of English vocabulary (moneys instead of currencies), the sentence is also silly since Norway (not part of the EU) is mentioned but Sweden and Denmark (EU member states which haven't adopted the euro) are not mentioned.
• this user wrote that France's nuclear force is "spread between strategic submarines and conventional strategic missiles (located on 'Plateau d'Albion')", which is not true. The missiles on the Plateau d'Albion were dismantled in 1996.

Hardouin 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Famous French People

I don't think this section should be included, it is messy and long. It's much better as a link to the main article in the "see also" section. Jackp 09:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When you eliminated the list here, did you assure that all of the folks on our list are on List of French people? If you did, then "Good work!", I think you made a useful change.

Atlant 11:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

French Revolution

In the History section, the reference to the French Revolution as it is gives somewhat a narrow view of the event: "The monarchy ruled France until 1789, when the French Revolution took place. King Louis XVI and wife, Marie Antoinette, were killed, along with thousands of other French citizens." Although the events described in the second sentence are true, using half of the text dedicated to the French Revolution (only two sentences) to remind the slaughtering of Kind Louis the XVI, Marie Antoinette and many French citizens, seems to reduce the event, which had such a broad impact on French and European history and culture, to a pathetic massacre. --DR.fr 20:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the thousands in the quoted statement makes it seem like much more than a massacre. I think of a massacre as anywhere between a dozen to a couple hundred, (300 works fine), but a number that large attracts some reverence. The Holy Hand Grenade Attack Llama#42 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

France in WWII

I noticed that the phrase "Invaded and subdued by German forces" has been removed a couple times. Isn't that exactly what happened? France was invaded by Germany and surrendered pretty easily, if I recall correctly.—BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 01:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Invaded and subdued" is a correct description, minor semantics aside, but the French did not surrender easily at all. There were hundreds of thousands of French casualties in the Battle of France. They were simply beaten very decisively and had no option but to surrender when it was said and done. The surrender contextually was very sensical; other nations had also surrendered to Germany in similar conditions. There was simply little else they could do.UberCryxic 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Pretty easily"? If I remember correctly, there were between 200,000 and 300,000 casualties in a few weeks of conflict. Ok, that's not the 1-2 millions of World War I, but it's still a lot. Additionally, I may mention that a number of French units and Maginot line bastions were still fighting when they were ordered to surrender by the new government (which came to power by a kind of coup d'état authorized by demoralized politicians). David.Monniaux 01:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be no mention of France being invaded and defeated by Germany in World War II. What's going on here? This is a pretty big part of the country's history that it seems is being brushed under the rug. If it keeps getting deleted, then maybe something needs to be done about this, for credibility's sake. Dankostka 03:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah agreed. I don't think anybody is purposefully deleting it though. The History section is problematic in general because it is far too short. There's a lot of other stuff that has also been left out.UberCryxic 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Population growth

" the population of the European Union increased by 216,000 inhabitants (without immigration), of which 211,000 was the increase in France's population alone, and 5,000 was the increase in all the other countries of the EU combined"

It does not make sense. The paragraph speaks as if France had the absolute majority of population growth, but that was not so. Some other EU countries had much population growth too. The statement that "5,000 was the increase in all the other countries of the EU combined" is misleading, because some other countries had more than a 5,000 population growth. The total growth is '216,000' only because some countries had decreased population. For example, France had a 211,000 growth, country B had a 211,000 growth, but country C had a 206,000 decrease. That still makes the total growth '216,000', but to say '5,000 was the increase in all the other countries of the EU combined' is false, because country C's decrease cannot be counted inside the increase. If the example of mine is true (which it is not) and if there are only three countries in EU, then the sentence should be, for example, "and 211,000 was the increase in all the other countries combined, though there is a 206,000 decrease in country C, causing a 5,000 population growth in all the countries in EU except France". Some sources are also needed. Aranherunar 07:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

exactly how many immigrants are in france???

A recent census study says 5 million, but we'd have to check the definitions involved. David.Monniaux 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Je pense qu'il est rediculous et inhumain pour que le Français indique que le RPF a tiré en bas de l'avion. C'est un mensonge. Les extrémistes hutus ont tiré en bas de l'avion, parce qu'ils ont voulu créer la propagande contre les tutsis et le RPF. C'est pourquoi les hutus ont blâmé le RPF « incitent » la fête de massacre. Les Français d'une part, sont justes blâmant le RPF de se briser de l'avion afin de s'excuser pour leur coopération avec le gouvernement hutu génocide. Le Français a coopéré avec le gouvernement hutu à éliminer les Tutsis ! Quand l'entente de paix a été signée entre le RPF et le gouvernement en 1993, le gouvernement hutu était fâché et juste a voulu trouver une manière de rester dans la puissance, parce qu'ils ont su qu'ils desserraient au RPF. C'est pourquoi le gouvernement hutu a fouetté dehors leur colère sur la population tutsie parce qu'ils ne pourraient pas défaire le RPF. Ils ont juste voulu employer la propagande et leur petite station par radio stupide pour provoquer la haine contre le Tutsi. Cependant, l'ironie de ceci est que le tutsi au Rwanda n'ont rien à faire avec le RPF. Le RPF a été basé en Ouganda. Ils consisited des Tutsis qui ont décidé de quitter le Rwanda pour se sauver l'Ouganda quand les Hutus sont venus pour actionner dans les années 50. Les tutsis au Rwanda étaient ceux qui ont décidé de rester. De façon générale, le tutsi et la violence de hutu n'est pas nouveau mais elle n'est pas vieille. Il y avait un temps que les Tutsis et les Hutus ont vécu ensemble dans la paix. Tout était untill correct allant que les Belges ignorants sont entré et ont pratiqué se divisent et conquièrent (une stratégie européenne typique). Les Belges ont divisé le Tutsi et le Hutu, et depuis puis, ils ont observé dans le divertissement comme Tutsi et combat hutu. Quand le Français « interviened » dans le génocide rwandais en 1994, ils sont venus pour observer, rire, et soutenir le gouvernement hutu, pas économiser le Tutsi et pour arrêter les massacres. Quoi qu'il en soit, le RPF étaient victorius, quoiqu'ils aient combattu tous par eux-mêmes. Le plus, le RPF ne devrait pas n'être blâmé d'aucun massacre. Le RPF a dû faire leur travail. S'il was'nt pour le RPF, tous tutsis et hutus modérés de l'été mort en raison du gouvernement hutu, des extrémistes hutus, et des troupes françaises ! ! !

Could you please translate it to English? Bigtop 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I read and understand French, and this is what it translates to (it must be a random French Person): "I think that it is rediculous and inhumane for the French to say that the RPF shot down the plane. That is a lie. The Hutu extremists shot down the plane, because they wanted to create propaganda against the tutsis and the RPF. That's why the hutus blamed the RPF in order to "incite" the killing spree. The French on the other hand, are just blaming the RPF for the crashing of the plane in order to excuse themselves for their cooperation with the genocidal Hutu Government. The French cooperated with the Hutu government to wipe out the Tutsis! When the Peace accord was signed between the RPF and the Government in 1993, the Hutu government was angry and just wanted to find a way to stay in power, because they knew that they were loosing to the RPF. That's why the Hutu government lashed out their anger on the Tutsi population because they could not defeat the RPF. They just wanted to use propaganda and their little stupid radio station to provoke hatred against the Tutsi. However, the irony of this is that the tutsi in Rwanda have nothing to do with the RPF. The RPF was based in Uganda. They consisited of Tutsis who decided to leave Rwanda to flee Uganda when the Hutus came to power in the 1950s. The tutsis in Rwanda were those who decided to stay. Overall, the tutsi and hutu violence is not new but it is not old. There was a time that the Tutsis and Hutus lived together in peace. Everything was going okay untill the ignorant belgians came in and practiced divide and conquer( a typical European strategy). The Belgians divided the Tutsi and Hutu, and ever since then, they have watched in entertainment as the Tutsi and Hutu fight each other. When the French "interviened" in the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, they came to watch,laugh, and support the Hutu government, not save the Tutsi and stop the killings. Anyway, the RPF were victorius, even though they fought all by themselves. Plus, the RPF should not be blamed for any massacres. The RPF had to do their job. If it was'nt for the RPF, all the tutsis and moderate hutus would of been dead because of the Hutu government, Hutu extremists, and the French troops!!!" You know, it sounds kind of funny, but I think I agree with what is being said.

The above French paragraph is an out-of-topic, badly written rant about the role of France is the civil war and genocides in Rwanda. I suspect that it was translated automatically -- "shoot down the plane" translates into "abattre l'avion", not "tiré en bas de l'avion" (which means "deliberately firing in the direction of the plane, as to miss it, the projectiles passing down the plane") Rama 11:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Map

Why is French Guiana not included in the map in the infobox? - Jack (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Spaceport

The article says France is "the only European power (excluding Russia) to have its own national spaceport (Centre Spatial Guyanais)", yet the spaceport pages does not include this in the list of European spaceports, and lists other European spaceports besides. One of the articles must be in error. 68.6.122.202 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

=Answer=: The Guyane spacesport is listed in South America, since it is on the south-american continent. So both articles are rights, we just have to remember that France has a colony in South America. ;) 82.127.252.108 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

France does not have a colony in South America. It has a part of itself in South America. Rama 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

The consensus on the talk page some while ago was that the standard country infobox cannot accurately account for France's specific situation (metropolitan France vs. entire territory of the French Republic, including overseas France). That's why a specific infobox was created. This specific infobox copies for the most part the standard country infobox, but has specific entries to allow disambiguation between metropolitan France's figures and figures for the entire Republic. Before deleting this infobox, explain your reasons here, and give other contributors some time to express themselves. Hardouin 22:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox country has been changed to allow for these differences. Indeed, there is virtually no difference between the use of the Template:Infobox country and the single use template. --Bob 22:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Then in that case why does your infobox contains a "Water (%)" entry when French authorities do not report this figure? This sounds straight out of the CIA World Factbook. Your mention of the "Holy Roman Empire" is also inaccurate. 843 was the legal foundation of the French State, not of the Holy Roman Empire. You also deleted the land area as reported by the French Land Register. Why? You also deleted the INSEE reference for the population figure. Again why? Finally, in Internet Explorer at least, your infobox format is completely screwed up, whereas the specific infobox appeared neatly, with figures on the same lines as entries (whereas on your infobox many figures appear below or above their entries). If your infobox is not an improvement, I see no point in replacing the current infobox really. Hardouin 23:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

On my browser, it works just fine. I see no point in abusing the template namespace. The insee reference is there. The water percentage is something that is included in the other box but could be made optional, in fact, I will probably make it so. Finally, it is not my infobox, but one which is implemented on virtually every other country on Wikipedia. --Bob 23:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Format issues are important ones. This is how the specific infobox looked:

File:SpeInf.png

and this is how the standard infobox looks now:

File:StInf.png

As you can see, several things are screwed up. Many lines are broken and now appear as two lines (e.g. "Dominique de Villepin" appears on two lines, the total area also appears on two lines, with the superscript "2" awkwardly appearing alone on the second line). Also, notice how below "population" the "2006 est." entry and the "metropolitan France" entry appear as if there was a gap, or an extra blank line, between the two, whereas if you look on the right, "61,044,684" appears closer to "63,587,700" than to "110/km²". None of these problems happened with the specific infobox.

For population figures, it is also better to have a "Total" entry rather than a "2006 est." entry, because otherwise the 63 million figure will be quite puzzling for people used to metropolitan France's population figures. That's why in the specific infobox the date was put immediately below the word "population" in a separate entry.

Also note how some of the superscripts awkwardly appear inside parenthesis E.g. we have "(89th ³)", instead of the more logical way in which superscripts appeared in the specific infobox. Hardouin 23:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the wrapping... Maybe something wrong with your browser. Also, having the superscripts in the brackets is no more awkward than having them next to the ² of km². IMHO, there is no difference between saying 1 January 2006 and 2006 est., as, after all, it is an estimate based on the previous census. --Bob 23:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is how it looks for me:

File:France screenshot.jpg

Economic Power

"It is a developed country with the seventh-largest economy in the world." This is incorrect. Even the source referenced "Rank by nominal GDP" cites France as having the sixth larges GDP. I am changing it. If you have a problem leave me a message. --Mgill 11:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

République française or République Française

My french grammar is a little rusty, but shouldn't the F in française be capitalized as is the case shown within the article in the "symbol of the French government" image? It is after all a proper name. —MJCdetroit 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The recommendation from the Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale is not to capitalize adjectives within a compound proper noun (ex: École polytechnique and not École Polytechnique). However, if I remember well, there are common usages as exceptions to this; in addition, not everybody follows the lexique. David.Monniaux 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)