Talk:France/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Correction needed

In the "France" article. "Government and politics" section, 5th paragraph. "...its successor the Union pour un Jonathan Paul Michael Gibbs Mouvement Populaire (UMP)" should be "...its successor the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP)".

Some Idiot !

Some one deleted the France page and posted something stupid

Airbus - a French company ?

The article gives the impression that Airbus is a French company. AFAIK it's a European joint-venture. Shouldn't this be clearified? It is often criticized that the French start cooperations with European partners in order to create "European champions" and then, down the road, slowly convert these companies into "pure" French enerprises by buying the other ones out and replacing the leadership with their own people "based on competence". This leitmotiv of national industrial policy, including the "econonic patriotism" has created a lot of anger and mistrust against them.


Opening Paragraph Overlapping

Could anyone fix the overlapping table in the first paragraph? It renders it unreadable.


France: Prime minister and the president

What is the difference in the powers between the prime minister and the president in France? Sorry, just curious. --qbertsoul

The President and the Prime Minister both embody the Executive branch of the State, but the President carries representational duties (as "the voice of France") and has the supreme authority over foreign relations. He is also the supreme chief of the armies.
The Prime Minister is the highest administrator of everyday affairs.
Usually, the President and the Prime Minister have similar political views (the Prime Minister is selected by the President), so their respective realms are not much of an issue. However, the President is elected by direct vote of the People, while the Prime Minister and his government depend on the majority at the Assembly (because the Assmebly can censor the government); since the Assembly and the President are not elected at the same time, it is possible that a majority opposing the views of the President be elected, forcing the choice of a Prime Minister opposing the President. Obvioulsy, in this configuration, the domains of competences are severely guarded. This is the "cohabitation", which happened thrice in the Vth Republic. Rama 9 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)
See Government of France, President of France, Prime Minister of France. David.Monniaux 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Opening sentence

From LaurelBush 16:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC): I suggest the article's opening sentence should read:

"The French Republic or France (French: République française or France) is a sovereign power centred on Paris in western Europe, and a country whose metropolitan territory is located in western Europe, and which is further made up of a collection of overseas islands and territories located in other continents."

The expression 'sovereign power' places the power on a map in relation to other sovereign powers, such as the UK (centred on London or Westminster), Ireland (Dublin) and the US (Washington DC). Perhaps 'UN-recognised sovereign power' is more precise.

The common usage is to say "country". --David.Monniaux 17:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm curious about the use of "metropolitan territory". I'm not familiar with this term, and the current link to Metropolitan accesses a disambiguation page; as part of my work is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation I'd like to work toward eliminating such links. Could someone explain the meaning of "metropolitan territory" to the end of either altering the wikilink or replacing it with a more common expression? Thanks. Courtland 16:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    I resolved this by replacing with a piped wikilink to Metropolitan France. Courtland 17:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Area of France

There is still a problem with the correct area of France. The article currently says its ranked 47th in the list of countries by area. However, it is ranked 42th at the moment (the list also refers to Metropolitan France and the French Republic separately) and the areas given in both places are different. If this article is right then France would even be higher up in the ranking. Any authoritative source on this issue (maybe some french governmental website etc.)? The list says it refers to the CIA Factbook, but I did not check whether this is true. --Markus Krötzsch 15:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

INSEE says [1] that the total surface of France is around 549,000 km² (543965 in Metropolitan France, the rest in oversea possessions). --David.Monniaux 10:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Check the table at the beginning of the article about France. I put there the exact area of France, with footnote to what it refers to exactly. --Hardouin 00:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Garsen 11:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Google says that area of france is 547,030 SQ KM and references to this site: http://www.intersites.co.uk/307/

"strict France"

To whoever added : '*If only strict France is considered this number lows to some 40 million', the least you could do is explain to the rest of us what on earth you mean by 'strict France.' The first time I read it I thought you meant the Metropole, but then I saw the entry for Spain and realize that you're removing some groups (Basques? Catalans? Occitans?). --MichaelTinkler

Maybe he meant parts like French Guyana and the various islands. IOW anything separated by seas. (Btw if you take it your way, Corsicans probably also apply :-)

German and Dutch languages

I wonder why someone has added, among the languages spoken in France, German and Dutch. These are not spoken in France, except by tourists. --GP

There really is a very small minority of Dutch speakers in France, located in the northeast corner, at the Belgian border. I don't known whether these people speak it as a first language, however. It is also claimed that the possibility to meet a Dutchman in the summer is higher in France than in Amsterdam, so there are lot of people speaking Dutch ;-)
Maybe this could be understood in the way that there is a lot of foreigners tourists in amsterdam? and there is a lot of dutch tourists in france during summer, some even owns a house in the countryside, but they still are tourists. --Izwalito
Well, though the Flemish (rather than Dutch) traditions may still be present around Lille, I have never met any Flemish-speaking person coming from French Flanders. Maybe among people over 70 years ?
While Flemish is really just a dialect of Dutch (although many speakers of both languages will deny that), I really don't know who speak it, it is just mentioned in most reputable language reports of France. --Jeronimo
I could image some people in the Alsace/Elzas speaking German, but I don't really know. --Jeronimo
You may be right, but actually they probably wouldn't agree ; the dialect(s) spoken in Alsace is (are) germanic, but Alsatians are reluctant to call it German. Of course, this is subject to debate.
I have replaced "Dutch" and "German" by "Flemish" and "Alsatien" respectively. These are the actual names of these dialects, and they both link to articles, which in turn link to "Dutch" and "German". --User:Olivier

I've replaced Alsatien by Alsacien. First because it's the way we write it. Then, because by judging the number of hits on google (35 instead of 28 200 for Alsacien), most being personal pages or wikipedia page, it's obviously not the english way to write it. Mispelling probably. --user:anthere

I'm the one who originally added Dutch and German to the list of languages spoken in France. As has been pointed out, both are indeed used in France, though mostly in their local dialect form (Flemish and Alsatian), with the standard language serving as the language used in education and, generally, writing. Even though only French is an official language in France, and Flemish has a positively tiny number of speakers, they still deserve a mention. I've further put "German" back in, partly because Alsatian is strictly speaking just a (Alemannic) dialect of German, partly because "Alsatian" doesn't entirely cover the German spoken in Lorraine (which AFAIK is Franconian in origin). --Scipius
Then that is better covered by Dutch then by German, since Dutch is Franconian in origin too :-) Still I've been stationed in the Alsace (or Elzas as it is known here) for a while, and found that German (of the High variety, not the dialect) is very common, specially in Strassbourg. And this was just ordinary people in suburbs, I wasn't in European Parlement circles.
People in Alsace will probably object to "Alsacien" being considered only as a "dialect of German". I originally come from Alsace and linguists in the area consider Alsacien to only share a common origin with modern German. I.e, they are both Alemannic languages. I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the "German spoken in Lorraine" and Alsacien; there are numerous variants (different words, not only different prononciation) of Alsacien. People in the south of Alsace can have major difficulties understanding the northern version, and vice-versa. AFAIK, the "German spoken in Lorraine" is a variant of "Alsacien" the locals object having called "Alsacien" for mainly territorial reasons.
Almost every french region has its own dialect or patois, telling an alsacien person that alsacien is german is very offensive and can lead you into trouble
That is because a lot of people don't get the difference between language group (e.g. German, or Allemanic) and German as in state. A similar problem exists with "Deutsch" which can also be seen in a grander sense than the German state.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.--68.80.223.233 19:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My 2 cents: I have been to Alsace many times and never had a problem speaking German with the locals, even though I also speak French. Never got into trouble for that! Alsatian is one of the many dialects of German and closely related to the German dialects on the other side of the Rhine. People from both sides of the Rhine can converse with each other in their respective German dialect and have no trouble understanding each other. Trust me, I know this, since my grandmother is Alsatian and I (even though I speak another South German dialect - Schwäbisch -) also do understand Alsatian. There is of course a difference between the Alemannic German dialects spoken in Alsace, the German Southwest, Switzerland and the western Austrian state of Vorarlberg and Standard German (Hochdeutsch), which is the national standard in Germany. The difference between the German dialects spoken in Alsace and Lorraine has to with the fact, that the dialect of Lorraine belongs to another German Dialect group - Franconian - and has more in common with the dialects spoken in Rhineland-Palatinate, the Saarland etc. Also, there are differences between the various forms of Alsatian, which is typical for German dialects or for that matter, dialects in general. Last, but not least, the author of the remark regarding the dialects or "patois" or French regions is confusing 2 different things. There are of course different dialects of French, especially in the Southern part of France, that differ tremendously from the national standard. However, that got nothing to do with non French languages spoken within France, such as Alsatian, Breton, Corsican, Basque etc.
Having said that - I would like to add that I love France, the culture, the cuisine, the language and that some of my best friends are French. So don t even think about getting into an argument with me about German-French conflicts.... :-) Those days are over and we are all GOOD Europeans now!
Greetings from Pacific Grove, CA --Luke
I think a bit more historic sense (as opposed to nationalistic) is needed in this discussion. The national lines weren't always as clear cut as they are now, specially before say 1800 and even more so before 1600. This also goes for language borders.
The learning of foreign languages in France tends to be heavily influenced by geographical and historical factors. Understandably, people close to Italy more often learn Italian; and people close to German naturally tend to learn German as a foreign languages. Thus, people able to speak German in Alsace may not actually be that much related to dialects.
This is not true. The Alsace is historically a disputed province between Germany and France before definitely landing with France after the 1870 French-German war (aside from WW I and II temporary occupations). To my knowledge the common folk spoke German in the Alsace as till well in the 20th century. Just visit e.g. Strassbourg and notice the number of people with German names like e.g. Mueller.
There are of course different dialects of French, especially in the Southern part of France, that differ tremendously from the national standard.
I do not see what you mean. I'm a native French speaker; I've been a number of times to various places in the South, I've got family there. Except for the use of a few local words (which would apply in most French regions), the only noticeable difference is a difference of accent — but this certainly does not constitute a dialect (though I can understand that it can be hard for non-native speakers). --David.Monniaux 07:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't call them dialects, although they are mostly Romance languages, they are significantly different from French. Many of these were still widely in use in the early 20th century (although the French government discouraged their use until recently). From my personal experiences, I have found that a significant portion of older French people, especially in the southern regions, can speak or at least understand some of these different languages. Some examples include Langues d'Oc, and Languedocien. It is interesting to note that "Languedocien is used primarily by rural people over age 50", so it will likely die out within a few generations. --user:Nezbie
These are indeed generally referred to as different languages, not dialects (but I'm not an expert on the topic). A dialect is a variant of the same language; thus American English is a dialect of English, and Quebec French is a dialect of French. In the south, there exists Occitan, Provençal etc. but these are romance languages related to French but significantly different. (I know some elderly people who speak provençal.)
What I meant above is that though there are obviously some regional languages (fast dying out, as you point out) there aren't real regional dialects (i.e. established variants of the same language, mutually intelligible, with minor differences in grammar and vocabulary). David.Monniaux 15:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Alsace-Lorraine was once part of Germany and has been an integral region in both German and French history. The very first German bible was in fact printed in Strasbourg. Alsacien (or Elsaessisch in German) is classified by Ethnologue as Alemannic, which is not truly one language, but a number of 'German Dialects', which also include Swiss German, which is not mutually intelligible with Alsacien. When Alsace-Lorraine was a part of Germany, the language was probably just called 'Deutsch' by the locals. Given the current political status of the area, it would seem most fitting to classify it as a language of its own. 7/27/05 --user: Kusgan

Number of regions

The article regions of France says there are 22 regions, whereas this one says 23: what is the actual number? Why is there this difference? --User:Oliver

23 is the real number. There are 22 on the main territory (régions métropolitaine), and 1 more including the overseas departments --ant
Has the 23rd region the exact same status as the other ones? "with conseil regional"? Where is the capital/seat of the conseil regional of this region? --User:Olivier
22 régions métropolitaine + 4 overseas = 26 regions
However, I'm not sure Corsica is a region, I think it's a 'colectivite territorialle', ie a special status entity. The overseas regions are a bit different as there is only 1 departement in the region; so region and departement have the same 'conseil'. (There is a similar stuff for Paris, which is a Departement and a city.) --Ann O'nyme
  • Insee settles it once and for all, they list 26 regions.
Corsica is NOT an overseas collectivity. It is a metropolitan region made with two departements (haute corse et corse du sud). --anonymous
The overseas regions are a bit different as there is only 1 departement in the region; so region and departement have the same 'conseil'. False. See for instance Réunion, where the regional council has a Communist president and the general (deparmental) council has a right-wing president. Both collectivities are distinct even though they operate on the same area. David.Monniaux 18:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This is correct, the DOMs (oversees departments) are both régions and départements, but the power is divided between the two. Another example; in Guadeloupe, the départment controls the small airport in the capital of Basse-Terre, whereas the région controls the much larger, principal airport of Guadeloupe in Pointe-à-Pitre, the largest city.

Important cities

I'd like to know what defines an "important" city. Honestly, I have never heard of Doue-la-Fontaine, and other cities listed here seems not to be major cities to me at all. If the definition of an important city is its size and maybe something very particular about its activity, I'd like the size and maybe the specific activity to be clearly defined. It seems to me some cities added here are not much more than big villages, and it does not look "serious" at all. It sounds as if some are the big villages where the editor is living. I totally agree these cities could have a room in wikipedia, but not listed as major cities. We could link them directly from their department rather, or from a tourism page. I'll do it if nobody objects.

  • Doué la fontaine
  • Barcelonnette
  • Montrichard
  • Noyon
  • Rochefort
  • Bayonne (maybe)
  • Firmini
  • Foix
  • Saint Girons (and not Saint Giron)
  • Saint Raphaël
  • Tavaux

--user:anthere

Something has to be done about that mess... May be creating 3 sections, e.g. Major cities/Historic cities/Touristic cities. --Ann O'nyme
There does seem to be a problem regarding what a "grande ville" really is for the French. They will speak of "les grandes villes de Dijon, Besancon, etc.", which are rather small, while the French media often describe our (much) larger American urban areas as small: "la petite ville de Oklahoma City, de Wichita", etc. (Yet these two U.S. cities, if they were French, would be in the Top Five of France!) Would a kind Frenchman care to comment?
I've never heard any of the sentences that you quote – certainly nobody in his right mind in France calls Besançon a "grande ville", except if commenting on local matters (ex: to a guy living in a small village in Burgundy, Dijon is a big city). In any case, I've never seen "la petite ville de Oklahoma City" anywhere. I will as go as to say that your examples are made-up.
By the way, Wichita would certainly not be in the top Five of France; its population is about 580000 inhabitants, which would rank it at #8 in France.
Now for more serious matters. The importance of a city/town/village is partly defined relatively to its surroundings and, also importantly, the point of view of the intended audience. To a French audience, Oklahoma City is an unimportant city: contrary to city like Los Angeles or New York, it has no "brand name" recognition, it's just a (however highly populated) boring area in some foreign country. I suppose that similarly, few Americans have ever heard of the département of the Nord (an area of France with about 2 million inhabitants, more than a bunch of minor US states). The importance compared to surroundings is clearly illustrated by maps: in sparsely populated areas, even minor towns in absolute terms are displayed on the maps. A city like Dijon is important because it's the only city of that size and the only one with a full university in its area. Some cities are important in local terms because they are prefectures (seats of government) etc. (just like some minor US cities are somewhat important as state capitals).
None of the above cities are "important". Barcelonnette, for instance, is a small sub-

préfecture... David.Monniaux 18:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. No, I'm making nothing up: I have watched TV5 and read French publications, and yes, TV5 did call both Oklahoma City and Wichita "une petite ville" (pertaining to major news events there). True, French media discuss big elections in the "grandes villes" of Dijon and Tours, but those are local issues. That Wichita would be number 8 in France is splitting hairs on your part; the French media make more geographical mistakes than any others I've seen except our own U.S. media--a sad record. Ultimately, you stress that it's all a matter of "local" or "relative," and I accept your analysis.

I agree with your analysis that the French media makes numerous geographical errors when they deal with foreign countries, including the US. I'm surprised that journalists would call Oklahoma City and Wichita "small", but maybe they confused size and importance (note: TV5 rebroadcasts news reports from a variety of non-French francophone TV channels) — they may have thought that since they had never heard of Wichita (few people in France have heard this name), then it must be a small city.
Dijon is a "grande ville" relative to what is around it — even though its population is less than that of a large Parisian arrondissement. David.Monniaux 17:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Freedom Land

I believe it is imperative that this be moved to Freedom Land. --Susan Mason

Is that an unnecessary jab at the French? --ugen64 23:02, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

It seems to be more of a jab at French bashing than at France.

Overseas territories

Do the overseas collectives and the other small islands claimed by France belong to the EU? --AxelBoldt 10:39, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The oversea départements do, the oversea territories (New Caledonia, French Polynesia, TAAF) don't, and I don't know about the other ones. --David.Monniaux 20:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


British English

Is it okay for me to make the article use British English? Since France is in Europe, I feel that British English is more relevant for the article. --WhisperToMe 06:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Apology, but I am not entirely convinced. Is the language right now entirely american, or partly only ? Could you point out at some examples ? Thanks. Anthère
It's considered bad form to change from English to American spelling or vice versa, unless the article is specifically about those languages or places. --RickK 06:34, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I see that Color is in U.S. English form (after Tricolore), but that may be the only example. --WhisperToMe 05:40, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As Rick said, there is a habit to keep a text in the spelling it was written, WisperToMe.
And it is not because England is nearer that we are only influenced by british english and not american english. Granted, children at school tend to learn more british english because of the exchanges between the countries (though actually exchanges are very frequent with Ireland as well) but adults practice much more american one. It is not bothering us that color is in american english WisperToMe.
I am not sure why you think british english is more relevant.
(and color fits very well with tricolore). --Anthère 06:38, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Re British English: As an American, I'm not bothered by British English in an article about a European country. British usage makes total sense. However, you should use American English in articles about American people, places, and things. We like our U.S. spellings, vocabulary, and syntax just as much as the British like theirs, so "Brit-speak" in an article about us would be jarring and inappropriate. --Mason
This is Wikipedia's policy: UK-specific articles should be in British English, US-specific articles in American English. But, here, we're discussing France. --David.Monniaux 08:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Right, David, but many Europeans (especially the French--I lived in France for 3 years) follow British usage much more than American. Thus, most readers won't be miffed if an article on France is written in British English, the common language of Europe. --Mason
British English, the common language of Europe. You must be kidding. David.Monniaux 08:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not at all. British English has become the lingua franca of Europe. The usage, vocabulary, and accent taught in your schools (often as a required subject from age 10) are overwhelmingly British. --M.
Sure. (I note that English is not a required subject from age 10 in France; foreign languages are, and English is either taken as a 1st or 2nd foreign language.) British spelling is naturally favored in schools, and is the official spelling used in European Union documents.
However, engineers, scientists, businesspeople etc. often, and I would even say "generally", work with American spelling, even though this is not what's taught in secondary schools. This reflects the large importance of the US for such professions compared to that of the UK. I myself generally use American spellings unless writing specifically for a British audience. --David.Monniaux 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I lived in France in the '70s, the English I heard was totally British. Britons were almost always preferred as lecteurs or lectrices d'anglais in your universities. (They hired few Americans in those days.) I guess times must change—and that's good. --M.

"British" English is also used in Australia, South Africa and India.

I believe it's more accurate to say that indian english is used in India. --Izwalito
Canadians also use British English (with a few exceptions), The United States of America is about the only place that does not use British english.
As long as they are part of France, and as long as France is part of European union, the overseas departments are part of the european union. As a result, when you are in Guyane, in the middle of amazonean rainforest, you are in the European union.
That's exact in the case of Guyane, but inexact in the case of the French Pacific possessions, which are not considered to be within the EU. --David.Monniaux 08:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As an American user, I definitely find it most appropriate for this article to be written in British English. As was pointed out, British English is the international form of the language, despite the economic weight of the United States.

Nonsense -- as an American user often accused of writing or at least sounding British, I can tell you that the two versions get mixed up everywhere and all the time -- show us a canonical reference to your "British English is the international form of the language", a reference any significant group would accept as canon? Our two American kids studied English in a French school in France, and the correct spelling was "colour" on essays submitted to the teacher from the UK, while "color" was "OK" for the teachers from France. Not that it all wasn't argued over...

But there is no "international form". Sure, India once spoke British English, but The Raj has been replaced there by Silicon Valley & Bollywood & other things, so now it's Indian English. Further east, Chinese kids are growing up with American English, thanks to modern media -- as are kids in England itself, further east than that -- all those iPods, and that hip-hop & rap. Chinese English, then... So insisting here, on either the one or the other between just "British" and "American", to me seems simplistic and anachronistic: Wikipedia's policy that either one may be used, interchangeably, makes far more sense to me, and conforms better with both national and international usage -- until the kids all start speaking hip-hop & rap, and then I'll be entirely out.

--Kessler 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's chapter-and-verse on current Wikipedia policy on this, I think: they talk about -- abouut -- something called "Canadian English" (think Peter Jennings, "abouut") --

"Among the controversies specific to the English Wikipedia is a debate over which national variety of the English language is to be preferred, with the most common candidates being American English and British or International English. Many suggestions have been proposed by editors, ranging from standardizing upon a single form of English to forking the English Wikipedia project. The de facto policy, however, is to prefer an appropriate form of English for articles of regional scope (e.g., Canadian English for subjects related to Canada) but otherwise to allow the use of any variety of English, as long as the variety of English is consistent throughout the text of an article."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia

-- makes eminently good sense to me... there I go "sounding British" again, that "eminently"...

--Kessler 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what some users believe, there is in fact a difference between American and British English. If you think that the whole world has gone American, try traveling: You might just notice the differences. From my experience in French Lycée, American diction and above all American spelling is looked down upon and marked as an error. While Americanisms may be «ok» at some schools, it is definitely not the more accepted form in France. Therefore, I argue that this article be in British English. (For those of you wondering, I am an American) -Dustin, dustin_bradley@web.de

What you say about French lycées is correct, however that is only until you finish your studies. After that, no one will 'look down upon' your americanisms (if they even notice them at all). British English is supposed to be the 'proper' English, just as Real Academia Spanish is supposed to be 'proper' Spanish and is, therefore, taught in French lycées. Fgabolde 18:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Currency of France

It's not correct to state in the table that the currency of France is both the Euro and French euro coins respectively. One have to distinguish between a currency and legal tender. The currency of France is just the Euro. French euro coins, along with all other "national" euro coins are legal tender (in France and in the rest of euroland). Thus, if the table wants to give information about coins and banknotes having the status of legal tender, it is uncomplete (since in this case all other "national" coins have to be stated as well). If the table refers to the currency, it is just correct to mention Euro. --Gugganij 15:32, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Grammar

It's OK in terms of content. But the grammar in the article needs a lot of work. Not anything to change the sense or even the tone of the article - Bog forbid - it just needs tiny little adjustments so it reads as if whoever wrote it speaks English competently as their first language. Little details like "it's vs. its" and unnecessary plurals drive me crazy. I care about France very much, (my daughter goes to a French school!) and I want the article to read more easily and represent the country better that way. Facts I leave to the natives, but I can help with the English. When I have some extra time, I'll go through and fix these minor things a little bit here and there as I can. My best to all. -- Hwarwick 16.40 PST, 30 June 04


Frogs

does anyone know anything about the Frog association with France? mnemonic 23:49, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)

Supposedly, the French eat frogs/frogs legs, at this, being "gross", appals many in Anglophone countries. In reality, frog legs are a rare delicacy, which many French probably have never eaten in their life. They actually seem more common in Chinese than in French restaurants. --David.Monniaux 08:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
you can also check this webpage from more supposed origins of this nickname


Frogs legs are delightful it tastes like fish but it has the consistance of chicken. We French really love it but it is true that we only eat some in special occasions because it's expensive and it's hard to cook. Paul C.

Frogs are rather hard to cook, but the term expensive has to be defined more acccurately: one can find a restaurant offering frogs for less than ten euros. Gooopil 00:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    I agree that some restaurants can offer frogs for less than ten euros but they will not be very good to eat!

Some French (including me) also profoundly dislike the taste of frog legs. Fgabolde 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

About Anglophone tastes

I don't think we should care of what the Anglophones things which is good or not to eat... I never thought that many Anglophones are interesting under that point of view... :-) With all respect! PS: the Argot word to call an english is "Crustacée" because they are rigids, walking on the wrong sense and eating shit and corpses ! :-) so... ;-)

Someones Bitter

"Eating shit and corpses !"- What? The British Royal Navy is no longer a haven for cannibalism. We have that problem relatively under control.


another argot word to call an english is "Rosbeef". I don't know the origin of this term. 82.125.199.247 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) julateufree

The origin of the argot "rosbeef" is said to be refering to the delicate skin colors english people get when they head south to france. 220.134.178.133 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)popersman

Currencies

Wouldn't it be better to add a footnote which specifies where the CFA- and the CFP-Francs are used? Otherwise one might get the impression, that those are currencies which are also used in the mainland. --Gugganij 14:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

CFA Franc is used nowhere in France. CFA Franc is the currency of a number of countries in Western and Central Africa (and is pegged to the Euro). CFP Franc is the currency of the French Pacific territories. --David.Monniaux 18:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thats's the problem I wanted to point at. --Gugganij 14:50, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro

The sentence It holds nuclear weapons does not belong in the introduction. Was it francophobic vandalism? --Liberlogos 14:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, it was not intended as French bashing. I added the string because it is featured (or was...) in the French version of Wikipedia, because I though it might be revelant (since nuclear capability somehow seems to be a common trait of permanent Security Council members), and that it certainly is an important feature of the nation (think of the energy that de Gaulle or Chirac have put into this...). And also because I felt slightly depressed with the state of the world at the time, I must admit ! :p
It's not a problem about featuring this information, but about featuring it in the early introduction, as if it were one of the most essential characteristics of France. It's as if you had added "He once took illegal drugs" in the first sentence on a page describing some politician – while mentioning it in the text, for instance when discussing drug policies, can make sense, mentioning it at the beginning is just plain accusatory.
Nuclear weapons are not an essential trait of France. They are one of the main traits of its defense policies, which themselves are parts of France's policies, which are one aspect of France. --David.Monniaux 16:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's interesting that you seem to consider possessing nuclear weapons a negative trait ("Was it francophobic vandalism?" and "It's as if you had added "He once took illegal drugs" "); it is often seen as a token of high technology, and proof of power and "untouchability" of the country. Not that I disagree with the fact that nuclear weapon do have a negative aspect as well (understatement-fest, yeah ! :) ).
Besides, I'm agreed with David, and anyway, the "Security Council" thing is mathematically equivalent, without the militaristic connotations, so, so much the better !
Well, I think that it's simply a matter of proportion and focus. In the introductory paragraph of most articles, the main characteristics of a person, country etc... are summarized. Focusing on characteristics such as weaponry has the undertones of an accusation of bellicism. It may be justified, of course, if the said country frequently threatens the usage of these weapons; but France does not parade its nukes nor does it threaten other countries with them. --David.Monniaux 10:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the introduction should list key features of the subject treated, so that people that don't have time or patience to read the article can have an idea of the main points. The fact that France is one of the few nuclear powers on Earth is certainly something that stands out, and I think it should be in the introduction. I suggest rephrasing like this: "...a permanent member of the UN Security Council and one of only seven alleged nuclear powers on the planet." I also think that the fact that France's economy is the fifth-largest in the world should be noted in the introduction, such as: "The economy of France is the fifth-largest in the world in 2003." Last but not least, it seems the United Kingdom has been forgotten as a neighbor of France. Are maritime borders not as important as land borders? It should also be specified that these neighbors are for metropolitan France ONLY. The French Republic has many more neighbors, such as Brazil, Surinam, The Netherlands, etc. I let people express comments and suggestions before making any of the 4 proposed changes here. --Hardouin 16:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Mentioning nukes as a characteristic among others is ok; what I disagreed with was that it was the only characteristic mentioned. --David.Monniaux 17:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In 2003, 85,7% of electricity produced in France comes from nuclear energy. Nuclear power as energy source is way more important in France than the nuclear weapons. source --Izwalito


Religion

If you think there's an accuracy or POV problem in the "religion" section, please clearly state what you think is wrong and why on the talk page; merely glueing a "the following paragraph is dubious" label does not contribute much. --David.Monniaux 10:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Francophobic vandalism||jealousy?

I found that the edits made by 213.140.6.103 where reverted by Evercat, why? --Surcouf 30/08/2004 14:08 CET

About the only thing of value in that edit was the figure of 77 million tourists. I'll add that back if you like. The rest was either POV ("wonderful museums") or gibberish, ie "exceptionalism of his architectural, historical and artistic patrimony." - what the heck does that mean?? --Evercat 22:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I removed a fairly long enumeration of "facts" from the intro. --David.Monniaux 21:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please stop franco-phobic stupid vandalism, there is a link with official data of the year 2002 taken from WTO, if you not agreed with that try to justify why and find me other number and sources, if not: shut up, without offences... ;-)
Surcouf 20:40 CET 01/09/2004
BTW this is not a new fact as you can see here France was already ranking 1st for tourism in 1997 with 67,310,000 Tourists
Surcouf, can you please provide a reference on a web site supporting these values ? --SweetLittleFluffyThing 20:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Here is a source at the French Government [2] which gives a figure of 71,000,000 --the most in the world--but also makes the distinction that the U.S. has the highest income from tourism in the world (a completely different statistic); France is third in that count. Googling supports that the most visited countries are France, Spain, and the U.S. in that order. Peace everyone, --Antandrus 20:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Franco-phobic vandalism from Marcus2
I reported on wikipedia about WTO datas for world tourism rankings, those data was also published on "Capital" n°155 magazine in France and in TV (France2), the ranking reported France first world tourist destination with 77millions tourist a year (FOREIGNER), I'll make links on "economy section" to USA, GB, France, Spain and Italy (impossible: italy is blocked) with no problem (it's an official World Tourism Organization stat!) but a boy with nick Marcus2 reverted my edits on france denying the facts (and so the WTO official datas...) claiming that there's no evidence about that...
What I can do? He menace me to block my user... --Surcouf 21:22 CET 01/09/2004
I'd say to first assume good faith from him. Marcus obviously wants the best for the article, and providing references (if there are references) should be enough to convince him. Also, I recommand that you avoid calling his reversions vandalism, if you do not want this to backfire :-) Usually, when name calling starts, it escalate pretty badly :-) Keep it cool guy. --SweetLittleFluffyThing 20:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


intro length

The new text that has been added in the last month or so clutters the top of the page and is contrary to the WikiProject Countries template and intention. --Joy [shallot] 14:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. I feel a bit responsible actually, since I am the one who started adding a few points into the introduction last month, things I deemed were missing there, but then people started adding into the introduction everything that went through their head. The point of an introduction is, well, to introduce the subject, and to highlight key points. By cluttering it with a hodgepodge of information I think we really defeat the purpose of an introduction. I have taken out unnecessary information and put it down into the article, so that the introduction is now left with only the essential things (hopefully). --Hardouin 11:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's also way too much text now in the Demographics section, while the Demographics of France page doesn't have anything like it. It should be mass-moved. --Joy [shallot]
Done that now. --Joy [shallot] 14:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


International Schools in France

Does anyone know of international schools (K-12) in France (that is, schools that teach in English)? I already know of the two in Paris and one in Toulouse but I am pretty sure there are a few more out there...

Please note that K-12 is an American abbreviation; most Europeans won't understand it. [For those who might help: K-12 means "kindergarten to 12th grade", that is, primary and secondary education.] This is not really the place to ask for such things...
Actually you're wrong. Many international schools in Europe use the American K-12 system. And I guess you have a point (Even though you didn't really make one) that this is not the forum to make off-topic inquiries. I apologize.
Before saying that people are wrong, you should read what they write. :-) Most Europeans don't know what K-12 means, even some who might know about Anglophone schools in their vicinity.


Error on main entry

I don't know how to properly fix this, but there's obviously an error on the main page. Someone has added some slanders french history and possibly deleted some stuff.

There are people watching over the page to check for possible vandalism. It just doesn't get fix straight away every time. --David.Monniaux 21:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I noticed it too before, I was about to remove the text that was included but someone beat me to it.

Not sure whether this is the right place to point that out, but what's with that picture of Spain in the history section. It is not even referenced in the text, I think that ought to be removed.

Use of definite article

Please don't overuse the definite articles le/la when citing French phrases (a common error of many anglophones). One normally doesn't put le/la in front of an expression like France or République Française unless it is inside a sentence of its own. For instance, some official letterhead may start with République Française but will never start with La République Française. --David.Monniaux 09:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


This is cool. I can write on the page and no one will care.

How come this page says "This is cool. I can write on the page and no one will care." ??? but I can't find out where it was added. I tend to see such strange things after 'nuclear weapons' is mentioned on wikipedia.

Hi. See Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. -- Infrogmation 03:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Religion in France

Where is the article on this? Fascinating subject, complicated interplay.

Now moved to Culture of France. I'll put a summary here. --David.Monniaux 08:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
uhhh huh --anonymous

Infobox

I'm sick and tired the infobox being moved around. --David.Monniaux 09:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Locked ?

What's with this lock? what are the editing disputes related to this lock? --Izwalito

The infobox was being moved up and down and up and down. --David.Monniaux 18:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to add (French) to the links to French language websites, but I can't do it while the article is locked.. --Zantastik 07:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sign of France

Whoever wrote the article, you forget to mention 'Marianne', which is the symbol of the French Republic. I got you a link with an actual picture... It's french though:

http://www.elysee.fr/instit/symb6.htm

"Marianne is the symbol of France since the constitution of 1958 made the Blue-White-Red flag official. She is a sign of Liberty"

If you scroll down the page, there's a link to Marianne. We should perhaps make it more proeminent. --David.Monniaux 07:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It's like having an article on the Netherlands without mentioning William of Orange. --Shinobu 16:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Military of France

As one of the most important nations in the world (exery nation may have it's beauty and so on, but you know what i mean.), I think France's military should get an own section in the article. BTW, the main article on it is very messy. --Predator capitalism 18:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve it. --David.Monniaux 20:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Vandalism

What happened?? We all need to work together as a team to act more quickly a vandal starts messing with wikipedia articles. --nicksukh

We had a string of vandalism coming from various educational networks, at some point. --David.Monniaux 05:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Il n'y a aucune raison pour protéger cet article. Il faut simplement exclure les idiots qui détruisent la page. C'est ça. -Heimdal 15:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cela suppose que nous puissions bannir toutes leurs adresses IP, ce qui n'est pas si simple, vu qu'ils interviennent visiblement depuis de nombreuses adresses à travers le monde (peut-être des machines infectées par un virus et faisant "open proxy"). David.Monniaux 16:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erm...the entire page has just disappeared.

Insulting the French

Note: by the 2nd of May, 2005 part of the conversation had become jumbled up. I used the history to figure out who wrote what when. Shinobu

Why is it that so many people like to vandalise pages about france or the french?

I think I fixed it. Whoever did this needs to learn a lesson. Anonymous S. African
Why do so many people like to vandalize pages about the U.S.? I'm disheartened if there's any anti-French sentiment whatsoever in English Wikipedia. Yet, in my experience, anti-Americanism is far more widespread in France than Francophobia will ever be in the United States. Mason.Jones 16:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(continued below — Shinobu)
Really? I'm afraid it doesn't seem to sink to the kind of vulgarity and ignorance that we see here. Is your experience based on living in France? David.Monniaux 22:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it does sink that low, I'm afraid. My friends from Paris think so, too. Mason.Jones 02:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
(continued from above — Shinobu)
And now I see that a totally awkward, ideologically inspired word – états-unien – must replace américain on the French Wiki site.Mason.Jones 16:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're perhaps not aware of this, but southern americans really hate the use of american or américain or americano with a meaning restricted to the United States. Some people thought it appropriate to use a more specific word. David.Monniaux 22:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Spanish-speakers have used estadounidense or norteamericano for ages. Yet almost overnight the French Wiki site imposes états-unien, a term very few Francophones use—not Le Monde, not Libé and not any French person I've ever met. This is an ideologically driven change on the part of French Wikipedians, that's all. Mason.Jones 02:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't like the word "European" to be used specifically for Germans, for sure... but if it's ideologically driven, it must be evil indeed... I don't really see what using a precise word for naming the inhabitants of a country instead of a generic word, applicable for the whole continent, has to do with the vandalising of this page though. On a sidenote I still haven't seen primary anti-americanism here, although people make fun of Americans just like of anybody else (but of course I lived in the civilised world, not Paris or another big city, haha). → SeeSchloß 07:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh and I'm not sure what you mean with the French wiki, the French USA wiki page says "Américain" everywhere and the search engines find it about 100 times more than "états-unien". And I can't find a decision asking to use either of the words rather than the other on the bistro, or the community portal page (except for one discussion last week, which doesn't have any conclusion). → SeeSchloß 07:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. So, because of minority of Francophone wikipedians (not necessarily French, and clearly not representative of society in general) declare they prefer to use étatsuniens, you read into their thought and conclude this is motivated not by a desire of precision or of accommodation for South Americans etc., but by anti-American ideology? And then you consider this an example of widespread Americanophobia in France? Interesting. David.Monniaux 14:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
The entire debate is (or was) in the "Discussion" section for the article "États-Unis". The winner: états-unien, a weak, marginal term but now the only entry under "Gentilé" in the info box (a friendly gesture to South Americans, according to Mr. Monniaux). Throughout the French site, américain will be displaced; the imperialists have been punished. Mason.Jones 18:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Dear, dear. This is nothing to get all worked up about. In Europe the term America is often used as a kind of verbal shorthand for United States'. In some situations the more specific term might be more appropriate because it avoids confusion. Oh, and please don't quote search engine hits. The number of hits you find might not tell you the whole story. Some of the "américain"-hits are not (just) about the States. Apart from that instead of "états-unien" the phrase "des États Unis" is often used. Shinobu 18:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't want annoy Mason.Jones, but I think that he's comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand, we have the choice of étatsuniens, a precise and descriptive term, though not widely used; on the other hand, we have people posting caricatures of political leaders as weasels, schoolyard-level insults, and other vulgarities. It does not take high casuistic skills to recognize that the latter exhibit more blind hate than the former. On the Francophone wikipedia, I've never seen this level of vulgar, uninformed, hateful anti-Americanism, while this kind of francophobia is regularly exhibited on the English-speaking wiki. 10:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I fear I must second that... though I must say it is better than it used to be two years ago... user:anthere
Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with this. From my personal experiences, the French have a rather strong feeling of dislike for what they perceive as the cowboy "go it alone"/"my way on the highway" mentality, "Americanisation", and cultural hegemony. However, this pales in comparison to the sleuth of vulgar, crude francophobia often encountered here in the United States and engrained in online media. Just doing a simple online query reveals the frightening amount of online sites founded over the sole purpose of bashing anything gallic, and waging a war of disinformation. I have yet to see this sheer amount of extremism in France regarding the United States, whether it be expressed online or in real life. user:Nezbie

I don't have the impression that the France article is more often vandalised than other pages. I also see a lot of vandalism on the United States page, for that matter. Besides, it seems to me that it's always the same few individuals who disrupt the pages. Perhaps a stricter policy against vandalism would help. People should be warned, and if they do it again, their IP should be blocked. - Heimdal 13:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

We had a wave of vandalism from different IPs from educational networks around the globe (perhaps hacked machines). David.Monniaux 16:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have a little personal story that may help stop all the bashing of France and the vandalism of the France page (And Dave, one of the schools that may have been vandalizing the page might have been mine; the opinion on the French there is pretty negative).

         One time my Dad was sitting in a chatroom on AOL.  Now, we all know how
         nasty some of those pages can be, and this story is proof of that.  The
         room was entirely made up of United States citizens (and proud ones at 
         that), save for one French citizen.  Every single American in the room 
         was bashing the person, using every stereotype and insult in the book. 
         Finally he got everyone in the room to be quiet long enough for him to 
         type, "Look, we've been dealing with the Iraqis for a rather long time 
         now, and we've learned one thing about them after all these years.  Its
         that the Iraqis really aren't all that ready for Democracy.  And they
         won't be for the next 200 years.  You really have to trust us on this
         one."  Shortly after he said this, the entirety of the American citizens
         in the room was cheering the man on.

In case anybody reading this didn't know what the Frenchman was referring to, it was the current situation with the war in Iraq. I hope that this of all things helps to end the vandalization of the France page on Wikipedia. Of course, for anyone to read this, they would have to come and click the discussion link and sit through and read all of this. :wink:

--Nelson || Hit Me Up 04:51, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is totally okay to bash the French. I mean, they bash on us a lot more than we bash on them. And lets not forget to mention the corruption prevalent in the French government. I mean, they have had the same darn president for the last 18 years, corruption is bound to sink in when your in office that long. Also, the reason that I despise the French the most is that the majority of the French are liberal Roman Catholics, which I should also mention that corruption plagues the Holy Roman Catholic Church too. 05:17 January 31 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're an idiot. May I ask which country you come from ? And while we're at it, have you ever been to France ? Do you speak a bit of French ? Do you know a lot of French people ? I can see by your writing that you are very concerned with the current state of affairs in the political realm in France. Might I ask the name of this president who has been in office for the past 18 years ? Let me save you some time; his name is Jacques Chirac and he has been in office since 1995. Being that we are 2006, that counts 11 years this May. Try searching Wikipedia:Jacques Chirac for further information. - Dustin, dustin_bradley@web.de

My bad about the 18 years thing. You are right about the current state affairs in France. My problem is with the wide spread corruption within the French government, including your beloved Jacques Chirac. He has been implicated to have been involved with the Oil-for-food scandal and the French government has excepted bribes from Saddam Hussein to oppose a US led liberation of Iraq. What angers me the most is that the French government is totally unable or is unwilling to impeach Chirac from his "11" year regieme even though he has been proved to have conections with the Oil-for-food scandal. If a US President was found to have accepted bribes, no question he would have been impeached. It is also annoying that Chirac has many immunities from impeachment (I may be wrong about this so correct me). 07:39 January 31 2006 (UTC)

Dick Cheney's own Hailburton was implicated in the oil-for-food scandals. I don't hear any calls for his resignation/impeachment. Fightindaman 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the office of a French president has a lot of power. In fact, I think the presidents of the 5th republic are the most powerful over their country than any other president. However, this doesn't annoy me. I like the way that France protects its president while he is in office. What does annoy me is when presidents go to "war" without a declaration, without asking congress, and without a real plan for what they're going to do after they knock over a much smaller, non-WMD-having country. I respect the French president and the German chancellor for standing up to this cowboy that we shall refer to as "W." I am somewhat glad you decided to post on this discussion, because hopefully many people can join me in assuring you that French do not bash on Americans as much as Americans bash on all-things French. By the way, when is the last time somebody walked up to you on the street, tapped you on the shoulder, and started blabbering some awfully touristic questions at you in French? I fail to see the basis for anti-French sentiment. It occurs to me that the US asking the world's help to invade Iraq is like Mike Tyson asking for help to beat up Steve Erkel. Aquarelle 05:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem about corruption is that (similarly to torture, spying or kidnapping...) French laws are more strict than US ones. Hence, widespread behaviours of lobbying and "gifts", legal and accepted in the USA, are considered borderline to, or flat corruption in France. Implying that one country is more corrupted than the other on this basis is very simplistic. Rama 09:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, don't they say in France that the president would be in prison now if he were not in the Elysee? Corruption among the French elite and politicians is very common. It is possible that the laws are strict, but I don't have the impression they are thorougly enforced. Look at the HLM of Paris scandal: http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-733441@51-730665,0.html

128.231.88.4 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What is your point? "The President of France has been accused of stuff therefore I think we should insult the French." Hem...not exactly Aristotle, is it? Aquarelle 20:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
the first point is that corruption is present, even and especially among the elite/leaders. The second point is that the laws are not enforced (you might want to read this article - if you want to I can translate it for you into English). The third point is that telling the truth is not necessarily an insult. SignumPolis 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
We are discussing the subject of "Insulting the French," not "Telling the Truth about France" or "Modern Conspiracy Theories." Thank you for your kind offer, but I do speak French. However I will advice you to take a few moments to ruminate over the English language nuance between insulting and telling the truth. --they are not the same thing. Aquarelle 05:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's talk about this: is the proven (sorry, no conspiracy, unless you chose to ignore the investigation report) fact that those top-politicians including the guy who runs the country are corrupt (HLM in Paris) an insult? I am getting the impression that there is a serious problem in perceiving reality. I don't understand why you feel insulted. Are you a politician yourself?. No offense, but the only insult I am seing here is that the elite cheats the country while they were chosen to improve society. The problem is not having bad politicians but rather keeping them. Sorry for the bad choice. What a pity. 128.231.88.5 14:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again, that's not the main issue at hand here. The original topic concerned vandalization of this page by those who dislike the French (not those who think that Chirac is corrupt). There are people here saying "I think it's ok to bash the French" and "The French are all liberal Roman Catholics who won't flex their muscles." This is what we are talking about when we say "insulting the French" not talking about corrupt politicians. Fightindaman 15:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
So there is corruption in France : Well, that isn`t exactly news. All countries have some amount of corruption, and in my opinion France is by no means in excess. If you want to use this forum as a medium to vent your anti-French sentiment, you may find that you are up against some resistance. It appears to me that there are still many people involved in this article who have a more level-headed view of France. «There is corruption in France, therefore we should insult the French.» No, that`s not how it works. If you woud like some examples of corruption outside of France I will point you west to the United States and Canada. Have you heard of ``Le scandale des commandites?`` Yes, even our dear Canada has corruption. Assuming you can read French you should be able to find a signifcant amount of press on the issue. And if we are to look to the East, well, there is no comparison in corruption with the majority of Asian, Middle-eastern and African governments. My advice to you : start a weblog. Aquarelle 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Every time things go messy in France they point to others saying "look-they are even worse ..." Very interesting. It is indeed a shame that this page is so often vandalized, I completely agree. And it is indeed a different issue that parts of this article are hyped, such as the ranking (which of course does not justify vandalism). I cannot really tell you if France is more or less corrupt than other societies, corruption to whatever degree is maybe intrinsic to their system of education where the circle of influence is deliberately kept small and decision making becomes intransparent, which may also explain the frustration of the French with their leaders (cf. last presidential elections where the right wing Le Pen almost got elected and the "non' to the European constitution - which in its origin was mainly initiated by French politicians). However, the French society per se is very interesting, and some controversial issues are not addressed in the main article. I don't need to tell you that criticism does not imply being anti-something, just call it dialectic: these-antithese, ok? But this should probably not be discussed anymore in this section. SignumPolis 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You guys, despite your liberal views and your stand on "tolerance," have shown very little openness to this idea that Chirac was possible more involved in the Oil-for-food scandal than Cheney ever was. You continue to say that all governments are corrupt, and I agree with you, but not all governments are as corrupt as others. If you think that the French government is so good, why don't you move their and live in denial like most of the other French citizens do. All I am trying to do is present the truth so that I might save a few from the coming firestorm. 06:01 February 6 2006 (UTC)

The previous argument is possibly one of the most idiotic I have ever heard. Guess what? It's not un-American to look at other governments to see what we could be doing better!! Try not being such an isolationist, xenophic idiot next time you decide to post your opinions on this forum. And try signing your name, or I'll tack on --Republican in Denial at the end. Jacques Chirac wasn't awarded a multi-billion dollar contract for the Oil for Food program. He didn't lie to his people in order to further his agenda. Where are the WMDs??? Would you care to address that issue in your next discharge of wisdom (sarcasm/sarcasm/sarcasm!!) ?? --Aquarelle 20:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote this "you guys ..." paragraph. I am, however, very concerned about Aquarelle's style of discussion. I feel his or her language has become increasingly offensive and I consider this behavior inappropriate. There should be no place for hate-speech in this forum. Thank you. SignumPolis 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My misuse of the word "idiot" is nothing next to your misuse of the terms "hate-speech" and "inappropriate behaviour" in order to describe somebody who uses the term idiot with sarcasm. Please don't take what I say out of context. --Aquarelle 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Then please try to avoid being such a sarcastic, nombrilist idiot (SARCASM, see above) - speaking of sarcsam: what do you think is gonna happen first - 1) the WMD's are found or 2) Chichi goes into jail because of corruption? SignumPolis 03:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
So when I'm sarcastic and I use the word «idiot» it's "hateful, inappropriate, and offensive"...but then you proceed to do the same in your following post...--Aquarelle 03:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Come on, I thought this would make you laugh ...SignumPolis 18:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This may just be me, but I think those involved here could stand to chill out a bit. Fightindaman 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is nice too know that I incite such feelings in you Aquarelle. I hope to have such debates with you in the future. But know this, the older a country gets, the more corrupt it gets, and the French consider themselves the pinnicle of human nature because of the age of their country. And even if Chirac was not "awarded" multi-billion dollar contract in the Oil-for-Food program, he most certanly had knowladge of it.[3]LordRevan 03:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to remember that France does not have a hard-core market economy like the United States does. If you want to compare corruption in France to corruption in the US, you're going to have to work a little bit harder (it's not easy to compare apples and oranges :) ). As you probably know, the French government has large holdings in my companies considered to be important to the national well-being. By nature, public companies have major differences to private ones. Are they more corrupt ? Maybe, but then we have things like Enron and Haliburton (Dick Cheney). You can't simplify the issue to the point that «because France is old, it's corrupt» or «because Chirac (and many others, including Canada, Germany, and most of the world) didn't want to help the US with their bogus invasion, they all must be criminals.» I would rather that Bush kicked back a couple of million $$$ and bought himself a new car, then having him proceed with whatever he thinks he's doing now. By the way, how do you like paying for the war ? Not exactly a small bill, is it (Bush just asked for another 130 billion)? Might have used that money for something else...education, social security, you know, junk like that. --Aquarelle 05:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if anybody's in for some good reading, check out LordRevan's (Chris) page. It's much more interesting than mine! --Aquarelle 11:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Say that "the French consider themselves the pinnicle of human nature" is maybe a little bit excessive. French people are the most consumers of anti-depressive drug. If all the french were so full of their person, i don't think that they'll be so depressive. I'm french, and i understand that many people, especially united states, doesn't like the french lesson-giver. But we are not all like that.82.125.199.247 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC) julafrite

Military spending

I wonder whether the quoted figures include the budget of the Gendarmerie (which, for the vast majority of its missions, acts like a civilian police force and would not be counted into the military budgets of some other countries). David.Monniaux 16:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

In case you're referring to the figures that I posted on May 4th. I can't say whether they include the Gendarmerie. I quoted from the following article: EU's Fragmented Defense Market Thwarts Bid to Bolster Military. You can find the figures in about the 27th paragraph of the article. - Heimdal 10:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

I noticed while reading the article that many sentences were somehow trying to show France in a positive light by showing statistics about economics and nuclear power. I do not get that feeling while reading articles about United States, Japan or Germany. Maybe someone can help tidy up the article. Strangely even the article on India seems to suffer from the same problem. Is it got to do with an inner feeling of the people of nations truly great at some point in time? --coolmallu 22:45, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Since the article was largely written by non-French people, I don't quite see what you mean. All articles about countries are supposed to contain statistics and other quick information allowing the reader to quickly get an idea of the position the country on various aspects. David.Monniaux 06:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
It may have been largely written by non-French people, but it is heavily edited and well-guarded by pro-French people. I was surprised to see that the article on the United States has far less bias. I am not American or French. --Csnewton 21:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm obviously not alone in perceiving bias—some of it blatant—against the U.S. but not against France. Many articles about the United States, especially those in French Wiki, are loaded with negativity. When it comes to the world's superpower, the tone is distinctly leftist.Mason.Jones 19:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"left" == "negative" ? I only read the article anyway, and I didn't see any negativity in it. → SeeSchloß 18:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, as in "left" == "the ONLY way we see the racist, imperialist superpower in French Wikipedia". The fact that the article "États-Unis" is less virulently anti-American now may be because some of us Amerloques with good skills in French edited it to be a tad less one-sided. It was a chore, Mr. Schloss, believe me.Mason.Jones 17:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Administrative Divisions

Can the two columns be aligned somewhat more?

White Flags

  • Does anybody know where I could find a picture of a white flag? It would do wonders for my user page.Frenchman113 18:53, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
White flags were indeed used during the Monarchy, on ships of the lines (other ships used a flag with fleur-de-lys on white background). Your desire to honour the navy without which the American revolution would not have succeeded as it did is touching and commandable. Rama 10:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The white flag is also used for surrendering,and no,I wont go there about Hitler parading through Paris.

About Referendum on Constitution

Someone needs to revise the part about the referendum on the European Constitution. The French people rejected it. -Amit

I see an edit war coming upon this article with the no vote at the French referendum. We better be cautious. At this point, nobody knows what the no vote means really, and what the future will be. We do not have enough perspective to say what the consequences of the no will be, therefore it is better to only briefly mention it for the moment, and wait and see. To start editing the article and saying that France is no more a leading country in the EU just because the French opposed that particular constitutional treaty of the EU is totally absurd. Hardouin 01:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only edit war I see coming is from one highly pushy individual who wants his point of view heard, and no other, "Hardouin". This points to the entire problem with the Wikipedia concept. The site is, in effect, written in act of sequential censorship, especially so when certain individuals decide to show up. - Joseph (65.182.172.89)

I fail to see what you mean. Since Sunday there have been already many edits and reverting about the referendum, done by many users, and I just intervened yesterday (Wednesday) to remove some totally out of context ranting about Russia and Chechnya. Libeling people is not really a good way to advance the discussion. Hardouin 11:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Failing to include any reference to the rejection of the European Constitutional treaty by France (er, Non means Non, Hardouin) makes this article weaker. JDancer 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Lost/Regained Territory

I removed the following paragraph:

No other country in the history of the world has lost and regained its territory so many times. Some would say that this is due to France's military might, some would argue the link opposite.

Can the first sentence be backed up with any sort of facts? If we set aside for a moment the issue of what it means for a country to lose and then regain territory, there are several other locations that could legitimately lay claim to the distinction -- for example, Poland, Israel, Egypt, and parts of the former USSR; it all depends on how you count it. The definition of such is too messy and subjective to be put into an encyclopedia. Andrew Levine 23:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fête de la Fédération/Bastille Day

In the Bastille article, it says that the Fête de la Fédération was a celebration of Bastille Day. If this was the case, it makes more sense to regard the July 14 holiday as a celebration of Bastille Day than a celebration of its first anniversary!

Either way one of the articles needs altering.

The 14th of July is a commemoration of the Fête de la Fédération, period. The Fête de la Fédération is a symbol of the unity of France, when representatives from all provinces declared their desire to form a united Nation. The 14th of July was made the National Holiday of France in the 1880s, after Germany had annexed Alsace-Lorraine from France in 1871, and it was purposely chosen as the National Holiday to strengthen the unity of the country, and also to make it clear that Alsace-Lorraine were French, because the representatives of Alsace-Lorraine had freely joined the French Nation at the Fête de la Fédération. Hardouin 00:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This question was also asked a number of times on the article Bastille Day, eventually prompting the creation of the Fête de la Fédération article; I think that the importance of this little-known event is better underlined there, and it seems that it becomes easier to understand why the 14th of July should commemorate this event. Rama 08:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

French hatred

Would somebody please kindly explain to me why people such as Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity hate the French so much?(My apologies for only naming Conservatives, but those are the only people I know of that seriously hate France.) For those who date our friends the Francsters, I have something to say. First, the only time they've ever majorly disagreed with us was in the Iraq war. All they said was that they didn't think it was a good idea to invade Iraq. They never ever supported Saddam or the insurgents. Secondly, if it wasn't for France, our Revoultion for our freedoms that French-haters proudly brag about would most likely have lasted a lot longer, and we may not have won it at all. Finally, because of the revoultion, France has been our oldest ally. For crying out loud, they gave us The Statue of Liberty, and we thank them by renaming their fries?! Something's wrong. I studied French at school last year, and found their culture to be more welcoming and friendly than most Americans I know. Thank you very much for reading my thoughts, and I look forward to having my questions answered.

To the guy above, France did support Saddam Hussein. There have been reports that France was selling weapons to Saddam before Bush decided to liberate Iraq. And lets not forget that France received many bribes from Saddam Hussein and in return, France promised that they would oppose the US if they were to make a move for military measures in the UN. Check this site out. http://www.blogicus.com/archives/extensive_bribery_by_saddam_included_unsc_member_nations.php 07:04 January 31 2006 (UTC)

*Discreet cough* See anti-English militancy at French Wikipedia (in French, naturellement)
the "anti-english" group is just a linguistic initiative to limit the importation of non translated words. It doesn't have anything to see with english hatred.
because FOX, along with the rest of our 'liberal' media is owned by Rupert Murdoch, he's a british conservative, hatred of the French was a nice little export from British, Murdoch-owned, tabloids..
Actually, Murdoch is AUSTRALIAN!
Actually, Murdoch is a responsible corporate person, resident anywhere for tax purposes: a super-duper citizen of the World - neither "liberal" nor "conservative", just here, there and everywhere. It hates the French thing (yeuch).--shtove 03:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I've only known few few people that have been to France, and none of them would ever go back.
You want to know why these people dislike the French, simply because the majority of them are liberal Roman Catholics, who are unwilling to flex their muscles, and have extreme anti-American sentiment. Oh yeah, they also have really twisted thinking like all liberals have. 07:20 January 30 2006 (UTC)
"I've only known few few people that have been to France, and none of them would ever go back." Is this person serious ? What the hell are they implying ? Certainly he/she is not asserting that France is not a popular tourist destination. Maybe I should point out that it is the number 1 tourist destination worldwide... --Dustin
  • Very few French are "liberal"; historically, this is not a political stance which has had much success in France.
  • Though Roman catholicism has traditionally been the majoritary religion in France, it would be very inexact to say that a majority of French are now Catholic. As a matter of fact, an overwhelming majority are agnostic or atheists.
  • I am unsure what “unwilling to flex their muscles" is trying to suggest... I was not under the impression that the stereotype of obesity was attached to France (though obesity has tended to increase recently)
  • "extreme anti-American sentiment" is not something that I would really say most a majority of French. As a matter of fact, modern France and the USA are more or less twin countries, having been both born on the same principles of equality, liberty, modernity, etc. Historically, they have had a great and positive influence on each other, with France massively contributing to the American revolution; the USA helping in both World Wars; the same side all through the Cold War; and even now, rather similar problems with Islamic fundamentalism, France being a traditional target for radical islamism since the 80s. The most important nuances in international stance can be traced back to the Suez affair, when the USA refused to hold their word and back the anglo-french coalition, which forced France to consider the idea that the USA might not keep to their engagements as allies; however, I do not think that this reverses the general sentiment, and I am very confident that any frenchman would confirm this. Rama 13:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe those statistics??? I believe that statistics is one of the liberals biggest weapons. The major problem with statistics is that they take the opinion of several thousand people, and apply them to the rest of the citizens of the country with supposedly "2-5 percent buffer." Tell me, how can they accurately predict what a person thinks or believes by polling 100,000 people (could be more or less) and apply it to a nation of 60 million. When you can answer that I will concede to your view above. 06:55 January 31 2006 (UTC)

I fear that you have to review your basic course in statistics, notably the notion of Confidence interval. Good reading. Rama 09:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see this done accurately on a actual city or town. I respect your argument and acknowlage that you are more experienced and smarter than me, but I refuse to believe that just a mathimatical equation could determine human nature. 07:16 February 2 2006 (UTC)
Refuse all you want, but I would like see how you refute the mathematics explained in this article. Of course, explainations like the evil liberal media and liberal statistics plot probably won't convince anybody save the hardline American republicans. --Aquarelle 06:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
(Just so you know, if it involves any sort of science (for example, statistics), you won't be able to convince most hardcore American Republicans of anything. They don't actually believe in science, they simply believe whatever Fox News tells them to believe. Atlant 13:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
Personally, as a Republican, I resent that low hitting comment above. We do believe in science, just not what the liberal scientist and media that keep covering up research that disproves evolution and proves the Bible. I would also like to say that I rarly watch the news and when I do I watch Fox News. All Fox News does is present less left-wing biased news than CNN or ABC and yet you call it illegitimate. Do you think that it is fair that the majority of the news presents more of a left-wing view. Today, the news barons do not just outright lie, they just decided too omit certain things they see as threatening to their views. They give an incomplete view of things, and this incomplete view is tilted towards the left. 06:17 February 6 2006 (UTC)
Resent it all you like, your own words support what I said. By the way, you can sign your Wiki "talk" posts by including four tildes (~~~~) after your posting. When you press the "Save page" button, these will be replaced by your username (well, your IP address) in a handy Wikilinked format. A timestamp will also be included. You may also want to create a Wiki username.
Atlant 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


What is the liberal media? How are ABC and CNN liberal? They aren't, they present a fairly non-biased although painfully American perspective. But then we turn our heads to Fox News, with its profound slogan of "Fair and balanced." Fox just denies outright that they are conservatively tilted, but just for some reason all the conservatives love them! Bush praises them. Republican think-tanks rely on them. Yet somehow, they are fair and balanced? Let me just give you some names, and you can research them. It shouldn't be too hard for you to see their Republican connections. Founder Roger Ailes (Republican political operatives in Washington, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns), Davis Asman (of the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page and the conservative Manhattan Institute), Tony Snow (former chief speechwriter for the first Bush administration, whom Bush praises), Eric Breindel (previously the editorial-page editor of the right-wing New York Post), senior vice president John Moody (long-time journalist known for his staunch conservative views), Brit Hume (veteran TV journalist and contributor to the conservative American Spectator and Weekly Standard magazines), Bill O'Reilly (need I say more? Mr. "I Hate France." I think he has a cultural inferiority complex. You can check my source at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067 . Hey, Mr. Republican, get out of your denial and admit that Fox is slanted and that's exactly the reason you watch it. --Aquarelle 20:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There you guys go again with your psycho liberal thinking, you just do not want to see the truth for what it is. And that link you showed me explain to me why you are unwilling to still see the truth. LordRevan[4][5]

The commentary of the article isn't really important, I just wanted to point out the heavy Republican affiliations of Fox News. You are welcome to refute. Perhaps show me some examples of some liberal connections in this so-called Liberal Media I've been hearing so much about. --Aquarelle 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about France, not about US media; furthermore, this talk page is about improving the article, not expressing personal views which, typically, only interest those who hold them. I would be grateful if it was possible to stick to the point, and refrain from saturating this page with irrelevant comments. Thank you. Rama 10:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

France portal

I've started making this Wikipedia:Wikiportal/France wikiportal thing. I have no idea how to draw tables and pretty things like that, so if someone can gimme a push forward, and collaborate with me on it, I'd appreciate it --Expurgator t(c) 23:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the Portal link below the country infobox. I've added a table to help in positioning the portal link at the top right of the article, making it more easily accessible. There is likely a more elegant way of doing this, but after tinkering about a bit with the mechanics, this is the best method I could find. Courtland 16:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Continuity during the Nazi occupation

An anonymous editor just put forward a rather interesting point of the perenity of France during the Second World War, but what was said was incorrect:

If this is true, then one must consider the occupation of the Nazi Germans in 1939, who had occupied France for over 5 years. During this time, French leaders had fled to England and France was a protectorate of Germany, thus interrupting its statehood.

In fact, first a part, then whole France was under Nazi occupation, but the French State remained. One is left with the choice of allegiance to either Vichy France, or the Free France in exile in London.

  • Vichy, however traitorour it was, was a sovereign and independent state, much like Iraq today.
  • On the other hand, De Gaulle was indeed a lawful representant of the previous government, the only remaining one able to exercise power; this situation is comparable to that of Poland at the same time.

In either case, the country did not cease to exist. Rama 4 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

Should be shortened and only mention the 26 regions - a reference to the full list would suffice. Longs lists never positively contribute to a good article. Themanwithoutapast 00:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Disagreement over link: want to resolve

I added a link to the France page, which was deleted. As I'm a novice here and the person deleting is an experienced editor, I tried to contact him to discuss. I've gone to his user page and left a message but had no response (perhaps on vacation or perhaps doesn't consider my message worth responding to).

Rather than just re-adding the link (to probably have it re-deleted), I would like to discuss the reason behind the deletion. Is there anyway to find the EMAIL address of a Wikipedia editor to communicate directly? Is there a better way to proceed than merely posting on his user page?

Suggestions and comments welcome. Following is the text of my original posting (not yet responded to) and my EMAIL address in case anyone wants to respond direct.

===============================

Moncrief

This morning I added a link to my site, which I believe you've deleted. I would like to discuss why the link was deleted and whether there is anything I can do to have it readded.

First, some background. My site (www.france-property-and-information.com) is 95% informational and 5% commercial. To make it more attractive to Wikipedia, I've separated the informational portion from the commercial portion, creating a 'pseudo home page' for the informational side at http://www.france-property-and-information.com/france_and_french_property.htm.

I consider the information at this link to be substantial and interesting. Furthermore, it is expanding weekly, so I see its value continuing to increase. As it deals with France (food, culture, wine, regions, etc.) I feel the FRANCE portion of Wikipedia is a suitable place for it.

If the link was removed because it was considered unsuitable, could you let me know what I would need to do to correct this problem?

Doug Stewart (dougstewart@france-property-and-information.com)

Improvement Drive

The article Napoleonic Wars has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. To support the article, you can add your vote there.--Fenice 08:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Dutch flag

The French flag was not inspired by the flag of the Netherlands. This theory put forward by an anonymous user repeatedly in the last days is simply not supported by any proof and seems to be only a (chauvinistic?) guess from that anonymous user. Actually, ironically, I found out that it seems the Netherlands designed their flag in the 17th century based on the blue-white-red colors of the Bourbon of France. According to the French Wikipedia it is King Henry IV of France who suggested these colors to the newly independent Netherlands. Finally, the Netherlands did not have borders with France at the time of the Revolution as the anonymous user wrote. France had borders with the Austrian Low Countries, but not with the independent Netherlands. Hardouin 30 June 2005 11:06 (UTC)

==

The original colours of the Dutch flag were orange, white and blue. King Henry V of France did not suggest to the Netherlands to use red, white and blue. The Dutch started using red because the orange colour was unstable in flag making.

This is not chauvinism. Here are some sources:

http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ460652

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frflag.htm#tricolor

http://www.languedoc-france.info/06141201_tricolore.htm

scotthatton 11 August 2005 16:19 (UTC)

100 most accessed articles

I noticed while browsing about some Wikipedia statistics pages that this article appears on a 100 most accessed articles statistics page as #100. (accessed August 27, 2005) Courtland 16:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The "100 most" link is now dead ... I am looking to see if I can find a replacement. Courtland 03:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism March 2005 to August 2005

The IP address 216.229.18.122 appears to have only been used to vandalise articles about France, starting in March 2005. Is it possible to get this IP # on a block list (I'm ignorant of how that might be done and whether it would be approved). Courtland 21:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 14 hours. Rama 22:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

overlapping images?

There was an edit that carried the comment "Fixing overlapping images. This article needs a lot of work." Overlapping images? Not in my browser (Firefox 1.0.4) and not using the MonoBook (default) skin. I'm curious if others feel this article needs a tremendous amount of work or not from a formatting perspective. Courtland 00:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually... it looked fine here with Konqueror 3.4.1 before the change ([6]), but now the sunflowers picture is overlapping the text ([7]). → SeeSchloß 17:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hello! I've started translating the English article in a foreign Wikipedia & I was wondering about the meaning of this phrase from the history section: "The eastern part (which would soon unite with the central portion as the Holy Roman Empire) can be regarded the beginnings of what is now Germany, the western part that of France." Isn't something missing from this phrase? Thanks! --Vlad 21:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, it means: "The eastern part (...) can be regarded [as] the beginnings of what is now Germany, the western part as [the beginnings] of France." David.Monniaux 05:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What is lacking is a comma. "The eastern part (which would soon unite with the central portion as the Holy Roman Empire) can be regarded the beginnings of what is now Germany, the western part *,* that of France." Rama 07:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing languages section

The info-box mentions French[1] as the language:

1 See [Languages section] for regional languages

The link doesn't work! Isto Ylisirkka 20:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite sure I originally set the link to #Demographics, but it must have changed at some point. I corrected it, but maybe we need a new Languages section ? → SeeSchloß 21:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I solved the problem by restoring the languages section which an anonymous user had deleted. Hardouin 11:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Making France closer to Featured Article status

This article is very far from the FA status. Many things have to be done:

  1. reduce the length to 30-35 KB
  2. remove too many info that are better fitted in daughter articles (e.g. table about the languages, story of the name, etc..)
  3. remove all the lists and replace them with prose (in particular culture section is very poorly written

In this aim I have tried to strongly edit the article. Many things I did have been reversed. I'll try to do this once again. I hope it will be more successful this time. Compare with FA like South Africa, Nepal, India, Hong Kong or People's Republic of China to see what should be a kind of aim. Vb 19:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent FA have been far from 30-35kb. Indeed, some have been 69kb or more. --Bob 22:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
No FA about countries! France doesn't need more place than any other country! Moreover if someone would expand for example culture as it should, you jump very fast over the 69KB record! In such a case I wouldn't be the only one to oppose a nomination. Vb 13:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree (without looking at FA history) that Featured Articles on countries are not that good of an idea. I wouldn't go so far as to exclaim as User:Vb has, nor would I suggest we should conspire to make the article unsuitable by bloating the size ... that solves absolutely nothing. I would rather see Featured Articles on things that have not been well addressed elsewhere as a concept in toto, acknowledging that aspects of any country article here will expand on things not related anywhere else. Encouraging country articles as Featured Articles is an invitation to skew the content almost completely over into that domain as once France is the subject, next it will the the United States, then Germany, India, Brazil ... you get the idea. Something I should likely suggest over at the FA pages is that a "country FA" be considered separate from the general FA. This would provide a forum for the establishment (eventually) of all country articles to Featured Article status, which I think would be a good idea as a matter of quality and scope. Courtland 19:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Current Events?

There has to be some mention or notice at the top directing you to the article on the current rioting in France just like when you lookup New Orleans it has a link to Katrina's effects on New Orleans. Come on people riots have been going for 16 days, the New Orleans articles were made days after. 68.63.88.28 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You can find the related article here: 2005 civil unrest in France. Note that contrary to Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, these incident are hardly a significant part of contemporary history of France, it is quite normal that they should not appear in this article. Rama 05:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Compared to Hurricane Katrina, "these incidents are hardly a significant part of the contemporary history of France." Are you totally serious? After days of rioting, France's image in the rest of the world has been set back thirty years. The reports in U.S., Canadian, European and Latin American media (I read them all) weren't just negative, they were withering. A Wiki link to "French riots" is justified.Mason.Jones 16:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right about the press, but I think that this says more about the Anglo-saxon press than about France. Besides, we are not editorialists, but we rather attempt at giving an exact and measured depiction of things, which might mean not going with some sensationalist editorials.
From an objective, statistical point of view, two people have been killed and damaged to some property have been caused. This is obviously notable, but
1) people are killed every day
2) I would be curious to see the comparison between the amount of damage done in these riots and the big tempest of 2001.
I have the impression that this is not comparable to the over 1000 dead, thousands of refugees, and destruction of New Orleans caused by Katrina. Rama 16:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of the "Anglo-Saxon press," Rama, but the WORLD press. I read German, Spanish, French, and English, and the reporting has been similar: France has a HUGE problem. It doesn't help Wikipedia at all when it studies U.S. society but refuses to study and analyze France and French society. French hypersensitivity is not appropriate in an encyclopedia.Mason.Jones 17:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I concure, but comparing Katrina with the riots in France does not strike me as French hypersensitivity, rather a foreign (non-French) one. Rama 18:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Katrina completely destroyed the city of New Orleans. If the comparison is to be made, it seems clear that the effect of Katrina on New Orleans was far greater than the effect of these riots on France. This isn't to say that the rioting isn't a major issue, but it certainly isn't one of the most important things which has ever happened in French history, while Katrina surely is one of the most significant events in New Orleans history, what with the city being completely destroyed and all. john k 20:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I would say that these riots are not even really important events per se, but that they are notable symptoms of a long-lasting and well-known malaise (but whose remedies are yet to be invended, unfortunately).
Like the so-called "scarf ban law", these events are particularly shocking to foreigners because they suddenly grasp the extend of the problem. Rama 14:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The recent riots in France gained front page coverage in major newspapers around the globe, and French thinkers and politicians across the political spectrum repeatedly underlined their significance. Your repeated and obstinate refusal to accept neutral and generally-accepted facts, Rama, raises doubts in my mind that you can be trusted to edit this article from a neutral point of view. JDancer 00:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent events should always be given a minor position in any history section, because it takes many years to have the proper perspective and be able to figure out if a particular event is really significant. Hardouin 01:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Not Enough Info...!!!!!

I would like to know the daily newspaper infos....and some nation information.....like colonies and stuff....argggg

209.158.115.244 14:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Nelson Martinez209.158.115.244 14:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The three main newspapers are Le Monde, Le Figaro and Libération.
France does not have colonies any more, but overseas possessions under various status (DOM/TOM, etc.) Rama 14:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if it can count as a main newspaper since it's a regional one, but Ouest France has almost twice more readers than Le Monde. It's the biggest newspaper in France by far.
As for the "colonies", there's already a link to in the first footnote. → SeeSchloß 23:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The French daily newspaper that is most sold is Ouest France, but it's a regional newspaper. In the category of national daily newspapers, the most famous are Le Monde, viewed as the reference newspaper (much the same as NYT in the US, or The Times in the old days in the UK), Le Figaro, the oldest newspaper in France, center-right, and Libération, the main voice of the left. Hardouin 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Another daily newspaper is La Croix which is an apolitical christian newspaper. It is considered by journalists as the best newspaper (the most independant, objective...)

Never heard that La Croix was the best newspaper, objective or independant... I wonder who are the journalists you speak about.

I would agree on that, as an explicitly christian newspaper, it can't be objective, I don't think there is such a thing as an objective newspaper anyway, they all express different point of views. Blastwizard 06:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Population figures 2050

The section predicting the population of France in 2050 seems misleading. The figures quoted are from a single report and contradict others made by the French government and other organisations. If this section is to remain, I think it needs to clarify this, perhaps with other estimates. Maybe just remove it altogether since it comes across as fairly pro-French?

Population data from Geohive

Eurostat predictions

UK National Office of Statistics Projection 83.67.205.202 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If you care to re-read the 2050 forecast more in detail, you would notice that this prediction is new, based on recent returns from the 2004 French census, which show a much higher fertility rate in France than previously anticipated. It is therefore not surprising that all other predictions that you have read are different, because they are older, from before the 2004 census, when fertility rate in France was thought to be much lower. Hardouin 01:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Poor historical and political coverage

This article reads as if written by the French Tourism Bureau. Fascinatingly, the history section glosses over all history between 987 and 1792 and claims a victory for France in WWII! No mention is made of either the corruption scandals or the recent riots which have rocked the political system. This is supposed to be an encylopedia and not a marketing piece. The standard of English often slips quite noticably, which makes we wonder if there's a link between this and the ... upbeat? ... tone of the writing (ahem)? About time someone got to work on bringing this article up to an acceptable standard. JDancer 17:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a very general article over a wide variety of France-related subjects. Details like the "recent riots which have rocked the political system" ("rocked the political system" ?) are not the topic of this article. I am not certain what your question is about the Second World War. As for the English, you are welcome to improve it. Rama 20:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Very general and yet only specific where the gloss is positive towards France. This is unworthy of an encyclopedia. I suppose my shock at the statement that France was victorious in WWII is based on the defeat and occupation of the French state by the Nazi regime - this is incongruous and needs to be redrafted. As of the riots:

2 November: Rioters ransack a police station at Aulnay-sous-Bois, police report coming under fire from at least two live bullets at La Courneuve, and 177 vehicles are burnt.

3 November: Violence spreads beyond the Paris region to the eastern city of Dijon and parts of the south and west, with 400 vehicles burnt.

8 November: The cabinet authorises a range of emergency powers to tackle the unrest, under which local authorities can impose curfews and restrict people's movements. It is the first time the 1955 law has been implemented on mainland France. The move follows a night during which 1,173 cars are burnt and 330 arrests made, with 12 police officers injured.

11 November: The city of Paris announces a ban on all public meetings likely to provoke disturbances, to run from 0900 GMT on Saturday 12 to 0700 GMT on Sunday 13.

13 November: The European Union offers France 50m euros ($59m; £34m) to help recover from the riots.

Source: [8] Perhaps this is normal in France. Me, I think this is something which needs to be covered in a 'general' article which seeks to inform the user on the condition of the France. Anyone agree? JDancer 16:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

France was an ultimate victor of the Second World War; perhaps you want to draft something more detailed on this, though the very low level of detail that you see on this article is apparently not unusual; for the record, here are the mentions of the Second World War in the articles of the three other main victors:
* "Although Stalin tried to avert war with Germany by concluding the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, which involved the invasion of Poland, in 1939, Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. It has been debated that the Soviet Union had the intention of invading Germany once it was strong enough. The Red Army stopped the Nazi offensive, with the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943 being the major turning point, and drove through Eastern Europe to Berlin before Germany surrendered in 1945 (see Great Patriotic War). Although ravaged by the war, the Soviet Union emerged from the conflict as an acknowledged superpower." (USSR)
* "The nation has also taken part in several major foreign wars, including World War I and World War II (in both of which the US later joined the Allies)" (USA)
*"The first half of the 20th century saw the UK's strength seriously depleted from the effects of World War I and World War II." (United Kingdom)
As for the recent riots, you own references prove very well that they are a detail much too minute to be featured in this article. Events of similar gravity have occurred in Australia recently, for instance, without inducing changes in the main article devoted to this country; more cars have been burned this year in the UK than in France; etc. Perhaps you might want to read thd our article on this issue and put it back in the context. Rama 16:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, regarding the EEZ, you can see that
  1. the EEZ of France is now an important componant of its policy, and one of the things which defines the deployement of the Navy, for instance
  2. Notable in the context of the descritpion of the geographical extand of the country, especialy since the EEZ is unexpectedly important for such a country
  3. Has been put back into the article by several people
I would therefore appreciate that you would care to discuss in more details before reverting the article again. Understand that in the context of your "only specific where the gloss is positive towards France", one could be mistaken into thinking that you have read too much of The Sun recently. Rama 16:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever read The Sun in my life, and the point where you can only support the inclusion of misleading elements in an article by denigrating the motives of another editor is the point where: 1) it's clear that you do not have a balanced approach to the neutrality of this article and 2) that someone needs to review your status as an administrator of Wikipedia. I'll discuss this with the Stewards. JDancer 08:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Steady on. We can work it out with a bit of goodwill. Rama, your comment was entirely uncalled for. France was defeated in World War II. It's ridiculous to suggest it won. It may have ended up on the winning side, but it did not have a "victory". The article is indeed very thin on history in the Middle Ages, having too little to say about France's important part in European history, thought and culture in those times. I don't think the stuff about the EEZ should be omitted, but it simply isn't a matter of much interest, and could probably be cut a bit. James James 09:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

France was an ultimate victor during the Second World War, and a one-word qualiticative to describe the outcome of the war for her is clearly "victory". For the record, France was not occupied by Allied forces at the Liberation; French troops captured the headquarters of Hitler in germany, and at the end of the war, the French army, fighting alongside her American, Soviet and British allies, numbered 2 millions. Restricting France to Vichy is quite misleading. I support a more detailed description of what happened in France during the Second World War, but I would not think that describing France as simply having been defeated is true. Rama 12:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
France was heavily defeated in World War II. You are rewriting history. First of all, it was defeated by the Nazis; then, the half that became Vichy France was defeated again by the Allies. I do not agree that you can describe that as a victory. France was on the winning side, if you like, and it would be fair enough to say that, but to say it was victorious is too much. How about "France was at first heavily defeated by Germany in the World War II, but maintained a government in exile and a fierce resistance, and was ultimately victorious." That would surely satisfy both POVs?James James 22:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The initial defeat at the hand of the Nazis was never a complete or definite one. The legitimacy of Vichy France is debatable, and the remnants of the French Republic, embodied in De Gaulle (who was in the governement in 1940) never ceased to fight -- especially if you take the French colonies into account. At the Liberation, France was not occupied by the Allies like enemy countries were, which underlines that the the mind of the Allies, the legitimate France was the Free one.
Anyway, I am agreed with your summary. Rama 08:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention, of course, the fact that the final surrender of Nazi Germany and later of Japan to Allied authorities had French officials present, and that Germany and Berlin were occupied partly by France, alongside the Soviet Union, the USA and the United Kingdom. Rama 08:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess some people think that the good 'ole USA and the UK won it all for the world! Also, should every article include stuff on recent events? please see WP:NOT --Bob 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Look, I think the editor who questioned the article had some merit. I also think Rama's POV does. France was heavily defeated in WWII but was on the winning side. Both are right! I am not suggesting that the US and UK won it on their own, and I take it amiss that you are saying I did. James James 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that goes without saying, alongside Soviet Russia. Free Poles arguable produced a more significant impact on the outcome of the war than did the Free French (but nobody's arguing Poland won WWII). France's defeat by the Nazis was complete, definite and humiliating, with France surrendering to protect Paris from bombardment and thereby allowing genocide on her territory. Without the massed US liberation launched from British soil, France would be Nazi (or possible Communist) to this day. Facts, gentlemen, facts. I dispute the neutrality of a number of the editors of this article; they make the Wikipedia a poorer place. JDancer 00:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I dispute your neutrality, your obvious POV pushing and your claims to factual accuracy. please read the guidlines - WP:NOT. --Bob 00:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not neutral to request that 'France was vistorious in WWII' might be ameded to be more factually correct? Obvious POV pushing to push that this article should be more balanced and neutral? Lack of factual accuracy in noting that France was militarily crushed by Nazi Germany before allowing a Fascist puppet state to be set up on her territory? Guilty as charged. But then I'm not a native French speaker as you are, so perhaps I'm failing to understand that all has been and will be rosy in the French Republic. Please try to contribute to a better Wikipedia article for France. JDancer 00:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Free Poles arguable produced a more significant impact on the outcome of the war than did the Free French" ? Interesting. Show me where the Free Poles contributed a battleship, the largest submarine of the time, and two millions men to the Allied forces. You know, that, added to your EEZ obsession, will really begin to be mistaken for mere French-bashing of the first degree. Rama 13:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
IIRC, the Poles were the first to break the Enigma_machine codes, and free Polish airmen were instrumental in the Battle_of_britain#Foreign_contribution. Free French forces also made contributions, but the Poles were important early in the war, when it was far from certain that England would not fall. Also, the vast majority of the French Navy stayed loyal to the Vichy regime. Identity0 04:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's keep a lid on it. We're not contesting the war all over again! I've amended the text to mention that France achieved victory after an initial heavy defeat in WWII. I think it's fair to say France won in the end, but also fair not to suggest that it was completely straightforward. Comments very welcome. James James 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I remodeled the sentence to look more like the Norway article mentionning invasion and occupation. Guerby 18:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may add a little bit of perspective: during the First World War, Romania was also defeated by Germany at first, and had to sign an armistice. Yet later Romania resumed hostilities and eventually defeated Austro-German armies, and Romania is considered by historians as a victor in World War One. This is very similar to France in World War Two. Also please remember that during World War Two France extended over 13 million sq. kilometers (see French colonial empires), and the Germans occupied only 550,000 sq. kilometers of that immense French empire (while the Japanese occupied another 300,000 sq. kilometers), leaving most of it under French sole control. All the French territories in the Pacific Ocean, as well as French Equatorial Africa (Congo, Gabon, Cameroon, etc.) joined de Gaulle as early as July 1940, and contributed greatly to the allied war effort (air bases for the US army in New Caledonia and French Polynesia; rubber and raw materials from Congo, etc.). Hardouin 01:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Genocide??

Hi ALL! I have read the article. but I have not seen any reference to genocides which have been committed by France aganist Algerians and other african nations. Does it not a mistake?

Genocide ? Rama 12:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes! For exmaple, Algerian Genocide. French colonialist lilled more 1.5 million Algerians. Does it not qualify as a genocide?

No. Rama 20:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

why? Because they are not white?

No, because a genocide is a deliberate attempt at whipping out a whole population. No such thing happened in Algeria, where the local population was basically seen as a natural ressource. Rama 08:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Genocide is any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: "Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The situation in Algeria perfectly sits into this definition. Also, as far as I know French colonialist army used gas chambers againist local Algerians which is also a symbol of the Holocaust.

I guess that Arabic Algerians could be accused of genocide as well then, being that they partook in mass killing of white French people and Kabyles. Also, nowhere in the US article does it mention genocide of the Indians, nor does it state that in the British article...--Bob 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
And the biggest part of the Algerians killed (nearest from 500.000 than 1.500.000) were killed in slaughters between rivals independantist groups like MNA and FLN. Felipeh 00:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Gallia redirection to this page

Should Gallia really directly get routed here to France? This makes it really hard to add historical data about the Roman province (data which is maybe a bit out of place here). Note also that afaik the only connection is a rough overlap with the area, since most of the tribes migrated in the migrations after the Romans. (when the Francs arrived that gave France its name), and the earliest I can think of a "France" is after the Treaty of Verdun when the larger Charlemanic Franconian Empire is split up in the kernels of France and Germany with Lotharia inbetween.

Also large parts of the northeast parts of France belonged to the Germania provinces, and probably all other borders are also not as clear cut. 84.35.55.47 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, Gallia redirects to Gaul. If you have found a mention of "Gallia" in an article that redirects here, please change the redirect to Gaul. If you don't know how, drop me a message at my talkpage and I'll do it for you. James James 06:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

datasource for GDP and trade rankings?

What is the source for the GDP and trade rankings shown in the article?:

Total GDP, 2004: 5th (out of 184) (World Bank data)
Total value of foreign trade (imports and exports), 2002: 4th (out of 185)

-- that "World Bank data" cite shown in the article doesn't offer much. CIA World Factbook puts France at 7th in GDP, as of 2004:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html#Econ

-- and I expect France is lower than 4th in foreign trade value, as well. No particular axe to grind for CIA, but such stats do need some form of citation. No axe to grind for or against the French, either: 7th & 4th ain't bad -- but best to be accurate, here...

--Kessler 15:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but wrong expectations. The figures in the article are true. GDP figure comes from here. Foreign trade figure comes from here(table I.5, add exporters column and importers column). The CIA Factbook is a very bad reference, their figures are often wrong, not just for France. Hardouin 13:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Infobox

What happened to the formatting of the infobox?? OhnoitsJamieTalk 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, just a stray newline. OhnoitsJamieTalk 20:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

French Guiana

Should French Guiana and other Région d'outre-mers be included on the map of France Fabhcún 14:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, they are integrated parts of the Republic. Rama 15:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You may add them, but then good luck to the person trying to show metropolitan France and all the French overseas départements and territories on the same infobox map. Technically very hard I'd say. Hardouin 23:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
DOM's should be added, TOM's, no. --Bob 22:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

TOM's should also be added, they are part of France even if they have a different status.

Sorry, I really don't know how to edit things in Wikipedia, so I really hope I don't screw the discussion page up, haha, but anyway, did anyone actually add the DOM ? If so, they're impossible to see…would it be possible to have a few little boxes zooming in on the DOM on the map, kind of like you see for Alaska and Hawaii under the rest of the states on a lot of US maps, or like you see on Euro notes (I think) for the DOM ? Does that make any sense ? Anyway, sorry, thanks ! (Update: if you look at the US map on any US state's page, that's what I'm talking about ! :-) )

Cockerel

No mention that the cock (chicken) is a widely recognised French emblem Jonto 12:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Ranking

This phrase "France is also the second most productive country in the OECD (excluding Norway and Luxembourg where productivity data are inflated by oil revenues in Norway, and by investments in off-shore banks in Luxembourg)." sounds somewhat apologetic and therefore really strange. It's like saying "Well yeah, I won the race (excluding the two guys in front of me who were faster, but they had better shoes". I suggest to revise it "France is also ranked as the fourth productive country in the OECD". Any comments? SignumPolis 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the current wording to be accurate and more explanatory. I disagree with your opinion that it should be changed : I find it to be another one of your attempts to reflect France in an excessively negative light. I encourage you to refrain from making any more major edits to this article until you have the support of other wikipedians. --Aquarelle 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and stop accusing me of being a French-hater, OK? I like the French even if I don't kiss them twice per day. I love France even so much that I want this article to be a really good one which implies that it needs to be more balanced and not artificially inflated (which compromises its credibility). Norway is not the only country making money with oil and Luxembourg not the only one having banks. What about the famous bank accounts in Switzerland ? I agree with Fightindaman. Two additional points: lots of things in the article sound really Franglais and the DOM/TOM's don't exist anymore, there are now called ROM's except of the TAAF (they had an administrative reform some time ago, but that might be addressed elsewhere, if I touch it now - without Aquarelles explicit orders - he/she will nuke me ...) SignumPolis 03:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Here are the original data: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/7/29880166.pdf. They are based on the OECD estimation 2004. Look at table 1 column 8 (GDP per hour worked in this report). The numbers are indexed to the good ol' USA (which is 100). The ranking is: 1) Norway 122, 2) Luxembourg 121, 3) Belgium 110, 4) France 103, 5) Ireland 102. I don;t see a huge skewing here, the numbers are really close and I feel the data should be presented as they are. SignumPolis 04:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say change it. It sounds like it's trying to make France sound more important as it is. The rank is the rank and trying to discount other countries because they have resources (either goods or capital) that France does not makes no sense. Fightindaman 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Norway and Luxembourg's data would be genuinely skewed by things like oil or offshore banks. But the real issue is to find sources. Is this way of describing France's productivity commonly done? Is it frequently said that its "real" productivity is second highest, because Luxembourg and Norway are skewed? If so, the current phrasing is fine. If not, we ought to change it, because it's original research. john k 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It just depends on the way you look at the data. If we go by GDP per hours worked, then France usually comes in at number one or two. But as mentioned in the article, French people just don't work as much as others, such as Americans, Polish, Czech, or Koreans. That's why I'm fine with the article the way it is. I don't understand the comments of user "SignumPolis" about how the DOM/TOM section is Franglais. Once again, user "SignumPolis" is misleading people. What were formerly known as DOM (départements d'outre-mer) are now technically called DROM (départements et régions d'outre-mer). What were formerly known as TOM (territoire d'outre-mer) are now technically called POM (pays d'outre-mer), except the TAAF (terres australes et antarctiques françaises) which are still referred to as TOM. Perhaps user "SignumPolis" makes a good point that this section of the article could use some updating, but we need to be accurate as we go about it. It is still very common for these places to be called by their former names, and I'm guessing that most French people (including the inhabitants of said places) are not aware of the change. --Aquarelle 06:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

History and current social tensions

Isn't this article too biased towards the positive aspects of France ? There is no mention of the Vichy-Regime, the colonial past, especially the atrocities in Algeria and the current riots (every day 30 cars are burned), which are mainly due to the discrimination of the non-white (essentially Arab and black) population. I know these are difficult issues in France and they don't like to talk about it. Chirac is actually picking up on this denial by admitting the French responsability in the holocaust and introducing a day to commemorate slavery. In addition, the French have not really won any war since 1871 without the help of the Americans, so speaking of an "ultimate victory of France" is somewhat simplified. Any thoughts?

I agree, you guys need to show the whole spectrum instead of little tidbits. 07:10 January 30 2006 (UTC)
I'm sick of hearing about France's military record. Laissez-tomber ! Last time I checked the US didn't bear the brunt of WWI and WWII. And as for England, well, it helps the defense effort when you are an island. And about the 30 cars burned per day; instead of throwing out some random figure, why don't you make a comparison between France's crime rate and some of the other rich countries. For starters we could say that France has 1/3 of the per capita gun deaths as the US. -Dustin, dustin_bradley@web.de
Isn't the "de facto" sytematic discrimination of non-white French cititzens worth at least one word? If you have an Arab/African name or live in a "cite" neighborhood - forget it, they'll never give you a job (including in the public service). The resulting frustration is one of many reasons of the riots. A number European countries have expressed their concerns about this French particularity and thoroughly analyze the situation of their immigrant population. With regard to the statement made about the US: the point in this article is not to show what happens in other countries, but to give a balanced picture of France. We all know about the "grandeur" but a good article should go a little bit beyond a selective vision of the facts. Especially the historic ones as the French have this little tendency to live more in the past than in the present. Happy do discuss this further.
Do you speak from experience? Or do you perhaps have a reference? What contribution are you trying to make here? And yes, this article is about France, but my point is that if 30 cars burned per day is a very average number, then why mention it at all? You will need to show that it is significant and also that it has a particular indication. Lastly, try signing your name (or a nickname) so we know who we are talking to. - Dustin, dustin_bardley@web.de
Hello Dustin - you made a good point. The contribution that has to be made here is completing the picture to avoid a biased perception of the French society in this article. This can be done with a few phrases (don't need to make a PhD thesis out of this.)
1)Let's talk about the riots. There is a pretty good article in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1690206,00.html Let me quote parts of it: "The riots in the French suburbs late last year, mainly among disaffected and unemployed second generation immigrant youth, helped bring a new focus to the government of Dominique de Villepin in the run-up to next year's presidential election. [...] But his [de Villepin's] plans prompted Le Figaro, the conservative daily, to quote Sir William Beveridge, architect of Britain's welfare state, on how the great evil of unemployment can generate hatred and fear - precisely the experience of Aulnay-sous-Bois and other French suburbs."

Coming back to your question: Yes, I do know many people in French companies who can attest to this widely encountered phenomenon, i.e. if you have an Arab name and/or come from a certain part of a city (mainly inhabited my immigrants) your chances getting the job are below zero.
One could add a sentence such as: "The cohesion of the French society is currently facing significant challenges due to unequal access to employment and professional promotion mainly affecting the immigrant population and their descendents resulting in underlying urban violence and exacerbating riots in November 2005".
What do you think? We can talk about the other stuff such as Vichy and colonies (Algeria) later. - SignumPolis
to support our discussion: this is an intersting article documenting the immigrants' perception of non-equality with in the French society: http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=355781

SignumPolis 17:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hem. Libération is an openly left-wing newspaper; this sort of subject, particularly from this point of view, is a favourite theme for them. Furthermore, this is an editorial, not a news article, and it says nothing about the "immigrants' perception of non-equality". This does not invalidate the article, of course, but I suggest that we take if with a grain of salt. Rama 17:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
There are two sides to every coin. Perhaps the rioting immigrants in France should cary part of the burden. If they don't want to integrate themselves into society, if they just want to change France for their purposes, then they are 100% part of the problem. France is not the "New World." It's not a place to go and start doing whatever you like. If you are going to live in France, you need to respect the culture that has been there for thousands of years. I don't really see how your Guardian quote really means anything. It basically just says "Le Figaro quoted a British guy who said that unemployment is bad." Aquarelle 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
that's exactly the point. Unemployment triggered by discrimination (and the fact that the economy is really in bad shape - basically no growth) leads to violence and riots. Maybe they don't integrate because they are not given the chance to do so - the republican model of integretion has, by the way, widely been challenged by many (including the president to be Sarkozy who is proposing "positive discrimination" as a means to ensure equality of chances - he is playing it the American way). Maybe the immigrants have experienced over years (and generations?) - after initial attempts to integrate and subsequent rejection by the French - that there is no way out of their marginalisation which creates a sort of learned helplessness (behaviorism theory) and frustration that outbursts on every possible occasion. In conclusion, these riots do have a substantial impact on the French society and its self-reflection about what being "French" really means as well as the perception of France from outside and they need to be addressed in an article about France. We are not writing a tourists' pamphlet here - this is a decent and serious encyclopedia and should include a complete picture. SignumPolis 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Without any support, I don't see how you found the grounds to add your paragraph. Why did you put it under Economy anyways? I would find it more appropriately placed under Miscellaneous Issues, maybe with a subheading of Current Social Matters. This is why you need to consult with other people before making a controversial edit for your agenda. Aquarelle 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a plan. I put it under ecomomy because I think the tension have mainly economic reasons. If you give people work and allow them to live in dignity they don't burn your cars. Fine, do you want me to go ahead or do you want to do it? SignumPolis 21:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to disregard WP:CIVIL, but what was stated at 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC) is BS at best, and is also POV, which has no place in wikipedia. --Bob 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
the riots POV??? Which planet do you live on? SignumPolis 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's a good collection of articles about the riots and their underlying reasons: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4994164

SignumPolis 23:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Earth, and I lived in France up until last year. Also, I am married to a North African immigrant who lived and grew up in France and who had a North African name.
Maybe the immigrants have experienced over years (and generations?) - after initial attempts to integrate and subsequent rejection by the French - that there is no way out of their marginalisation which creates a sort of learned helplessness (behaviorism theory) and frustration that outbursts on every possible occasion. - Is POV
Unemployment triggered by discrimination (and the fact that the economy is really in bad shape - basically no growth) leads to violence and riots - is POV Those who led the riots were school age!
Maybe they don't integrate because they are not given the chance to do so - Is POV

--Bob 00:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So why this fury? It's the discussion page, habib. These statements were not put into the main article. Instead of complaining about POVs in the discussion you might want to suggest a phrase and place where to put the information about the riots. Your help is appreciated. 69.251.183.138 03:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You think that a NPOV is not important? That's not how I understand Wikipedia is supposed to work. There is already an article about the riots; 2005 civil unrest in France. --Aquarelle 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I know this other article. I was talking about the current article about France which talks more about the origin of the name France than about the real world (such as the society). France is a very intersting and dynamic society and not a museum! I liked your suggestion to add another subheading in a separate section. SignumPolis 14:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I can only think that you used the word habib in a derogatory fashion, and as such it was a personal attack. Please refrain from such attacks as Wikipedia is not the place for racists. --Bob 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I can reassure you: I meant it in a friendly way (as the word says). This is a funny forum: I am being accused of being anti-French, talking BS and now a racist. A little bit of civism and curtesy might be contributory. We should concentrate on the work to be done and not on hyperventilating unnecessarily. Do you have any suggestions where to address the riots and the situation of the immigrants in this article? Thank you. SignumPolis 20:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Netherlands?

How does France have a border with the netherlands? -- Astrokey44|talk 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't... T/wangi 10:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Was somebody thinking about French Guiana and it's borders with Brazil and Suriname (formally Dutch Guiana)? In any case it's not really something for the lead... Thanks/wangi 10:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The Netherlands border is referring to the island of Saint Martin which is in the Antilles. The French part is under the jurisdiction of Guadaloupe, which is a fully fledged department of France. The dutch part is in the Netherlands Antilles, and hence not actually part of the Netherlands proper. Personally I think that as long as one clarifies what one's talking about, it's legitimate to include a reference to the borders in the overseas departments in the introduction as they are no less a part of France than Northern Ireland is a part of the UK. The French article about France mentions them in the same breath, anyway. --Steverwanda 10:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So why did we remove the part about the DROM's boarders? As already mentioned, they are a fully integrated part of the French republic. It seems obvious to me that we need to mention their boarders along with the rest of France. --Aquarelle 13:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have edited it to be more specific - Netherlands Antilles rather than Netherlands, which is misleading. wangi 14:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Land Border" with UK?

The introduction to this article states that France has a Land Border with the UK under the channel tunnel. Although there is a white line marking the divide between the two countries, most people would not consider this a land border, as it is under the sea (and hence not land!). The UK article makes no mention of this 'border' and most other sources (example: [CIA world fact book UK page]) regard the UK as having one border only, with the Republic of Ireland. -- Steverwanda 10:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Terminology section - too long

This section is by far too long, too wordy and full of information that are not relevant for a general article about a county. It should be considerably condensed. SignumPolis 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Paris - most beautiful city ???

It is not an ugly place - however, the phrase as it is, is clearly POV and should be revised. Every time I ask my friends from Paris: 9/10 consider it too crowded, too expensive and too stressful to live in: Metro-boulot-dodo. SignumPolis 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, user SignumPolis needs to find a hobby other than debasing this article. --Aquarelle 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My hobby is de-POVing the article about France and enjoying your contributions. Honestly: this phrase sounds like a paragraph from a Parisian tourism pamphlet. English Wikipedia deserves better SignumPolis 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

France is the number one tourist destination. It must not be so bad after all. I find nothing wrong with the bit about Paris. Do you disagree that many pepople consider Paris to be beautiful? Yes, it's true that when living in the same place for a long time you begin to get tired of it, but I think we are looking for a bit broader point of view for this article; something that pertains to more people than just the ones who live there. I've reverted your change. I've also deleted that bit you tacked on with those old statistics. 1) they're outdated 2) this is not an article about the riots. --Aquarelle 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with Paris' beauty. Saying that it is considered "as one of the world's most beautiful cities" is POV and sounds like an ad and is inappropriate for the pupose of an article. I still think the riots should be montioned. They were the #1 topic in the news worldwide in fall last year and people do want want to read about it in an article about France. If you have newer numbers they should be included. Especially interesting is that they started in/near Paris so we have a nice contrast to the beauty of the tourist destination which renders this article more neutral (and credible). 69.251.183.138 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no, you are mistaken. It is a fact that Paris is considered my many people to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world. This is not the opinion of the author. Newer numbers ? Yes, of course, visit any major news corporation's website, read the report by the French police, or go to the Wiki article about the 2005 social unrest. And lastly, I completely disagree with your statement that the riots counter Paris' beauty. That's completely ridiculous. When we talk about the beauty of Paris, we aren't talking about the suburbs, many which are known by French people for their violence. It's just not accurate to put this information together in order to make a contrast. If people want to read about the riots, they have a whole article to read about it on 2005 civil unrest in France. --Aquarelle 03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I really wonder if those who say that have really seen so many and are able to compare. Sometimes the horizon is a relative entity. BTW, many cities are considered to be among the most beautiful in the world. I don't like the "of the world" thing. It sounds very stereotypic. We can say that Paris is considered a beautiful city and popular tourist destination, and the 2005 riots were triggered in its suburbs and add the link to the riot article. This is more neutral. Any objection? SignumPolis 18:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Paris est la plus belle ville du monde", "Paris is the most beautifull city" is just a formule. For me, Pujols is the most beautifull city in the world altough it's a village. This expression give pleasure to us, poor little frenchies which haven't anithing else.Don't deprive of it, please.82.125.199.247 15:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC) julateufree

Nah, it's San Francisco... hands down... Pujols may be OK, but for something really stunning you need to see a San Francisco sunset. Good wine in both places, and it ages well in both. Us poor little 'mericans who ain't got no culture or history, give us our sunsets... :-) Serious suggestion: Why not just say of Paris "known as 'the city of light'" & be done with it? That's what they do in Paris. --Kessler 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

to whom ever may it concern

hi, i wanted to ask for help. i actually was wondernig if anybody has a comprehensive detail descreption about france's partipitation in world war one if you could please give the site. thanks ___________________

population growth

Can anybody explain me why the French think their population is growing without immigration? According to the EUROSTAT 2004 numbers, the number of children per woman in France is 1.9 while 2.1 is considered the population replacement level? Is this another myth on this page we need to address? http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema= PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=Yearlies_new_population&root=Yearlies_new_population/C/C1/C12/cab12048

Between 1993 and today the numbers were between 1.63 and 1.9 and never reached 2.1. How are they trying to fool us here? Were "sans-papiers" legalized and not counted under immigration? Thank you, SignumPolis 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

French people think their population is growing because it went from 62 518 571 to 62 886 171. --Aquarelle 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This must be a result of immigration then, because the birth rate is too low (below 2.1). So the statement in the article is incorrect. SignumPolis 14:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the French are just having babies again. Children per woman is not the most accurate indicator since it is a very long-term measurement. Look below:

Naissances vivantes - Décès = Solde naturel + Solde migratoire évalué = ∆ Population

Sorry to disappoint you, France is just growing. You can read French, right ? I would offer, but honestly I don't feel like translating it for you.

http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/pop_age3.htm
http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/pop_age4.htm

By the way, your link doesn't work, but I'm pretty sure EuroStat would be consistent with this (if not exactly the same) --Aquarelle 15:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

French Cock

No-where can I find any info in Wikipedia of the origin of the French using a cockerel as their mascot ? Could somebody kindly consider this for insertion if they know ? Thanks --jrleighton 06:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a (rather stupid) wordplay on Latin Gallus, which means both "Gaul" and "cock". Note that this symobolism dates back to the time when people had this bizarre notion of "The Gauls, our ancestors" (most French are actually from Latin or Germanic descent). Nowadays, "this symbol is pretty much associate with vulgar jingoism and is rather out of fashion. Rama 09:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Embassy of France in U.S. web page explains that French people choose like their mascot under the July Monarchy and the Second French Republic when it was seen on the pole of regiments' flags and 1830 the rooster replaced like official emblem of France to fleur - des -lis.Elthon73 04:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

While "The Gauls, our ancestors" is indeed rather inaccurate, it's not worse than assuming that most French are actually of Latin and Germanic descent ...... o_0 --Waggg


Better let the French rugby team, football team and others know that it's out of fashion... --Bob 21:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag error

Why is the Swedish flag being shown on this page? I realise that the Swedish royal family is French, but still... fledgist 13:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Because 193.112.229.150 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) changed the template that produces that infobox. I've fixed it.
Atlant 13:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

France

It's sad that a country with such a significant contribution to humanity and its history is hated by so many narrow-minded idiots. AllStarZ 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In America, this is one of the many contributions that George W. Bush and the Republican Party have made to the advancement of world culture. Freedom fries and Freedom toast indeed!
Atlant 23:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit off-topic here... And the "French fries" are Belgian, while the "French toasts are English ! :)
Besides, is it really still so ? I was under the impression that French-bashing of the first degree was tending to calm down a little bit among Fox News chroniquers... I am under the impression that this is a sort of trend that can be more or less switched on or off when France opposes decisions of the US admiinstrations which are deemed as needing mort support of the US population. The same thing happens with the Russian scare, the Chinese perile, Islamism, or whatever. It's older than the world. Rama 10:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever been to the United States ? These are not typical people, and their anti–French sentiment can not be minimized. You make it sound like an everyday happening in this world ! Americans have a very unique feeling towards the French. I have even felt much anti–French in Canada as well, particularly directed at the province of Québec. – Aquarelle 12:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the question of "Is it quieting down now", well, just the other day I saw a pickup truck with the infamous "First Iraq, then France!" bumper sticker. So, no, among the Rush Limbaugh (etc.) devotees, no it hasn't quieted down at all.
Atlant 13:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
But was it a fresh sticker ? :P Bah anyway, the "not typical people", as Aquarelle puts it, are probably not very relevant anyway. You can always find tiny minorities which are very adamand about something more or less absurd...
It would be more interesting to see an evaluation in the general population, now that the infamous "WMD" are proved to be nothing more than a neo-conservative wet dream, and that the war in Iraq is largely accepted to be a mistake. Rama 16:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
But was it a fresh sticker?
Sorry, I wasn't about to taste it to find out! ;-)
Seriously, it looked quite unfaded so it wasn't too old.
Atlant 17:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Response to Anti-French in Canada: Well Aquarelle, the thing is, les Quebecois n'aiment pas le Canada. They want separate from Canada, and other Canadians just don't like them for that. Also, they are the birthplace of Celine Dion, and who the hell likes her? =D AllStarZ 14:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't take a great philosopher to invert your question : I could just as easily say "Canadians don't like the Québécois, and for that they want to separate." In either case, your response doesn't explain the inordinate number of "gay jokes" I recently heard in Alberta regarding their French compatriots. I would have to say that this is not just a separation issue. Besides, Alberta is probably going to be walking out the door right after Québec, with BC following. Ottawa is going to become the national capital of the province of Ontario. =D –Aquarelle 12:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I see someone replaced France infobox with a more standard country infobox. I thought this had already been debated and the agreement was that we don't need the standard infobox, as long as France infobox respects the style of the standard infobox. France is not the only country in that case. A lot of information is lost with the standard infobox, and the conclusion of the debate was that there's no need to standardize everything. So I am restoring France infobox in the article. Also please note for the zillionth time that figures from the CIA World Factbook are INACCURATE, and only official French figures should be used. Hardouin 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Land borders

I don't quite understand the sentence;

"In some of its overseas parts, France also shares land borders with Brazil, Suriname, and the Netherlands Antilles."

France had Brazil as colony for a short period of time, and Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles were dutch colonies. The latter is a bunch of islands, that don't have land borders.

Or is it alluding to French Guiana, sharing a land border with Brazil and Suriname? If it is, then that seems incorrect. France doesn't share a border, one of its colonies does.

Sclozza 04:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed alluding to the border between French Guiana and Brazil, and French Guiana is not a colony but an actual part of France or more precisely an oversea department, with the same administrative organisation as mainland department, every citizen in French Guiana has the same rights than their French metropolitan counterpats and they elect representative in both chambers of the parliement. Considering French Guiana as a colonay is like if you were considering Tasmania as an Australian colony. In addition the Island of St Martin or Sint Marteen is shared between Netherlands and France therefore the land border between France and the Netherlands. Blastwizard 12:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name of France

It should be noted that the denotation of France in German (Frankreich) is by no means an unusual one, but in fact quite common among non-english speaking countries, in spite of what was previously implied under Origin of the country's name. I edited this, and my edits were without any reasonable reason reverted by Instantnood, back to the earlier and ambigious version. Yet, the fact stands, the German denotation of France is not in itself an unusual one. Therefore I have decided to re-insert my edit, since the information is otherwise put in an ambigious way, it implies that the German denotation of France is an unusual or noticable one. We either put it in a way that states that this denotation of France is still quite common, or we leave it out completely. Otherwise, it will be ambigious. Please, feel free to change my (or anyone else's) edits, but do it in a careful and responsible manner. It is easy, maybe too easy, to revert back to an earlier version, but we should not revert unless all changes must be undone. Reverting is primarily a way to fight vandalism. Take some time to rewrite instead of reverting. Thank you. /Magore 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Mention of France in Southern Europe

I have removed for the second time the mention that metropolitan France is party located in Southern Europe. This keeps being added by an anonymous user with IP code starting with 82. France is first and foremost part of Western Europe, that's how it is presented in most encylopedias and dictionaries. If indeed the south of France is part of Southern Europe, then the north of France is also part of Northern Europe, so are we going to end up with saying that France is a country in Western Europe which is also partly in Southern Europe and partly in Northern Europe? A bit silly. Not to mention that Alsatians may add that Alsace is in Central Europe, so do we end up with "France is a country in Western Europe which is also partly in Southern Europe, partly in Northern Europe, and partly in Central Europe"? Even more silly. The most reasonable thing to do is to leave it as "metropolitan France is located in Western Europe", which fits all parts of metropolitan France. Hardouin 13:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is not stupid to mention its links with southern Europe. Especially in a linguistic cultural meaning, but also geographic and climatic for its southern Part. We have mentioned its caribean side, why not its mediterranean one wich is much more important. On the other side, "western Europe" is a good classification, but it doesn't say much. Spain, Norway, Finland, Portugal, UK, Iceland or Italy are all Western European countries as much as France is.

Category:Overseas departments, collectivities and territories of France

fr:États-Unis

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/a/Talk%7EFrance_Archive_1_aa0d.html"