Talk:History of France
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
History of France is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.) |
|
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified History of France as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia. |
 |
This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination. |
Nice article - how about some headers to make it more readable? "Roman Era", "Napoleonic Era", "Fifth Republic", etc.
- Well, you could do it yourself... ;-) but since you ask nicely... -- Tarquin 23:44 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC) urg, on second thoughts, it's going to be a pain, the paragraph breaks don't match up to breaks in dynasties, etc.... needs further thought & a history book to crib headings from
Wow, this article needs serious work. I'll put it on my to do list. john 21:02 29 May 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Material to be incorporated
The page France: Wars of Religion/Bourbon Dynasty needs to be incorporated into this one -- or maybe kept as a page that gives more detail on a specific era of the history. -- Tarquin 14:27, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Le drapeau
The flag at the top of the series... Is it really nessecary? Would anyone mind if I took it off? Since of course the tricolor hasn't been the French flag thoughout all of history it seems pointless and visually distracting to have it run throughout the series. --Alex S 05:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal of the flag. olivier 07:39, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] History of Paris
Just to let you all know, I'm working on a separate History of Paris (currently it's just a redirect to Paris and the potted history in that article). Should be done by the weekend, hopefully. -- ChrisO 17:24, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] French Wars of Religion
I don't know how to insert this section into the "History of France" series, though I've added the table to the article French Wars of Religion. Some more competent help is needed! (It should follw Medieval France and precede Anmcien regime) --Wetman 01:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Improvement Drive
The article Napoleonic Wars has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 06:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Fenice 06:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested Template Changes, Article Mergers and overall Presentation
The Template entry "Ancién Régime" seems to me to be too restrictive, and the separate articles Ancien Régime and France under the Ancien Régime could perhaps be merged.
I am confused about why the Third Republic gets its own entry on the template, but the Second Empire does not. Perhaps the whole template might be better if it supplied subcategories directly, like French Fourth Republic and French Fifth Republic under "Modern France", French Renaissance or Valois Dynasty and Bourbon Dynasty under "Ancien Régime", and Restoration, July Monarchy, Second Republic and Second Empire unter the entry "Nineteenth Century".
If the purpose of History of France page is to give a general overview of the question, while sending people to other Main Pages for the specific periods, then it seems to me that some sections on this page need to have brief descriptions written (one paragraph) and others need to have material removed or incorporated into the main pages they link to. The History of France page could also absorb Mid-nineteenth century France. NYArtsnWords 20:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I do think Ancien Régime should be merged with France under the Ancien Régime, I'm not sure about the other proposed changes, however. Unfortunetaly much of our history of France content is from the 1911 Britannica. Back then political history was utterly dominant, and all of history was neatly divided into eras by what government was in power. Today we realize that cultural, economic, and social history are just as important as political, and a broader periodization is thus important. If we title an article French Fifth Republic we are going to end up with a page that focuses on the political evolution of the state. If we title it Modern France, we will hopefully get a full article on the development of France in the modern era.
- My ideal is the History of Britain series, which has a group of well defined and lengthy articles covering all manner of history. I think the current division of the history of France is alright. The 3rd Republic gets its own section because it lasted 70 years, while the Restoration, Second Republic, Second Empire, were all far shorter and can be dealt with in one article. We could use a better name than Mid-nineteenth century France, but I couldn't think of one. What we really need are some better articles, that do away with the Britannica content and present a series of equal quality to our British history one. - SimonP 21:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- To try to improve one area of this I have nominated Modern France at COTW, perhaps that could provide us with at least one more decent article in this series. - SimonP 21:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
- As per your suggestions, I modified my changes to the template to better reflect both sides of the issue, while nevertheless (provisionally) allowing readers to find their way through the different pages. Ideally, everything on the top half of the template should treat history and culture in the broad sense, while everything in the dynasty and regime section should concentrate specifically on the political regimes. This is -- of course -- a longterm project. Mid-nineteenth century France...hmmm? I think France in the nineteenth century would be better. On a side note, July Monarchy and House of Orleans need to be merged. -- NYArtsnWords 21:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- The new template seems like a fair compromise. Creating a France in the nineteenth century that covers the "long nineteenth century" from 1789 to 1914 could work well. We could also easily have an entire article covering 1789 to 1815, and also have a short 19th century one covering 1815 to 1914. France in modern times would then cover 1914 to present. - SimonP 04:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- The long nineteenth century sounds good. I wonder if a Early Modern France would better cover the Renaissance and the Ancien Régime articles, or if it's better to leave well enough alone? On a side note, the middle ages and renaissance articles could use maps showing the territorial expansion of France. -- NYArtsnWords 05:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- I like the idea of having an Early Modern France, as we could start building an early modern series, similar to the Middle Ages series. For Britain we have a general Early Modern Britain article and a specific one on the English Renaissance, which focuses on the culture of the era. Thus we could keep French Renaissance and Ancien Regime as separate articles, but rename France under the Ancien Régime to Early Modern France and have it point to the subarticles. - SimonP 13:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- This page has some public domain maps of France in the Middle Ages. - SimonP 14:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Good job on the early modern page. If the Template:History of France still seems too busy, I imagine we could cut all the dynastic and politcal regimes and place them all on the Template:Governments of France, and then add that as a second template to all relevent pages. But it depends on what helps people find what they are looking for easily, especially non-experts. We can leave it for a while and see what people have to say. -- NYArtsnWords 17:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- This page has some public domain maps of France in the Middle Ages. - SimonP 14:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I like the idea of having an Early Modern France, as we could start building an early modern series, similar to the Middle Ages series. For Britain we have a general Early Modern Britain article and a specific one on the English Renaissance, which focuses on the culture of the era. Thus we could keep French Renaissance and Ancien Regime as separate articles, but rename France under the Ancien Régime to Early Modern France and have it point to the subarticles. - SimonP 13:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- The long nineteenth century sounds good. I wonder if a Early Modern France would better cover the Renaissance and the Ancien Régime articles, or if it's better to leave well enough alone? On a side note, the middle ages and renaissance articles could use maps showing the territorial expansion of France. -- NYArtsnWords 05:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- The new template seems like a fair compromise. Creating a France in the nineteenth century that covers the "long nineteenth century" from 1789 to 1914 could work well. We could also easily have an entire article covering 1789 to 1815, and also have a short 19th century one covering 1815 to 1914. France in modern times would then cover 1914 to present. - SimonP 04:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- As per your suggestions, I modified my changes to the template to better reflect both sides of the issue, while nevertheless (provisionally) allowing readers to find their way through the different pages. Ideally, everything on the top half of the template should treat history and culture in the broad sense, while everything in the dynasty and regime section should concentrate specifically on the political regimes. This is -- of course -- a longterm project. Mid-nineteenth century France...hmmm? I think France in the nineteenth century would be better. On a side note, July Monarchy and House of Orleans need to be merged. -- NYArtsnWords 21:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- To try to improve one area of this I have nominated Modern France at COTW, perhaps that could provide us with at least one more decent article in this series. - SimonP 21:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Geography, Demographics, etc.
I put sections on the Middle Ages, Early Modern, 19th century and Modern times subpages with demographics, geography (they still need good maps), and language. It would be great if someone could add sections on industrial development, mercantile system, money, farming and the like. Speaking of which, the Economic history of France page is in sad sad shape. Suggestions? As for maps, what would be most helpful would be maps for the ancien regime showing different regions (with dates of annexation), parlements, church divisions, taxes, etc. -- NYArtsnWords 22:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Précis?
Might it not be advisable to have a short summary of each particular sub-section of French history before the links in each section? Hopefully we can reach a consensus on this issue and then make any changes agreed upon. -- Jdhowens90 18:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC) NYArtsnWords A "short summary" can be found in the overview articles France in the Middle Ages, Early Modern France, etc., which themselves send you to "main" articles on the relevant topics. I don't think we need to have even shorter "short summaries" on the main History of France page. -- NYArtsnWords 22:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Nearly every post-celtic history I've ever run across on France begins with Clovis and I'm sure there is a good reason for that but as far as I can ascertain its because he married a roman catholic which really seems more a logical starting point for a history of france And the Catholic Church . Given the political and religious role France goes on to play from that point I'll gladly admit it is the lion's share of what is relevant but its not really comprehensive is it? I'm sure there's little to no native record of events from 51BC to Clovis as well however there are hints of greater knowledge even in this article. Maybe I'm pressing the case for inclusion of minutiae unjustifiably but I hope it is a constructive request for more information. I'll just leave this as is for the communities discussion and discretion and see what else I can come up with. -- xiaou
[edit] Related image may be deleted
Map of Gaul tribes - Image:Map Gaul.gif, original uploader is inactive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This isn't an article...
It's an outline masquerading as an article. It is in serious need of prose. --Richard 01:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- As the first paragraph of History of France says, the article has been broken up into a series of articles: France in the Middle Ages, Early Modern France, France in the nineteenth century, France in the twentieth century. Repeating -- on this page -- what is already included on those pages is pointless. --NYArtsnWords 01:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- You may think so but consider the following articles ... History of the United States, History of Mexico. Those also have significant "daughter" articles. The History of the United States article is a summary of the more detailed "daughter" articles. Also consider History of Spain, History of Germany. Nuff said?
- --Richard 03:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It seems to me that spending one's time writing summaries of other articles (which are already, at times, summaries) is counterproductive for two reasons: (1) wikipedia contributors should be putting their efforts into making the detailed "daughter" articles better; (2) new contributors may expand the summaries beyond all measure (ignoring the existence of the "daughter" articles), bringing the History of France page back to the 53+ kb hulk is was before the subpages were pulled out of it. If some prose is absolutely necessary, it should not be to the detriment of the subpages. --NYArtsnWords 14:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Do you see any value to consistency of treatment across similar articles in Wikipedia? If so, what do you perceive to be the standard approach for "History of Country X" articles?
-
-
-
-
-
- --Richard 19:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As a practical matter, what would you say should be the appropriate length of summaries on "History of Country X" articles? I notice, for example, that the History of the United States article is peppered with expand-section tags, even on sections that have detailed subpages. As I see it, the problem is that some collaborators will always find the summaries lacking and will always add and expand them... until the main page is nearly as long as the subpages. This will require constant monitoring.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- On a more philosophical level: at what point does a summary of a summary of a summary become pointless abstraction? What level of abstraction from detailed historical articles is unworthy of an encyclopedia?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Finally, I find it frustrating to spend so much time on summaries (can't people scan a long article?) when there are countless articles that need new content: this is where enterprising scholars should be spending their energies (for example, the Economic history of France page is grossly deficient on 19th and 20th centuries, and has nothing on the Middle Ages).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- So if you want them, let the summaries come... but let's not focus solely on them --NYArtsnWords 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well various general articles are at wikipedia like History of the world. I think it may actually discourage people from editing the sub-pages if they find the general article on a topic is in poor condition. I agree that it would be good to expand the daughter articles, but at least the main one should be a half decent article with a few pictures. The US history article is probably about the right length now, probably should remove the expand notices. If the info is expanded, the detail can be moved off to the relevant sub-article similar to how info is moved off from a main country article when it gets too long. --Astrokey44 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Sections in sub articles
I was reading the article France in the Middle Ages, and thought the order of the sections was inadequate and modified said order. It was reverted by someone pointing out it was not consistant with other sub articles of the history of france and that discussion should take place first (See Talk:France in the Middle Ages).
The articles concerned : France in the Middle Ages, Early Modern France, France in the nineteenth century, France in the twentieth century. Each has a section with "geography", "demographics" and "language/identity" sub sections and a "historical overview" section in that order. I suggest inverting sections so that "historical overview" goes first. The rationale:
- These are historical articles, considerations about geography, demographics, or french identity are of secondary importance.
- Those sub sections refer to historical events addressed later in the article in the historical overview, making the articles confusing.
Any comment welcome. Equendil Talk 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- As I said on Talk:France in the Middle Ages (I am the "someone" in question), I personally see the value of these geo/demo/lang sections being first (for full disclosure, I am also the one who wrote all those sections when we split History of France into the subpages, so clearly I am biased), for they "set the stage" and give necessary preliminary information for the historical overviews that follow, but others may disagree. I'd like to see what the other editors to the History of France pages have to say. --NYArtsnWords 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fairly neutral on this. My personal view of history is that geography, demographics, and economics are the central factors in how the narrative of history unfolds, and thus presenting a summary of them prior to the narrative is useful. However, I can also understand the other view, and most of our readers will be coming to these articles for the historical overview.- SimonP 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Leaning (slightly) towards having geo/dem/lang first as the article seems to flow better --Astrokey44 00:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't contributed, but I'm with the Braudelians above. I think it's better the way it is, and I will be stealing the layout for my own efforts ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] French History Userbox
Seeing all the UK history userboxes, I decided to make a French history one... -- NYArtsnWords 02:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
| Code | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| {{user French history}} |
|
[edit] Images
This article has way too many images. They make it look disjointed and out of shape almost. I don't want to be the one to remove any images because I'm not sure which to eliminate and which to keep. However, I more than encourage anyone willing to clean this article up a bit to take some of these images out.UberCryxic 21:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I took some out... feel free to put some back in if you think I took out too much... --NYArtsnWords 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seventh Republic
I hope something on the seventh republic can be added soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alec - U.K. (talk • contribs). on 20 October 2006
[edit] Espace Plantagenet
I expanded the very short article about the Espace Plantagenet to a (certainly too) big one. Although it has been more commonly associated with the History of England it is also very relevant to the History of France. Do you think it should be added in the list below the Capetian Dynasty part? I think it should personnaly.
Matthieu 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Matthieu - I don't see why you shouldn't go ahead ahead and add it to the revelent section in the relevent sub page (France in the Middle Ages) and perhaps as a wikilink in the Capetian section, but I wouldn't add it to the Fr hist template.- NYArtsnWords 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Done Matthieu 10:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] France in the Middle-Age, minor conclusion
I added the ending part of that section, these notes are quite important for the history of France but were dramaticaly missing. Matthieu 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox Former Country
People have been putting {{Infobox Former Country}} on the regime artcles. Could editors please verify these templates for their accuracy. For example, I noticed that the map for Vichy France only indicated the unoccupied zone, but called it the "territory of Vichy France". In addition, they have chosen the article Ancien Régime in France as a de facto stand in for pre-Revolutionary France up to 843, whereas that article is far more specific (14th - 18th centuries, political and social structures). The Bourbon, Valois and Capetian House articles don't seem suitable for this template either. Any suggestions? --NYArtsnWords 16:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of Belle époque material
I removed the following material added by 60.242.166.182 on March 23, 2007:
- At the beginning of the 20th Century in 1900, France had the largest area, population, and gross imperial product in all of Europe, excluding Russia. It had the second largest economy, gross imperial product, and industrial output in the world, after the United States. It was the fifth most highly populated independent country in the world, after China, the United States, Russia, and Brazil. Its colonial empire was the second biggest in the world, after the British Empire and before Russia.
- During the Belle Epoque, in Europe, France had the largest army, after Russia, and the largest navy, after Britain. Its navy had many large and modern battleships, including 25 dreadnoughts. Its land was fertile and very productive of wheat, wine, and cattle. Its manufacturing industries, mainly of steel-making, coal-mining, textiles, and food processing, were one of the most largest and powerful in the world. It was the number one tourist destination in the world, with a large merchant marine. It was highly urbanized, with more than 80 percent of its people living in cities. Not only was it highly industrialized and urbanized, but it also was known as as socially progressive country and a "workers' paradise". Trade unions were very strong and influential. It had one of the highest life expectancies in the world, with males at 70 and females at 74. Education was compulsory up to 15 years.
- In the Belle Epoque, France was one of the first countries in the world to let all men have the right to vote, in 1871. It was one of the earliest countries to give women the right to vote, in 1898. In 1905, it granted suffrage to Blacks, Asians, and Jews. It had also introduced many socially progressive reforms such as the basic wage, welfare, pensions, and the baby bonus. Compared to neighbouring countries, workers were much better treated there.
- France was a deeply Christian and religious country. Christianity was the official, legal, and state religion in France up until 1905. Christian and biblical doctrine was a compulsory subject in public schools. Things like France's Christian heritage, Christian family values, and divine creation were taught in public schools. Bible reading and prayers were held every morning in school. The French government gave funding and subsidies to Christian churches, religious organizations, and private schools. Parliament opened each day with prayers. Abortion, birth control, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, gambling, and divorce were all banned. Over 80 percent of France's people were Christians. The government had a Department of Christian Affairs and special religious courts.
- Religious conflicts in Vietnam between Emperor Tự Đức and the Christian community brought the region to the attention of the French government. Nguyễn Truong To, a Christian, tried to convince the Vietnamese Emperor that persecuting Christians was political suicide but Tự Đức did not listen, thinking France was too concerned with the European theater. The French forces landed in Vietnam and did not suffer very much from Vietnamese attacks, climate and diseases were the major concerns, and French rule over Annam and Tonkin was recognised in the Treaty of Hué in 1883. The possible French conquest of Vietnam caused the Chinese Emperor to assist the Vietnamese ruler and this turned into the Sino-French War (1884-1885) and the French navy obliterated the Chinese one at Foochow. This war then confirmed French rule over Indochina.
Much of this material is faulty and the user has been adding this since 11 March 2007 to the articles Belle Époque, French Third Republic and Economic history of France. If editors see any material that they find relevant and verifiable, feel free to add it back into the text of the article. -- NYArtsnWords 06:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
