Talk:Politics of France

message: I copy-edited this page. I think it was quite well written, but did my best to resolve the minor grammatical and usage problems that I did manage to find. I tried not to interfere with the very good information contained herein, and hope my edits are acceptable to everyone. There is one issue that I did not touch, though, because I am not sure of it. As I understand it, capital "P"-Parliament refers to the British Parliament exclusively, and so in this case should be replaced by the word "Parlement," which is the French term for the body in question. The reason I hesitate, though, is that little "p"-parliament is the common noun for such a body, and perhaps is capitalised in this context out of its use to refer to a body which demands a proper noun. For now, I left the usage of "Parliament" alone; I only point out this possible revision here and leave it to someone who is more experienced with the subject matter.
:Depends. I think that the use of the capital to create a proper noun is context-sentitive. When discussing British policies, sure, Parliament means "the British Parliament". However, when discussing New Zealand's government, "Parliament" means "the Parliament of New Zealand". It follows logically that Parliament in a French context should mean "the French parliament".
:In addition, parlement on Wikipedia and in many English texts refers to the ancien régime courts of justice . These have nothing to do with current usage. David.Monniaux 09:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have CASSIE SMITH ROCKS MY SOCKS any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: I had the article read by a professor of public law. He said the article is very good overall. To summarize the criticism:
* The diagram has arrows of unclear meaning.
* The article presents an angelic point of view on certain workings of the government, and includes little criticism on the (ab)use of certain procedures, such as ordinances, the over-use of legislation as opposed to autonomous regulation, etc. Ditto for the current problem of political appointments in higher administration.
** We'll have to find correct sources for that. 
* Parts of the hierarchy of norms are contentious.
* Some law manuals should be added to the bibliography (but where to find textbooks of French law accessible to the international public?).
David.Monniaux 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading by a professor of Public Law 

message: This surprises me and I would like to discuss that. Why is the theme of France and its government so inspiring for vandalism? Any idea?--Alain10 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so much vandalism for such a technical article? 

message: In the "Budget" section: it's a good idea to include an image of the "first page of the LOLF" (facsimile of the actual act). But the image there is wrong (it's the first page of a same-year law on the repression of cults): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JO200109337.png -- Typewritten (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong image for LOLF 

message: From the article's introduction:
:The cabinet globally, including the Prime Minister, can be revoked by the National Assembly, the lower house of Parliament, through a "censure motion"; this ensures that the Prime Minister is always supported by a majority of the houses.
The censure mechanism ensures that the Prime Minister is supported by the lower house; why does he enjoy the support of the upper house? AxelBoldt (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censure motion question 

message: The French made baguettes to fight with them, They traded them for French pastries such as the souffle and the French tart.👉👌  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.112.155.32 (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new france 

message: Request received to merge articles: French Fifth Republic into Politics of France OR Constitution of France; dated: October 2021. Proposer's Rationale: It's interesting to have two separate, similar articles on France's current republican system of government. For consistency's sake, the French Fifth Republic article should just redirect to France while its contents go into the Politics of France article (or the Constitution of France Article), similar to how there is no article for the Federal Republic of Germany (it just redirects to Germany) and information about Germany's modern government is found in Politics of Germany. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger discussion

message: Copyrighted 2603:6010:620:78F1:413:8FB1:A1A4:5874 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not yo cipy