Talk:Language policy in France

message: Suggest moving to Language policy in France Man vyi 19:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is severely biased. The supposed paradox between France's exterior and interior policy is anachronic and stems from poor research on the subject of regional languages in all of Europe. The articles contains a series of annecdotes that fail to inform readers of the political issue behind linguistic politics and do little other than mock France for behind stuck with these serious issues and discredit its policy (or lack thereof).
Also, an important fact is that 51 of the 75 minority languages are spoken in the overseas departments and territories. Not to mention this gives the wrong picture about the languages spoken in France itself.
I will have to come back and fix this. -- Mathieugp 13:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the constitutional provision which states that French is the only official language was the result of an amendment of 1992. It was this 1992 amendment, as interpreted by the Constitutional Council, that was the primary stumbling block to ratification of the European Charter. Man vyi 16:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this case, I'd like to see proof of that. I really can not see how a constitutional provision of France can be the primary stumbling block to ratification of the European Union's Charter's referendum of 2006!
Beside, I would have thought that the policy of French as the dominant language of France was more XIXth and XXth century! Phil of Bristol 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Charter has nothing to do with the European Union. It's a Council of Europe convention. It was certainly a longstanding policy of the French state that French should be the dominant language, but the constitution of the 5th Republic was only amended (not by referendum) to state that explicitly in 1992. You can read the Constitutional Council's judgement here - it's quite clear that the Council ruled that the Charter was incompatible with the Constitution. A current campaign outlines the situation as they lobby presidential candidates to support Charter ratification and constitutional amendment (Ségo - for, Sarko - broadly against). Man vyi 16:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the POV problem with this article. No mention is made of efforts to save languages, or for example France's new article 75 in the constitution. See http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2008/07/31/l-entree-des-langues-regionales-dans-la-constitution-suscite-des-espoirs_1079043_3224.html
Hrcolyer (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still the case in Oct 2009. also, an amazing list of statements are made without any proofs, quotations, citations...
Is that really an article for wikipedia???[[Phil of Bristol (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severe POV 

message: Just to make sure it is clear, I didn't write that the article suffered from a severe POV so as to suggest the article should be deleted. I don't believe that David.Monniaux wanted the article gone either, but I cannot talk for him.
Regarding the assertion by user Hansoniac that the French government doest not admit that there are several languages on the territory of France, it is false. He can educate himself on that subject by reading this article :
http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/france_politik_minorites.htm
That is not to say that the policies of France regarding the protection of the unique languages on its territory are adequate. Personnally, I think they are far from being adequate, but my opinion does not belong in the article.
Regarding the assertion by user FelixV that "the two vehement critics of this article (both of whom appear to be French and/or French speakers) do not identify one single fact (or "factoid", whatever that may be) which is alleged to be false or materially incorrect." it is entirely correct. I admit that I did not state precisely what was wrong with the article. I guess I assumed that it was obvious. This is was false assumption. 
It must be pointed out first of all that my comment in this talk page was added on December 23, 2004. I was commenting the article of the time. Since then, it has been almost completely rewritten by users Man vyi and David.Monniaux (see the page's history). At the present, the article is significantly better and, although it still contains elements of POV (such as the paragraph which tries to put under a bad light France's priority on the protection of global linguistic cultural diversity over the protection of its own regional diversity). You will certainly not see me defend France's lack of efforts to protect Breton, Corsican, Basque, Catalan etc. but the way it is written in the article is still non-neutral. -- Mathieugp 02:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I'm a French student and I want to say that even with all the effort France puts into promoting French, the language still isn't much appreciated, and this shows that something has gone wrong. Let's not say how hard it is for French to survive in this anglicised world, or how proud one should be to speak French. The beauty of a language depends on the people who use it. Governments suppress regional languages causing them to decline, and the unfriendly faces that most tourists encountered make an impression of close-minded insecurity. The ironic fact is that it is only French people who can ruin people's desire to learn the language.
I'm going to argue against that opinion stated above. French is one of the most beautiful, neat and organized languages ever. My native tongue is English, I speak Hindi, Marathi, Arabic, and French. I must say that French is my favorite because:
# It is much more organized than most languages (example: English which suffers from serious disorganization)
# It has clear pronunciation rules and it's pronunciation is first-class and as the Merovingian said, "it's like wiping your arse with silk"
# It is used by millions of people and it has lots of rich literature (on everything from meditations on metaphysical philosophy to trashy fiction).
# It is independent and does not get affected by other languages much, and still has the largest vocabulary after English (which gets screwed up by foreign influence all the time).
:Screwed up by foreign influence? What the hell are you talking about? French is just bad Latin. 74.225.130.13 10:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité 

message: I feel that France has come a fair way but still has some way to go.
In comparison with Spain though France is less decentralised for obvious reasons.
The idea though that giving regional languages more rights is encouraging
the division of France is really stupid. I think it relates to that mentality
where French is the real language and the rest is just really patois which pervaded
France for many years (and still does somewhat).Domsta333 (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal opinion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Language policy in France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806073213/http://www.abanet.org/labor/newsletter/intl/2006/Apr/france3.html to http://www.abanet.org/labor/newsletter/intl/2006/Apr/france3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Language policy in France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141109222240/http://www.eurolang.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3077&Itemid=1 to http://www.eurolang.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3077&Itemid=1
*Added  tag to http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/9783110231922.1-163
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Citation made but not listed. Who is this Lodge?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3902:B10A:3D6B:E32B:F348:2C39 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lodge 2001 ?