Talk:France/Archive 2

message: The article claims France is referred to as a hexagon, but I always thought it was more like a pentagon. For comparison:
I guess the Spanish border and the Med coast are regarded as two sides, but they form a more or less straight line so conform more to a single pentagon side. IMHO anyway. — SteveRwanda 13:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not really matter, this has been the nickname given by French people to the country for so many years that noone will change it now. FYI, yes the Spanish border and the Med are considered as two sides, and none of the other sides are equal, so lets call it an irregular hexagon, anyway this is an approximation. Perpignan is more South than Bayonne and Nice so that make two edges. Blastwizard 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's not really rational, but note that mainly journalists use this term, as a synonym, to avoid using the word 'france' ten times in the same sentence. You often here on TV: "Les quatres coins de l'hexagone" (the four corners of the hexagon)...JeDi 09:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also a few musician have been using this term to talk of France. Huygens 25 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentagon or Hexagon? 

message: Fine in Firefox but gobbledegook in IE. Can someone make it more universal? Rich  Farmbrough 08:19 15  May 2006 (UTC).
:It looked fine when I was using IE...Do you mean you don't want to use the IPA? SCHZMO ✍ 20:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

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

message: Can we write about cited criticizm of the French government? .tg Tonyseeker 10:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "criticizm of the French government" do you have similar sections in the other countries? i don't think so, so there is no need to make an exception. this is not a movie review. Shame On You 14:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are plenty of blogs and forums left and right where you can criticize such or such nation or government. Wikipedia is about facts, not debates of opinions. You can debate the facts, but as far as criticizing, feel free to add factual information on such or such historical or cultural event about such or such nation, but try to document as much as you can. --WhiteEcho 17:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kritik 

message: I wonder if it really was such a good idea to unprotect this article. This is the kind of article that will be vandalized very often and very frequently (there is a strong anti-french sentiment in some countries where English is spoken) if we don't protect it in one way or another. All edits that have been made since the protection was removed seem to be either to vandalize, or to fight vandalism. It's probably not a question of organized vandalism, but rather spontaneous things done by children and adolescents (as well as stupid and immature adults) who doesn't know better or have anything else to do with their time. And as long as they have access to the Internet, and some time to kill, the vandalism will most likely continue. Why not re-protect this article? It's really a shame that many editors and administrators here on Wikipedia have to take time to fight vandalism instead of doing more constructive things. /Magore 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with User:Magore removing the semi-protection was like opening the Pandora box a second time. Blastwizard 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Agree with User:Magore. Francophobia is ridiculous but so real --Mgill 11:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: now its England's turn to be vandalized, Anglophobia is ridiculous but so real... Shame On You 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of semi-protection 

message: I have removed recent edits by User:PierreLarcin2. Not only these edits were written in barely understandable English (please at least use an English dictionary if you intend to edit articles on the English Wikipedia), but they were full of inaccuracies and POV. Here are a few examples:
*this user described Vendée as "a subpart of French Britain"
*this user removed the fact that France was eventually victorious in both WW1 and WW2 and replaced the sentence with a lengthy paragraph about the Vichy Regime and its wrongdoings. The history section is only a brief presentation of 2000 years of French history. If you want to write more in detail about the Vichy regime, try Vichy France.
*in the following sentence (about France's birth rate), the user added what's in bold: "France is now well ahead of all other European countries (except for the Republic of Ireland), despite a pro-abortion legislation." I am surprised nobody reverted that earlier.
*this user added the following sentence (referring to French agriculture and EU subsidies): "This allow many conflicts in the European Union, due to the support of France to the European PAC (Politique Agricole Commune - Common Land Politics), which allows subsidiation of land farmers across Europe." That sounds like straight from the English tabloid press, although the English press wouldn't use the Frenglish word "subsidiation".
*in the economic section the user explained that the reason why the French GDP per capita is significantly lower than the US GDP per capita, despite France having a higher productivity than the US, is because of delocalizations to China. That's simply economic nonsense.
*this user wrote that the euro "replaced all major european moneys (except Norway and United Kingdom)". Beyond the bad use of English vocabulary (moneys instead of currencies), the sentence is also silly since Norway (not part of the EU) is mentioned but Sweden and Denmark (EU member states which haven't adopted the euro) are not mentioned.
*this user wrote that France's nuclear force is "spread between strategic submarines and conventional strategic missiles (located on 'Plateau d'Albion')", which is not true. The missiles on the Plateau d'Albion were dismantled in 1996.
Hardouin 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by PierreLarcin2 

message: In the History section, the reference to the French Revolution as it is gives somewhat a narrow view of the event: "The monarchy ruled France until 1789, when the French Revolution took place. King Louis XVI and wife, Marie Antoinette, were killed, along with thousands of other French citizens." Although the events described in the second sentence are true, using half of the text dedicated to the French Revolution (only two sentences) to remind the slaughtering of Kind Louis the XVI, Marie Antoinette and many French citizens, seems to reduce the event, which had such a broad impact on French and European history and culture, to a pathetic massacre. 
--DR.fr 20:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, at least some emphasis on the enlightenment century that took place before and brought ideas to some idealist, in addition the role of strong famines (starvations) before the revolution was the kind of sparks that triggered the revolution. This would be a bare minimum. Then regarding the "slaughtering", the King and Queen tried to flee away instead of transforming the country into a constitutional monarchy (they preferred absolutism, well that's a quick and dirty shortcut, actually the King would not have mind too much, but the Queen and their suite did mind). As a consequence, they were put in front of justice and killed (just like nowadays, people can be killed by the justice in some countries). As for the French citizens killed, many were aristocrats or church representatives and for the rest, it is hard to make a revolution with out collateral effects Huygens 25 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: statement rather useless without proof. What do you mean by horrors? Why should the horrors of the French revolution be more emphasised than the ones of successive wars (like the Napoleonic, 1870, etc. wars)? During war or revolution, you cannot avoid death. But some of them are for building a better society or world. Huygens 25 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: for one reason only, really? Being a catholic bishop at that time meant having loads of privileges (and money, etc.) not so catholic then ;-) sorry. In addition, this is an encyclopaedia, therefore it is not because of an individual ancestor being mistreated that an article should be build around. Perhaps, if he was a King or a major historical character, he could have his own page Huygens 25 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As someone whose family was liberated from peasantry and oppression of a violent regime I wouldn't dare to think of the French Revolution as a disaster. 
The Terror is something else. a period of chaos always ensues a revolution, no pride has to be found in that but it helped the development of a more liberal regime, which along with the US revolution led the way to Democracy as we know it now. Apart from that, i admit that not everything has to be applauded, there are crooks and cheaters everywhere.
your ancestor lost his head for being anti-revolutionary, as many people back then... He happened to be on the wrong side of the fence, I am sorry about your family's history, but you have to admit we are all better off with that thing having happened.
So my dear friends who regret our King, I for one do not regret the beheadings of thousands of aristocrats, which were giving exactly the same treatment back to their subjects for a thousand years and letting them die with hunger when they were living in lavish conditions. For once the weak took the fight back to the powerful. I do not regret that.
Too bad for "one of the greatest tragedies in human history" that it liberated a whole Nation from its King... I'm sure you regret the slaughtering of the Nazis too, don't you? please, stop repeating what your family taught you and look at the bigger picture.
And remember that we are living in a different world nowadays, death penalty wasn't so frowned upon back then...
Flo 16:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Flo, I'm french, living near Vendée and I can't no more stand those "The Vendee Genocide", what about the "revolutionary citizen" who were killed by the Vendée Army ? There has been a lot of death ... stop talking like a martyr. I could speak a lot more about this topic in french, sorry for my english. Lpn- 12:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Revolution 

message: " the population of the European Union increased by 216,000 inhabitants (without immigration), of which 211,000 was the increase in France's population alone, and 5,000 was the increase in all the other countries of the EU combined"
It does not make sense. The paragraph speaks as if France had the absolute majority of population growth, but that was not so. Some other EU countries had much population growth too. The statement that "5,000 was the increase in all the other countries of the EU combined" is misleading, because some other countries had more than a 5,000 population growth. The total growth is '216,000' only because some countries had decreased population. For example, France had a 211,000 growth, country B had a 211,000 growth, but country C had a 206,000 decrease. That still makes the total growth '216,000', but to say '5,000 was the increase in all the other countries of the EU combined' is false, because country C's decrease cannot be counted inside the increase. If the example of mine is true (which it is not) and if there are only three countries in EU, then the sentence should be, for example, "and 211,000 was the increase in all the other countries combined, though there is a 206,000 decrease in country C, causing a 5,000 population growth in all the countries in EU except France". Some sources are also needed. Aranherunar 07:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A recent census study says 5 million, but we'd have to check the definitions involved. David.Monniaux 05:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: I do agree with Rama, I'm reading French fluently (I'm native), and this French is just like Google has translated it from English! Because if I take a English word for each French one,the translation the English formed sentences are almost perfect!!! So I would check carefully the source from this text... Huygens 25 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population growth 

message: Why is French Guiana not included in the map in the infobox? - Jack (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the article cites that "France also shares land borders with Brazil, Suriname, and the Netherlands Antilles", yet no mention is made in the article of French Guiana. The Dutch Antilles are even included in the article on the Kingdom of the Netherlands. As I don't know how to edit maps proficiently myself, would somebody else be able to amend the map? Liam Plested 23:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The article says France is "the only European power (excluding Russia) to have its own national spaceport (Centre Spatial Guyanais)", yet the spaceport pages does not include this in the list of European spaceports, and lists other European spaceports besides.  One of the articles must be in error. 68.6.122.202 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: France does not have a colony in South America. It has a part of itself in South America. Rama 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: France has two types of overseas collony, there are "teritory" where people have some autonomy and there are also department wich are ruled almost like a metropolitan place (same rule or organisation in normandie as in La Reunion), Guyane is considered as a department so you are applied to the same laws in Kuru spaceport as in a random paris subhurb market place. So it's not merely a colony, it's a part of itself :) . Esurnir 02:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaceport 

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

message: My french grammar is a little rusty, but shouldn't the F in française be capitalized as is the case shown within the article in the "symbol of the French government" image?  It is after all a proper name. —MJCdetroit 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The recommendation from the Lexique des règles typographiques en usage à l'Imprimerie nationale is not to capitalize adjectives within a compound proper noun (ex: École polytechnique and not École Polytechnique). However, if I remember well, there are common usages as exceptions to this; in addition, not everybody follows the lexique. David.Monniaux 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the Lexique (2002 edition), page 154, writes République française. David.Monniaux 19:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, you were quite right: many people don't follow the Lexique on this, especially since initial capitals give names an air of majesty... David.Monniaux 23:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Following the French Wikipedia article on France, it would be République française and not Française. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 02:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "République Française" is "permitted" (it's not a crime!) because the two letters "RF" are used as Britons use UK or GB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.102.244.100 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  République française or République Française 

message: The tag should be taken off since this article has not been edited for three days now.UberCryxic 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected tag 

message: Can you tell me where did you read this? 
"In the 4th century AD, Gaul's eastern frontier along the Rhine was overrun by Germanic tribes, principally the Franks" 
My sources say 6th (VI) century AD. That's 2 centuries later.
Mixremix 20:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I find the map image somewhat misrepresentative, perhaps an equal-area map projection would be better? Naphra 14:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe map 

message: France fits into Canada 18 times, not 13 times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aronlevin (talk • contribs) .
:If considering Metropolitan France then it is 18 times, if it is Metropolitan France and the overseas territories and dependencies it is then 14.79 times. I just worked that out from the comparison of land areas indicated in the infoboxes. Now, why doing this comparison and is it of any interest, why not comparing the size of France with the size of Russia, China or Monaco ? Blastwizard 09:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the point of my comment, why do you compare the size of France with that of Canada ? I don't think it is useful at all, if people want to compare size of countries they can work it out themselves. Or if you want, I can make a beautiful triangular matrix of the ratio of all the countries against all other. I doubt anyone is interested.Blastwizard 00:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: I`m a middle school kid doing a report 4 my school & I LOVE this site<but I couldin`t find enouf info on france so plz inprove this section. (:
:Is there any specific information you want? If so, just ask here. I'm sure many people will come and help you.UberCryxic 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to little info 

message: The same user who alleges it is "not a standard" in other countries, is the same one who has made it not a standard, by changing all EU countries maps. See contribs. Someone should see to it... •NikoSilver• 14:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Map 

message: The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.
Please support me in maitaining France's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. France deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 15:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will restore the standard wikipedia format map. There is no need to highlight the other EU member states. The EU is *not* a country. Depicting it otherwise could amount to POV. I would appreciate if the people who are currently pushing for the alternative map do make the effort to discuss their views on the talk page mentioned above. Regards, Asteriontalk 17:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted 

message: I thought it would be helpful to include the percentages of the ethnic groups of France because it never flat-out tells the reader what they are and this information is very useful. Without it, you have do do a lot of math to figure out the percentages. (It just tells the number of people.) I have done the math and here are the percentages:
"French" - 92.07%
Immigrant Population - Total 7.93% :
Algerian - 1.55%
Moroccan - 1.32%
Potuguese - 1.28%
Italian - 0.77%
Spanish - 0.62%
Turkish - 0.44%
Tunisian - 0.44%
German - 0.26%
Briton - 0.22%
Belgian - 0.22%
Polish - 0.22%
Vietnamese - 0.16%
Senegalese - 0.15%
Chinese - 0.15%
Malian - 0.13%
Ellasevia 00:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Groups Percentages 

message: And it is way too disorienting. Most of the info on the main needs to be moved to sub-articles like "People of France", "Culture of France" etc. Please see Canada, India and Australia (Featured Articles) for the neccessary structure and conciseness neccessary for country articles to meet encyclopedic criteria. Unfortunately I have no time to get involved in this article, however if regular contributors would help with cutting down the fat and add some references, it could easily be a Featured Article. For example, as a general rule, only the top six-seven languages and ethnic groups are mentioned (always under demographics section, and since France has only one official and domineering language, it should definitely be the case), and that always in a concise manner, and without subsections or graphs or je sais pas quoi, with concise references. That language table needs to be taken out and moved to "Languages of France" article, if there exists one. If it doesn't, it needs to be created.Baristarim 15:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole lists are so long and simply confusing, unencyclopedic. Create another article "People of France" and carry all that stuff in there. There is no need to mention 145,000 Chinese for a country with a population of 63million. The correct form is this: "Major ethnic groups include ... (list of six-seven ethnicities)" That's it. Then the article should move on to something else. Then give the "People of France" article as the "main" article under the demographics section.. May I remind that Canada article, the biggest immigration nation per capita, lists only 9 ethnicities in one sentence then moves on to something else? That's why it is FA: it is concise. All those tables should be moved over to other articles. Hopefully I will one day find the time to take a look at this article. Baristarim 21:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is way too fat 

message: In fact it is so bad that I will proceed with the delisting of GA status. The article is not well-written, tons of references are missing, the whole article reads like some common trivia web-site and a poor tourism brochure. The mention of monarchists carrying black armbands on 14th July is so irrelevant and out of context that it barely deserves to be in History of France sub-article. All those tables need to be taken out, the article needs to be formatted, more and better images added as well as tons more of accessible and strong references. Please see Canada, India and Australia. Article Turkey that has been extensively formatted and extensively rewritten in light of those articles is still waiting its GA review and it cites approximately 70 references.. This article barely cites 15.. There is no place in a GA article a section titled "Misc topics", it can get delisted for that alone. In the culture section I can see no mention of the French literature, cinema or theatre: a simple see also list doesn't cut it, there needs to be a concise overview of the place of French culture in global context. The list of immigrants where it even lists 60000 Malians need to be moved and cut down to one sentence. The sentence "These unexpected results bear great consequences for the future" belongs to a high school student's term paper. The only picture for the economoy section is an A380, and full of anaytical sentences like "As many economists have stressed repeatedly over the years, the main issue with the French economy is not an issue of productivity. In their opinion, it is an issue of structural reforms, in order to increase the size of the working population in the overall population" - this needs to go to Economy article. The point of this article is to give an overview. The history section is like a whole book. "GA" means that the uninformed reader will not have to struggle through reading the article like someone walking in the snow on top of Mount Everest. There are even sub-sections that only contain a "see also:"... Thus the delisting... Baristarim 21:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More suggestions: The structure of the article needs to be revamped: the geography section needs to come later, an etymology section needs to be right after the intro. Demographics section needs to be concise and needs to be reduced to one section without sub-sections, culture sub-sections need to be combined, public health and transport sections don't even belong in there, a "topics in France" template needs to be created (see Turkey, India, Canada articles for ideas), "misc topics" section shouldn't be there as pointed out above, history section should, if possible, be cut down to one global section without sub-sections. Baristarim 22:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "the International Bureau for Weights and Measures in charge of the international metric system." is simply and utterly irrelevant compared to UNESCO and doesn't deserve to be there when there is not even a mention of the French literature in the article. Baristarim 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA delisting 

message: I am curious as to why this status has been given to this page. Jackiespeel 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Constant immature vandalism. --Bob 23:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected status 

message: CIA Factbook says that France's total area is: 547,030 sq km. But Wikipedia France entry says that it is 674,843 km². I am confused. Becasue if Wikipedia is right then France becomes the second largest country in Europe (after Russia), but if CIA Factbook is right then Ukraine (not France) becomes the second largest country in Europe. I welcome anybody commenting on this. Kazimostak 16:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The area mentioned as the total in the article includes French Guiana and all the other parts of France outwith Metropolitan France. The CIA factbook excludes all that which is outwith Europe. --Bob 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is France land area? 

message: The current (15 Dec 2006) wikipedia article mention that Mr. Chirac abolished military conscription in 1996: Military age is 17. Since the Algerian War of Independence, conscription has been steadily reduced and was abolished under the presidency of Jacques Chirac in 1996.
I'm pretty sure it was in 2002 instead of 1996, because until my 25th birthday, I had to regularly justify a postponing of my conscription period. Then I got off doing my military service, and I do remember I learned about it in summer of 2002. And if 1996 refers to the presidency period of Mr. Chirac, this is wrong also, as it started in May 1995 Huygens 25 01:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 2001 (the last lot finished in November to be precise), not 1996, modified accordingly. --Bob 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nuclear tests are definitely a detail, and do not merit to be in this article. There is no need to be politically correct, what is important is how important they are to France. It might be important for Algeria or the Pacific, but it is not for France in context. I am sorry if that offends anyone. Nuclear tests are not the only preoccupation of France, they can be mentioned in other seperate articles. In fact, the mention of the nuclear capability of France should not even pass half a sentence: ex. "... and France has been a declared nuclear weapons state since ...". Please read my notes above, the country articles should stick to a brief overview. Baristarim 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with your statement. This is a better approach than what I thougt. Thank you for the clarification Huygens 25 12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the tip, I will remember it. I did not thought of using a British media to verify the source. But I will remember it for future reference. Huygens 25 12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military conscription and Nuclear Weapon 

message: For the record I added a picture of the Cirque de Gavarnie in the gallerie. As it is a UNESCO world heritage site and a real natural wonder (I may be biased since I live close to it, but as there is a picture of the Riviera and of the Landaise beaches so why not Gavarnie?). Matthieu 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of them reverted since they are not relevant to this article and do not fall in the scope of a country article: overview. There shouldn't even be a gallery, and it will be removed soon. Please add that information to the relevant sub-articles. This article should not be some kind of a tourism brochure. See my posts above. Baristarim 15:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, but then please remove them indeed because it is confusing. These sections were not of my fact in the first place. Matthieu 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do the best I can, however I am not a regular contributor to this article. I was asked by someone over e-mail to take a look, so I just got involved three days ago. I tried to restructure a bit per standard. I removed the gallery section all together. However, as much as I live in France and all, I have tons of projects that I am involved in. But I will try to do the best that I can. Don't get me wrong, it was nothing personal - it is just that I am kinda off surprised how this article has degenerated over a period of time (it was GA at one point). There needs to be some iron-fisted cleanup work done :)) Cheers! Baristarim 15:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you look closely, you will see that I only moved the stuff around. I deleted the transport section, but it didn't contain anything in any case :) I also deleted two comparisons from the economy section, however there was not much to be done about moving them either. As for the stuff that was taken out as mentioned above.. I didn't, but I couldn't figure out where it would go either. As for the gallery.. Well, there is not much that can be done about "moving" it. Most of them were present in their respective articles and if they were not, there were alternate pictures. I didn't want to try to find the relevant articles, otherwise the misc topic section would be there. Baristarim 18:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put the transportation section back and I wrote some stuffs in. I understand there's no point in keeping an empty section but transportations are an important issue for every countries around. So I put it back in with a few stats and an introduction to the various transportations available and future big projects.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MatthieuN (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the content and placed in relevant subarticles if appropriate. However, much was duplicated in the subarticles. Other data which I removed was POV and/or confused. I merely did housekeeping and added references. --Bob 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gavarnie 

message: :Image:France Lyon2.jpg seems too small, too poor and too watermarked for inclusion in the article. Thoughts? --Guinnog 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bayonne Cathedral picture should be removed. It's a bit irelevant and that's not even a nice cathedral (nor even remotely important). It's seen it myself and it doesn't worth to be mentioned here, if no one has objections I'll replaced it for a really important one like Chartres, Amiens or Rheims. Matthieu 18:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:France Lyon2.jpg 

message: Have a look at the Wiki Project France proposal and sound off! Baristarim 05:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP France proposal 

message: There has been no(or very little) reference to Transportation in France in this article i think this is something that need improving. L blue l 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this shouldn't be the roll call of every france related topic :) Subtopics as such should be treated in their respective articles and/or sub articles. The correct solution would be to give a see also in one of the articles listed as main who correspond to the section titles of this article. I apologize that I couldn't write the Law section yet, I will do it soon. Baristarim 09:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport in France 

message: I have changed the beginning of the article so that France is named among the five acknowledged nuclear states. There is no acknowledgement of Nuclear Weapon States outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). If you say that France simply are among the eight countries that have undertaken nuclear tests you diminish the responsibilities belonging to the NPT (in other words comparing France nuclear arsenal to that of a rogue state: the Peoples Republic of North Korea). That did not seem right. Also, now it matches the UK article, there five is also the number given for nuclear powers. I hope you do not object. Besides, if you do not view NPT as the standard to use for counting nuclear powers eight is somewhat arbitrary as it does not include Israel and a few other states suspected of having nuclear armament (or have the technical capacity). Miyaeymistro 10:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acknowledged Nuclear States 

message: A large number of articles on French personalities have been edited to include "<region>, Occitania," as part of the place of birth.
My understanding is that Occitania is not an administrative division of France.
For example, Georges Pompidou curently states: "He was born in Montboudif, Cantal, Auvergne, Occitania, France. "
* This contrast sharply with the same arcicle in the French wiki: " né le 5 juillet 1911 à Montboudif (Cantal), " 
my understanding is that the French usage is to indicate the Département where the person was born. Not even the French administrative region
* I would expect persons that are on the :Category:Occitan personnalities category to actually be native Occitan speakers. Not just born is the general area
* There is no corresponing categories or extensive mention of occitan as are of birth in the french wiki
* French wiki Occitan is currently semi protected because of vandalism, can a francophone take a look a the discusion page and clarify?
Let me know if there is a beter place to discuss this. 
Thanks,
--JuanPDP 06:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on [[Occitania]] requested: Vandalism or Classification sharpening? 

message: I am the one who added the section about the "conservative perspective", but someone added Britain, Italy and Germany in this. So I am putting it back only to France because the article here is just about France. Beside of this I somehow doubt it is seen, even from conservatives, that UK is trying to build an antogonistic EU to the USA. Finally the source I used is Schnabel, the former US embassador to the EU (therefore a decent source) and he only mentions France in this context so I don't him to be associated with ideas he didn't back Matthieu 14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign relations and EU 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6261885.stm BBC (january 15 2007), see also commonwealth/entente cordiale talk pages. Cliché Online 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frangleterre 

message: i'm sorry to admit but basically this article is a worthless piece of shit. no offense people but this is how it feels really. Cliché Online 15:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: light edits trying to get french soon-featured article's standard. Cliché Online 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rank s 

message: the XXth century episode's decades are way too long compared to feudal age, the golden age under Louis XIV, the hundred wars where the french led by joan of arc kicked the british asses, the french involvment in the conquest of england at hastings, napoleon bonaparte's empire, etc. the decolonization episode is way too long and there is no mention about the conquest but the independence wars, you call it neutrality? nothing about the french involvment in the united states against the british, lafayette et ali. as a comparison the french article's history section is much more detailed and complete but i don't know if the linked articles about the different republics, empires, kingdoms are available in english yet. Cliché Online 19:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history is too short 

message: I'm trying to find, for a long time, how important this sentence is: France, as all EU countries, is under an EU directive to reduce sewage discharge to sensitive areas. As of 2006, France is only 40 per cent in compliance with this directive, placing it as one of the lowest achieving countries within the EU with regard to this wastewater treatment standard[4].
Although I can understand it should be mentioned in a specific topic on water health, I somehow doubt it is important enough to be mentioned here on this page. Matthieu 13:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  health 

message: The EU map showing, on this page, France highlighted, is now in use on every single EU page apart from, you've guessed it - the United Kingdom! It was there, but User:TharkunColl persists in removing it, even breaking 3RR. I would be grateful if editors interested in the EU pages could go along and fix it as I will myself be in breach if I do again. Thanks for any help! MarkThomas 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what's wrong with TharkunColl? he doesn't like europe? Cliché Online 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  plainly not true, a little higher there was no consensus and nothing has changed since, also in Luxembourg, NEtherland and Belgium articles the current is against the new maps. Just changing them all in one go is NOT an argument Arnoutf 14:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am myself doubtful of the point of putting the EU on this article's map. We're talking of the French republic here. Matthieu 14:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Matthieu. —MJCdetroit 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#A_short_overview_of_the_story--Asteriontalk 17:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to Bob, could you provide the name of a projection where all European States will be all proportional? I would be interested to hear about it. --Huygens 25 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do agree with Wikipedia policy to be bold, but that was perhaps a bit too bold ;-) The map you put is already shown in the article in the Geography section. I think that the previous map was showing where the French Republic was within Europe, just like most European countries in Wikipedia. Also you should read before doing such change the discussion that Asterion as pointed out. I mean reading it all. There was a consensus (I mean a majority) that voted for using the new PNG images (just like it is already the case in many other Wikipedias, like the French or German ones). However, it seems that the one analysing the pole was not happy with the result and concluded that there was no consensus x-(. Furthermore, the complete possessions of France and its main territory are usually refer to The French Republic and Overseas Territory. So I do not mind seeing just a map of France (metropolis). I'm undoing your modification. First, we should try that everyone find a common ground, and then we take action. As for the image licence, I think the problem is now solved. --Huygens 25 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Godefroy, I have check, at the time of writing, United Kingdom, The Netherlands and Belgium have also this map of Europe with the EU highlighted (I did not modify anything on these pages). So please do not change it back to something else, it should be consistent with other articles. Try to get first an agreement if you really disagree. But I think that there is much more to bring to this article than losing time again and again on such a topic. --Huygens 25 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The overseas départements and territories are fully part of the French Republic. To not show them is like having a map of the USA not showing Hawaii or Alaska. Even INSEE is now including the population of overseas France in its total population of France, after people in overseas France complained that they were treated as 2nd class citizens. Why would Wikipedia still be treating them as 2nd class citizens, as if they were not part of France? As I understand feelings about this EU map are running high (cf. the controversy and reverts in the UK article), I have left it in the infobox but I have also added the map showing the entire territory of the French Republic. There are now two maps which should make everybody happy. Godefroy 02:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds fair enough :-) --Huygens 25 23:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU map 

message: Me: Now in our last Interview (Titled "Interview") you interviewed me, now I'm going to interviw you.
Me: You got to go to France, now,  would you visit Paris?(Your dad said that you would have to pay $200 dollars if you went to Paris, but if you went anywhere else in France, and didn't go to Paris, YOU would get $200, since Paris is so expensive.)
You: I would go some place else...there are so many places in France...and SO many places are SO beautiful!!!
Me: Okay...so you don't get to visit Paris. Where to now?
You: I would either go to Rome or Italy. Italy for the food. Rome for the sites.
Me: Good pick...what food would you eat in Italy?
You: All the food I could find.
Me: What sites would you visit in Rome?
You: Everything I COULD see...DUH!!!
Me: Thanks for reading our interview...I hope you can check out our other interview!(Titled: Interview) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.0.139.126 (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuded Interview 

message: I don't edit this article frequently(mostly just to revert vandalism), but it is on my watchlist and has been semi-protected for several months now, and I've grown seriously concerned about the legitimate edits that could be missing from this article because it denies anonymous users.  A good 40% of new information brought into wikipedia(by one metric, and sample set.  I'll get a link to the data if it becomes relevant) is by anonymous users.  Blocking all of them from editing the article because some are nationalistic idiots is not in the spirit of an encyclopedia anyone can edit.  I've put in a request at pages for protection for the semi-protection to be removed already. i kan reed 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your metric may be right overall, but it looks like this article is a magnet for idiots and gets mostly vandalism when not semi-protected. Proof is, that since the removal of semi-protection this article has been overwhelmed by vandalism. I would argue that semi-protection is a good incentive for people who genuinely want to contribute, to create an account. In regards to this article, the legitimate anonymous edit are in great minority compared to vandalism, you are assuming that the probability of vandalism is the same for all articles in wikipedia, but is actually skewed by the nature of the content. A proper statistical analysis of vandalism would be a very interesting study. Blastwizard 07:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm for leaving it closed Matthieu 08:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just some statistics Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles/December Main Page FA analysis. Blastwizard 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've requested unprotection 

message: I have added the country calling codes for each of the overseas départements/régions as well as the territories, as some users insist on using the French region infobox, which makes no provision for this, nor for different time zones. I know that the constitutional status of the overseas départements/régions is identical to that of the metropolitan ones, but there are peculiarities, like different country calling codes and time zones, which should be mentioned. Can you call Réunion using the +33 code? No. The code is +262, allocated by the International Telecommunication Union, and this should be clearly stated. Not even the French regulator is proposing using the +33 code, at least for now, so why should people try and suppress this information? Quiensabe 17:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country calling code(s) 

message: User:Lord Vader has recently added 11 dates in the country infobox in the "Formation" section. Yes, you're not dreaming, 11 dates! I removed these and left the only two dates that the infobox contained before his edits (843 and 1958) and asked him to open a discussion on the talk page here and reach consensus before bloating the infobox with his 11 dates. Unfortunately, this user not only did not open a discussion here, but he's also apparently willing to engage in an edit war to maintain his 11 dates. So I'm opening the discussion here. Do you guys think these 11 dates make any sense at all? The French infobox is already quite long due to the dual nature of the country (metropolitan France vs. whole Republic), and now with these dates the infobox is getting even longer. Not only that, but these dates, which list all French constitutions, are quite useless. The section is about the formation of the country, not about each and every consitution and regime the country has had. Mr. Lord Vader even added a formation date for Celtic Gaul which he places at 1200 BC !! Not 1199 BC, not 1201 BC, but 1200 BC ! Nice orignal research isn't it? And what relevance does it have to modern France? Last but not least, I don't know if Lord Vader realizes that adding 11 dates and thus getting to a total of 13 dates (!) for the formation of France is totally conter-productive. It doesn't inform people better, it simply drowns them in a sea of figures. Comments from other users would be appreciated. Godefroy 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a funny side note, Mr. Lord Vader forgot the Constitution of 1791 which established the short lived constitutional monarchy, the Constitution of 1795 which established the Directory, and the Constitution of 1799 which established the Consulate. So I guess we could even reach 16 dates for this very special "formation" of France. Lol. Godefroy 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Less is more!  I'd even get rid of the Accession to the EU date, but that might cause world war III.  —MJCdetroit 11:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by user Lord Vader to the infobox 

message: I'm not so pleased with that section. Does anyone else think it should be divided into several already present sections? Matthieu 08:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one answered me I removed the "contrast and diversity" subsection. There also were a lot of unbacked claims which, although may be true (yet I always figured Europe's highest point was in the Ural) needed backing and, most importantly, to be put in their relevant section. Matthieu 08:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrast and Diversity 

message: Hi !
I've read the wikipage about France. 
I think you should add some very important datas in the HISTORY OF FRANCE. 
Here are my propositions :
-Philippe Augustus and Saint Louis are not mentionned. However, they are the most important and popular french kings of this age.
The victory of Bouvines in 1214 is recognized as the first french NATIONAL jubilation by great Historians like Georges Duby.
So, I think you should add :
"In 1214, king [Philippe Augustus] won the [Battle of Bouvines] against a coalition between the English Crown and the Holy Roman Empire. This victory assures French predominance on Western Europe. During the reign of [Saint Louis] (1226-1270), France is at its height in Europe, culturally, politically and economically."
- During the hundred years war, the War of the Rose is absolutly less important than 
the modernisation of French army (Artillery) and the Treaty of Arras in 1435, when the Burgundies recognizes Charles VII as the King of France.
So, you should add :
"Strong counterattacks are led by charismatic captains as Bertrand du Guesclin and Joan of Arc."
"Charles VII finally managed to unify France and won back mainland territory after his victories at Formigny (1450) and Castillon (1453) that is the 4
first battle in History where artillery played a decisive role".
-The French Revolution cannot be resumed to the Terror and massacres. 
You should add :
"The [Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]is adopted on 27 August 1789 by the [National Constituent Assembly]."
- So, Napoleon have not just killed one million of Frenchmen during his reign. He also consolidated some social benefits coming from the Revolution.
You should add :
"Under Napoleon the First, "The "Code Civil" was established. This legal code influenced most of European countries juridictions."
- From 1914 to 1916, France supported almost alone the burden of the WW1 on the west front.
You should add :
"France stopped the German invasion at the battle of Marnes in 1914. The French also won one of the terrible Battle of Verdun in 1917)."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCajun80 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bouvines, Saint Louis and the Declaration of Human Rights... 

message: there is also Laurent wolf that is a very popular electronic music producer206.248.137.118 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electronic music 

message: Just to let the main writers know that it's hard to load this article, almost certainly because of the citation templates. I didn't look to see whether all the cites are templates, but if they are, that's over 300, which would explain the loading problems. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article hard to load 

message: I suggest adding a sample of La Marseillaise in the infobox, this sample can be found here: .
The same thing has been done on other articles; E.g., the United Kingdom article, the Japan article, the People's Republic of China article and the Poland article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.230.192 (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National anthem sample 

message: "...laïcité, in which it is prohibited from recognising any religion..." Wrong. A law separating State and Churches is not a law negating Churches. Religions are recognized by the gouvernement. There is a official list and the jurisprudence recognize them. The Interior's Minister is Minister of the Cultes. Better is "...laïcité, in which it is prohibited from recognising any specific right to a religious community..." or "...laïcité, in which it is prohibited from legal recognising to a congregation..." (law 1901). Religious communities are simply associations as sport's clubs, no more but nor less.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.84.232 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laïcité 

message: Picture of Joan of Arc but no mention of her in article or her role in French history.
216.124.224.51 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: what language (including verifiable reliable sources) would you suggest for a mention of her?  Thanks!    — Jeff G.  ツ 01:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 216.124.224.51, 22 November 2010 

message: Please a registered user should you be so kind, please add ₣ as previous currency for the TAB, as it was in use up to the time Euro was the only currency in use since 2002 on. The process of changing all banknotes was set to last three years and had begun in 1999. Unfortunally, France and Germany did not walk the same way UK, Sweden and Norway chose, when talking of their currencies.Paul188.25.28.114 (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  currency 

message: "covering 11,035,000 km2 (4,260,000 mi2), just behind the one of the United States (11,351,000 km2 / 4,383,000 mi2)". 
No, absolutely false: more like 670 922 km².  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.93.75 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not, this figure is correct but does not correspond to the total land area but to the [Exclusive Economic Zone], that includes the the total land area + the territorial waters. All the small islands in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean that are part of the French Republic, have a negligible land mass but with a 200 nautical miles territorial waters around them contribute to a very large amount of EEZ. Blastwizard (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, someone change the superficie: what is written is preposterous!!! Thanks 

message: humatarian-->humanitarian
75.40.37.9 (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 75.40.37.9, 20 February 2011 

message: IDH France isn't 0.872 (14e), but if you look the article about the IDH (based on 2007), you can see 0.961 (8e). 
Thanks.
RobinMiranda (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from RobinMiranda, 22 February 2011 

message: === Administrative divisions ===
Replace:
France is divided into 26 administrative regions. 22 are in metropolitan France (21 are on the continental part of metropolitan France; one is the territorial collectivity of Corsica), and four are overseas regions. The regions are further subdivided into 100 departmentsDepartments of France - My French Property which are numbered (mainly alphabetically). This number is used in postal codes and vehicle number plates amongst others. The 100 departments are subdivided into 341 arrondissements which are, in turn, subdivided into 4,032 cantons. These cantons are then divided into 36,680 communes, which are municipalities with an elected municipal council. There also exist 2,588 intercommunal entities grouping 33,414 of the 36,680 communes (i.e. 91.1% of all the communes). Three communes, Paris, Lyon and Marseille are also subdivided into 45 municipal arrondissements.
by:
France is divided into 27 administrative regions. 22 are in metropolitan France (21 are on the continental part of metropolitan France; one is the territorial collectivity of Corsica), and five are overseas regions. The regions are further subdivided into 101 departmentsDepartments of France - My French Property which are numbered (mainly alphabetically). This number is used in postal codes and vehicle number plates amongst others. The 101 departments are subdivided into 341 arrondissements which are, in turn, subdivided into 4,051 cantons. These cantons are then divided into 36,697 communes, which are municipalities with an elected municipal council. There also exist 2,588 intercommunal entities grouping 33,414 of the 36,697 communes (i.e. 91.1% of all the communes). Three communes, Paris, Lyon and Marseille are also subdivided into 45 municipal arrondissements.
=== Overseas regions and territories ===
Replace:
In addition to the 26 regions and 101 departments, the French Republic also has five overseas collectivities (French Polynesia, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Wallis and Futuna), one sui generis collectivity (New Caledonia), one overseas territory (French Southern and Antarctic Lands), and one island possession in the Pacific Ocean (Clipperton Island).
by:
In addition to the 27 regions and 101 departments, the French Republic also has five overseas collectivities (French Polynesia, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Wallis and Futuna), one sui generis collectivity (New Caledonia), one overseas territory (French Southern and Antarctic Lands), and one island possession in the Pacific Ocean (Clipperton Island).
: --Bob (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request, 6 April 2011 

message: Replace:
In addition to the 26 regions and 101 departments, the French Republic also has five overseas collectivities (French Polynesia, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Wallis and Futuna), one sui generis collectivity (New Caledonia), one overseas territory (French Southern and Antarctic Lands), and one island possession in the Pacific Ocean (Clipperton Island).
by:
In addition to the 27 regions and 101 departments, the French Republic also has five overseas collectivities (French Polynesia, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Wallis and Futuna), one sui generis collectivity (New Caledonia), one overseas territory (French Southern and Antarctic Lands), and one island possession in the Pacific Ocean (Clipperton Island).
: --Bob (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overseas regions and territories 

message: René Descartes (1596 - 1650) was a polymath of the 17th century, not the 16th.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.128.118.102 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  French philosophy 

message: Hi all, just as a note... Contrary to what is written in the article, the 14th of July 1789 ("storming" of the Bastille) is not what is commemorated as the French National Day. This day commemorates in fact the Fête de la Fédération, which happened a year later on July 14, 1790 celebrate the establishment of constitutional Monarchy in France, as also stated in the article Bastille Day.  
I will therefore remove this sentence: "It is now commemorated as the French National Day".
Amhantar (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 14 

message: Hello
About the size of the French Empire. I don't really think that France was the second largest empire in history. Before it there should be both the Mongol and the Spanish Empire. I believe it was even smaller than the Chinese Empire during the realm of Yuan. 195.246.100.57 13:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly states that is was the second largest empire "of the time" (19th - 20th c.).DITWIN GRIM (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire size 

message: Bmoq (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This template is too specific for this article. — Bility (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Bmoq, 1 September 2011 

message: The INSEE  reports a much lower level of income inequality compared to the CIA factbook (28.9 vs 32.7). Surely the INSEE figures are to be considered more authoritative compared to the second- or third-hand data of the factbook. The infobox should be changed to reflect this.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gini index 

message: The source: 
"World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems". Who.int. 8 December 2010. Retrieved 16 July 2011,
seems to be a summary or a series of excerpts from The World Health Report 2000 - Health systems: Improving performance.
(A) Wouldn't it be better to use the report itself?
(B) The language of the article leads me to believe that it was published in 2000, not 2010. Namely this bit: 
The findings are published today, 21 June, in The World Health Report 2000 – Health systems: Improving performance.
Thanks for your time,
68.7.134.191 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source #22 date issues 

message: Hi all,
I came across this image:
http://www.r-bloggers.com/mapping-prosperity-in-france-with-r/
And was wondering if it might be of use to this article (or any similar one).
Cheers, Tal Galili (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mapping prosperity in France 

message: I cannot modify the article but there are important inaccuracies in this section.
*HEC Paris is a business school, therefore it is not dedicated to economics but to business studies (Finance, Marketing, Strategy...) which is quite different.
*Ecole supérieure des Mines de Paris is a prestigious but very small school with little influence in France. Ecole Polytechnique is generally considered as more prestigious and is substancially larger.
*Ecole Normale Supérieure de Paris is the missing, it is as prestigious as HEC or Polytechnique if not more and has huge impact: 12 Nobel Prizes, 10 Fields medal while recruiting only 200 students a year. Alumni also include most of recent French philosophers : Althusser, Aron, Derrida, Foucault, ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.30.20.146 (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: good question !
they are:
entree(next to the plate of food)example:soup.
plat principal(food )example:steak.
fromage(cheese )example:cream cheese.
dessert(dessert)example:choclate cake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.135.131 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  what are e-p-f and d ?