Talk:History of France

message: wikipedia don't write sciience fiction please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.168.89.151 (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: wut?? 2601:47:2:2B0:1123:26B2:B04A:930C (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

text: what language does france speek 216.21.220.220 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: what does that mean 216.21.220.220 (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

text: The History of France goes back to the arrival of the earliest human being in what is now France.
This statement patently ludicrous, but also plainly incorrect.  The History of France no more begins with the earliest human being's arrival to present-day France's geographical region than the United State's history begins with the forming of our solar system's sun. --65.95.204.18 (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History of France does not begin with Cro-Magnons

message: 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)
I join those clamoring for an editor to work with this article. The section of the "July Monarchy" is written as if translated literarily from the French. Historian (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does have problems, and I tried to fix the section on the July monarchy by trimming details and adding more useful citations.  The text was originally based on an old French textbook which is not easily available to the English language Wikipedia audience. Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: More readable

message: Seeing all the UK history userboxes, I decided to make a French history one...   -- NYArtsnWords 02:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French History Userbox 

message: It is not an accurate representation of the Republic of France, it has never been adopted by any of the french republics and is present on the coat of arms of the house of Bourbon. I think both fleur de lis on the French History stub which appears on many pages should be excluded as they are a misrepresentation of the Republic of France.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.12.76 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fleur de Lis as a Monarchist symbol 

message: On several grounds I want to express my profound indignation upon reading this section of the article History of France. I found it racist - either impliedly or expressly - misleading and disinformative.
"At the close of the Algerian war, hundreds of thousands of Muslims, including some who had supported France (Harkis), settled permanently to France, especially to the larger cities where they lived in subsidized public housing, and suffered very high unemployment rates".
Following wars of independence, as a result of decolonisation, hundreds of thousands of North Africans - traditionally muslims (observant and non-observant alike) migrated to France due to the high demand for industrial labour. The specific reference to Algerians, Harkis and muslims is subjective and misleading.
"In October 2005, the predominately Arab-immigrant suburbs of Paris, Lyons, Lille, and other French cities erupted in riots by socially alienated teenagers, many of them second- or third-generation immigrants". 
The suburbs of France's major cities are populated majoritively by French citizens, regardless of being what it is described as "second or third generation immigrants". Furthermore, the reference to "Arab-immigrant" is subjective, inaccurate, intemporal and impliedly racist.
"Traditional interpretations say these race riots were spurred by radical Muslims, unemployed youth, or children of African polygamists. Another view states that the riots reflected broader problem of racism and police violence in France".
The Renseignement Généraux indicated that in view of the information it gathered, these riots - here referred to as "race riots" - were not spurred by religious fundamentalists. Additionally, the reference to "children of African polygamists" is inaccurate, misleading and impliedly racist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPhnx (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see a source for these assertions about 'Traditional interpretations' - the only source cited seems (from the abstract) to be arguing the exact opposite. What are the sources for these 'traditional' views, how exactly can they be 'tradition', and how widespread are they? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim tensions 

message: There are some paragraphs discussing religion, that is: the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the French state. It should be split into a separate article. This one is too long anyways.Ernio48 (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of religion in France??? 

message: The old version of section 6 appeared at points unclear, incomplete, unchronological or incoherent. With the help of a recent (2014) study of the French Revolution (TFR) I’ve constructed a clear, complete, chronological, coherent and concise story. I've preserved the sourced and relevant parts from the old version. Some parts of the old version could not be preserved, which I'll explain here (for old §6.1.3 through §6.1.6 sentence by sentence). If people still wish to add aspects to this updated version, please do so, but please clearly and with reference to sources.
Old §6.1.1 '..feudalism'
* 'The Assembly abolished the…illegal': vague, unsourced. Main lines of abolitions and reforms are included in the updated version of the article. If people wish to add aspects to it, please do so, but please clearly and with reference to sources.
* '…Système International d'Unités…': less relevant for this summarizing article on the main lines of TFR.
Old §6.1.2 'Royal family..' 
* 'Factions within the Assembly…own right': vague, no dates, no sources. What we do know about factions as being relevant for this summarizing article on the main lines of TFR: see below by old §6.1.3 sentence 2. If relevant aspects still need to be added, please do so, but please clearly and with reference to sources.
* 'The Legislative Assembly consisted…those factions': unsourced. What we do know about factions as relevant for this summarizing article: see below by old §6.1.3 sentence 2.
* 'Early on, the King…Clergy': vague, therefore not relevant enough.
Old §6.1.3 'Factionalism..' 
1. 'Fractured': unsourced. 'Factions' is vague. 'Dangerous' is vague: in what sense and for whom and why dangerous? What we do know of groups/factions in Assembly or Convention: see next sentence.
2. Vague ('democr. Republic'); relevance of the sentence is unclear. What we do know of the 'factions' Montagnards, Girondins, Jacobins, la Plaine in Assembly or Convention, as having relevance for this summarizing article, is in the new version included in subsections 'War…1791', 'Bloodbath…92', 'War…spring 93', 'Showdown…May 93', 'Counter-revolution…(Oct.93)'. 
3. Vague ('tension', 'conflicting'). 
4. Vague (more repressive than what? 'Siding'?). Unbalanced, thus irrelevant (we don't hear the program of Girondins). 
5. Vague (which crises?). Unbalanced (what did other parties say of the crises?). 
6,7,8,9. Unbalanced, see 4 and 5. 
10. Vague/undefined ('Reign of Terror'), unsourced ('governed France'). 
11. Irrelevant ('possibly'). 
12. Unsourced ('fall', 'rescind'). What actually did happen on 10 Aug 1792 is written in the new version of the article. 
13–16. I think the updated summarizing article on the main lines of TFR can do well without most of those (sometimes vague) details. The fact of ex-king Louis being tried, convicted and executed is mentioned in the new version, with wikilink to the extensive main article on that topic. 
17. Vague, thus unclear. 
18. Vague, date is missing. 
19. Vague ('radicals'). Incorrect: massacre was on 2 Sep not 10 Aug, see new version. 
20. ‘…did not tolerate the massacres’: vague, suggestive, uncorroborated, biased. The text tried to discriminate between a ('good') party that 'did not tolerate' opposed to other ('bad') parties that 'did tolerate'. But even as 'not tolerate' can mean several things (did not approve? not appreciate? tried to stop it?), no underpinning is presented for any of such assertions discriminating between two or more parties/factions. See new version of the article, events of 2 Sep 1792: neither Gir nor Mont tried to stop them.  
21. Suggestive/vague: there's no previous mentioning of 'dictatorial power'. Marat was indicted April 93, see new version, but as for those other two accused: vague (when is 'later'?), relevance unclear. 
Old §6.1.4 'Execution Louis..' 
1–4: Main points on 10 Aug 1792 and Louis killed are in the new version, further details on that, like in these old sentences 1–4, are to be found in wikilinked ‘main articles’. 
1. 'taken by insurgents…': unsourced. 
5. Is preserved in the article's new version. 
6. Vague (no date, 'depend, Commune, insurrect'), unsourced. 
7,8. Vague, no date, unsourced. 
9. Is in the new version. 
10. Incorrect. See new, sourced, version. 
11. Vague ('the ideology..') 
12. Vague. 
13. Vague (no date, why riot?), incorrect (Jacobin ≠ sans-culotte). 
14. Unsourced ('coup'). 
15. Vague, unsourced ('became effective centre..'). Unlikely (sans-culottes in government). See clear, sourced facts about Aug–Sep 1792 now in the new version. 
16. Vague. 
Old §6.1.5 'Reign of Terror' 
1. 'Starting Sep 1793': unbalanced/unsourced, historians' opinions on this differ. 
2. Corrected the 'twelve': initially they were nine. 
3. Vague, unsourced ('Jacobins centralized..') 
4. Unsourced. 
5. Vague ('ultra-radicals', 'moderates'), unsourced ('Robespierre had..'). 
6. Vague, unsourced ('support eroded') 
7. Vague, undefined ('Therm. Reaction'). The clear and sourced facts about 27 July 1794 are included in the new version of the article. 
8. Preserved in the article
9. Unsourced: 'export revolution'. 
9+10+11: unsourced: 'a coalition (was formed)'. 
12. Unclear ('a coup said… and called…': coups can't speak). Vague ('radicalized'). 
13. Unsourced ('invasion forces were defeated') 
14. Unsourced ('Rhineland..'). The fact about Belgium is preserved in the article. 
15+16. Are preserved in the article. 
Old §6.1.6 'Directory' 
1–4: The essentials of the new structure (Directory) are preserved in the article; further details are to be found in the wikilinked main articles. 
5. Vague ('nation', 'wounds') 
6. Vague
7. Vague ('failure of First Coalition', 'possibility'), unsourced ('vanished') 
8. Vague ('arbitrary', 'disquiet'). See clear, relevant facts in updated new version. 
9. Vague ('atrocities', 'parties' etc.), unsourced ('impossible'). 
10. Very unclear. 
11. Vague ('disregarded the terms..', 'elections against them', 'resorted to the sword') 
12. Vague ('the war'), unsourced. 
13. Interpretation ('driven to rely'), unsourced ('desired war'). 
14. Is preserved in the new version of the article. 
15+16. Vague (First Republic). Off-place: things happening after the Nov 1799 coup belong in next section 'Napolonic France'. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update §6 'Revolutionary France (1789–1799)'  

message: On 5 February 1794, in a speech before the Convention, Robespierre identified some "internal enemies" within France. "One of those factions" –  and everyone in the Convention understood that he was adressing the Dantonists – "induces us to weakness"; the other one  – the Hébertists – to excesses. (In: Noah Shusterman – The French Revolution. Faith, Desire, and Politics. Routledge, London and New York, 2014. Chapter 8 (p. 204–234): The Reign of Terror. (Presently I can't give the exact page number, because presently I only have the Dutch translation of the book in my house.)) --Corriebertus (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial of the Dantonists (1794) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of 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/20090103204905/http://www.iearn.hu/balkans/bpeople/zrinyi.htm to http://www.iearn.hu/balkans/bpeople/zrinyi.htm
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) 17:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of 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/20110628215323/http://www.questia.com/read/58600747 to https://www.questia.com/read/58600747
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) 15:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Within the final paragraph of the lead, there is a sentence "The Free France movement that took over the colonial empire, and coordinated the wartime Resistance." This is a subject without a predicate. I don't know enough about the history of france to make a change, but I would suggest either replacing "that" with "then", or removal of the word "and" and its preceding comma. Horse Battery (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fragment in the lead 

message: I have marked a few short refs with "full citation needed" (search for that text in the article to find them). This tag means either that a short citation, like "Carpentier 2000", has been provided without a matching full citation, or that a short citation, like "Doyle 2001", matches more than one full citation. 
In the former case, add the full source in the appropriate place. In the latter case, add "a" and "b" after the  value in both the short and full citations in question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing or ambiguous full citations 

message: The Third Republic is indicated to have ended in 1914 and it is not indicated what came after. Apparently the Fourth Republic began in the 1940s. The article should give a concise chronology of the various political periods, i.e., republics, empires, monarchies. WmDKing (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology of Forms of Government Not Clear