Talk:Politics of France

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lily huval.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit

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 [1]. These have nothing to do with current usage. David.Monniaux 09:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

this is so great but i searched how does france make its lows and how they are passed so i really need that so thanks . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.145.85 (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Content moved from Politics of France. David.Monniaux 10:16, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

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).

I wonder if Good Article Criteria just includes simply accuracy. Frankly I have seen a lot of crap concerning French political system and government and this is the only time I see something so complete and accurate. Even in French books this is never so good. Alain10 24 December 2006

General views

I used to be long time aga a French civil servant and I think it is dunb but yo kno this page is excellent. I have reviewed it and added a few details Alain10 24 December 2006

Reading by a professor of Public Law

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)

I have one opposite view: I believe the strength of this article is that it does not wish to include criticism; it is purely descriptive i.e. encyclopedic. Before criticizing, the point is simply to understand.
Also, his criticism are also contentious: for example, I don't believe that there is an abuse of ordinance; on the contrary, it seems to me that the system has reached a nice equilibrium. The use of ordinance is now mainstream and very good so. Through ordinances, codification has been possible and France is not any more so late in the transposition of European directives.
As regards the fact that some issues are contentious, yes of course, but we cannot present the whole set of arguments and complexities concerning for example the hierarchy of norms in an article like this one. But if somebody wants to write an article on the hierarchy of norms in the French legal system, he is more than welcome.
--Alain10 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why so much vandalism for such a technical article?

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)

Wrong image for LOLF

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)

Important notice

The government section of the "Outline of France" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Government of France/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Delisted

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. A large portion of the article needs additional citations. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. The lead should also be reduced to four paragraphs, see WP:LEAD guidelines. Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this assessment, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you need clarification or assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Censure motion question

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)

the French government is interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.14.209 (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, consistency with similar articles. Jenks24 (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Political system of France → ? – the subject needs discussion Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have changed the hatlinks at the start of Political system of France. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Nah, this is just right now. This article describes the political system of France in detail, and while we should have an overview article on Politics of France, too, that one stop needs to be written. --PanchoS (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support move back to Politics of France – Pancho, I understand what you're saying. However, what you've failed to take into account is that this article is part of the "Politics of X" series of articles. Each country has such an article, and they are all the same as this one. This article is now an outlier, inconsistent with all other similar articles for other countries, such as Politics of Germany or Politics of the United Kingdom. WP:CONSISTENCY is an article title criteria, and hence this article should be at Politics of France until such a time as all other similar articles are moved. BD2412 tried to explain this to you at Mr Appleyard's talk page. I was less than delicate in the situation that arose, and I apologise for that. I wasn't well. However, I hope that we can now resolve this situation in a way that will be beneficial for the reader. The best way to do this would be to standardise this article. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• True, I don't disagree with broken consistency being a problem. The more important reason for reverting was fixing article and talk page histories. However, as this article here covers the political system of France in detail, not French politics in general, a new overview article on Politics in France would still be preferable and is perfectly doable. Therefore I'm tentatively opposing the request for now and will revisit in a few days.
  P.S. Everybody has a bad day once in a while. I'm more concerned with your immediate blanking of any talk page entry, and irritated by your persisting self-description as being "retired". Welcome back, though! --PanchoS (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

All "politics of X" articles cover the political system of said "X", on the basis that "Politics" is more concise than "Political system". I didn't set up this system. That's just how it is. Look at articles in Category:Politics by country, like Politics of Australia. This serves the same purpose as those articles, and should be titled the same. RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Who says "Politics" was more concise to describe the political framework of a country than "Political system"??? I'd really like you to point me to that discussion. In any case, "Political system" is the undisputed terminus technicus throughout scholarly publications; it is also the WP:COMMONNAME. See also the definitions in Politics.
While I agree we should strive for consistency, Politics is just less correctly reflecting the article's actual scope. We have more gaps than this one, so let's rather close the gaps than move around articles so the gaps appear to be filled. --PanchoS (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who said it or why they said it, merely that all these articles are at "Politics of X". If you really want such a change, all similar articles must be moved. Until that point, this should be aligned with them. There is no point in having an outlier. RGloucester — ☎ 16:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support move to Politics of France for consistency with about 200 articles, following the naming convention used not only for the members of Category:Politics by country but also for others such as Politics of French Polynesia and Politics of Quebec. NebY (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A new france

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)

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

closed with no consensus to merge Felix QW (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

---

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)

• I do not necessarily oppose your proposal, but I note that in a similar case, the article The Crown does not just redirect to United Kingdom but exists in parallel with the articles Politics of the United Kingdom and Constitution of the United Kingdom. --Somerby (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I can see the argument you're making, many people (me included) search for just the fifth republic and having this form simplifies and explains its creation better. Johnnytest5 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, or a merger into History of France § Since 1945 or History of France (1900 to present) § Post-war (1945–Present), like Sixth Republic of Korea. A similar discussion (started by Somerby) was ongoing at Afghanistan (which had been decided to refer to the current Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and not exist alongside it), and it was pointed out that France having two articles for the current state is an exception. I elaborated by saying that this is not really how it goes on Wikipedia when a certain government has current control of a country and causes duplication of information. There is no Sixth Republic of Korea article, nor is there a separate article for Ba'ath-ruled Syria in addition to Syria or Hadi-ruled Yemen in addition to Yemen. And by the way, The Crown is not a historical period nor a form/regime of government of the UK, rather a legal personality. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We need an article for the current political entity. 144.130.162.86 (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose because whereas the French Fifth Republic is indeed the current French political system, it actually overlaps with both Constitution of France and Politics of France. So merging the page with either one of them would be unsatisfactory. To the French, the Fifth Republic encompasses a lot of things, since it involved not only a change of constitution but a major change in their political system (which, from then on, revolved mostly around the President, who had previously been a near-figurehead) and may also be used to refer broadly to the (political or otherwise) history of the country since 1958. So rather than merging the page, it might be more accurate to rename it as something like History of France since 1958. But French Fifth Republic is accurate enough IMHO so we might not need to rename it at all, unlesss English-speaking readers find it really necessary. Psychloppos (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Not an improvement. Vic Park (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The French Fifth Republic is a political entity that encompasses "Politics of France", "Constitution of France" and so many more things that it needs its own article to properly understand its historical significance and modern France. --MaeseLeon (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support the constitution, fifth republic, and politics articles are kinda redundant. I think merging the French fifth republic to the Politics of France article would solve that problem and be better for readers, who won't neccessarily known a distinction. Converting it to a "history of france since 1958" would kind of create a new problem since it largely doesn't have any historical content apart from political facts.Bluealbion (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A major stage in the history of a major country. (and in general many the articles on politics of france need expansion) DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Opppose The Constitution is an organizing document of law; the Fifth Republic is a national entity composed of institutions, offices, people occupying them, and the events occurring in, and acts undertaken by all of the above. The article on the 1958 Constitution is already far too limited and should be significantly expanded (for example: the very important articles 34 and 37, which should each have a section on their own, are dismissed in a single sentence fragment). A merger would have the opposite effect, and stunt development of each. Trying to shoehorn these two topics into one would be to the detriment of both. Mathglot (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mathglot. Glide08 (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Even relatively minor college athletes have their own Wikipedia pages, but it's too much to have two articles that both cover the same 60+ years of political history of one of the most powerful and influential countries on earth? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:4480:A810:D858:B7D8:F258:9ED0 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not yo cipy

Copyrighted 2603:6010:620:78F1:413:8FB1:A1A4:5874 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)