Talk:History of France

History of France does not begin with Cro-Magnons

wikipedia don't write sciience fiction please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.168.89.151 (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) how come everyone has commented in the early 2000s is anyone there--2601:47:2:2B0:1123:26B2:B04A:930C (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC) From the article:

wut?? 2601:47:2:2B0:1123:26B2:B04A:930C (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

what language does france speek 216.21.220.220 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

what does that mean 216.21.220.220 (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

More readable

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)

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)

Suggested Template Changes, Article Mergers and overall Presentation

The Template entry "Ancién Régime" seems to me to be too restrictive, and the separate articles Ancien Régime and France under the Ancien Régime could perhaps be merged.

I am confused about why the Third Republic gets its own entry on the template, but the Second Empire does not. Perhaps the whole template might be better if it supplied subcategories directly, like French Fourth Republic and French Fifth Republic under "Modern France", French Renaissance or Valois Dynasty and Bourbon Dynasty under "Ancien Régime", and Restoration, July Monarchy, Second Republic and Second Empire unter the entry "Nineteenth Century".

If the purpose of History of France page is to give a general overview of the question, while sending people to other Main Pages for the specific periods, then it seems to me that some sections on this page need to have brief descriptions written (one paragraph) and others need to have material removed or incorporated into the main pages they link to. The History of France page could also absorb Mid-nineteenth century France. NYArtsnWords 20:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I do think Ancien Régime should be merged with France under the Ancien Régime, I'm not sure about the other proposed changes, however. Unfortunetaly much of our history of France content is from the 1911 Britannica. Back then political history was utterly dominant, and all of history was neatly divided into eras by what government was in power. Today we realize that cultural, economic, and social history are just as important as political, and a broader periodization is thus important. If we title an article French Fifth Republic we are going to end up with a page that focuses on the political evolution of the state. If we title it Modern France, we will hopefully get a full article on the development of France in the modern era.

My ideal is the History of Britain series, which has a group of well defined and lengthy articles covering all manner of history. I think the current division of the history of France is alright. The 3rd Republic gets its own section because it lasted 70 years, while the Restoration, Second Republic, Second Empire, were all far shorter and can be dealt with in one article. We could use a better name than Mid-nineteenth century France, but I couldn't think of one. What we really need are some women, that do away with the Britannica content and present a series of equal quality to our British history one. - SimonP 21:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

To try to improve one area of this I have nominated Modern France at COTW, perhaps that could provide us with at least one more decent article in this series. - SimonP 21:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

As per your suggestions, I modified my changes to the template to better reflect both sides of the issue, while nevertheless (provisionally) allowing readers to find their way through the different pages. Ideally, everything on the top half of the template should treat history and culture in the broad sense, while everything in the dynasty and regime section should concentrate specifically on the political regimes. This is -- of course -- a longterm project. Mid-nineteenth century France...hmmm? I think France in the nineteenth century would be better. On a side note, July Monarchy and House of Orleans need to be merged. -- NYArtsnWords 21:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The new template seems like a fair compromise. Creating a France in the nineteenth century that covers the "long nineteenth century" from 1789 to 1914 could work well. We could also easily have an entire article covering 1789 to 1815, and also have a short 19th century one covering 1815 to 1914. France in modern times would then cover 1914 to present. - SimonP 04:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The long nineteenth century sounds good. I wonder if a Early Modern France would better cover the Renaissance and the Ancien Régime articles, or if it's better to leave well enough alone? On a side note, the middle ages and renaissance articles could use maps showing the territorial expansion of France. -- NYArtsnWords 05:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of having an Early Modern France, as we could start building an early modern series, similar to the Middle Ages series. For Britain we have a general Early Modern Britain article and a specific one on the English Renaissance, which focuses on the culture of the era. Thus we could keep French Renaissance and Ancien Regime as separate articles, but rename France under the Ancien Régime to Early Modern France and have it point to the subarticles. - SimonP 13:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

This page has some public domain maps of France in the Middle Ages. - SimonP 14:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Good job on the early modern page. If the Template:History of France still seems too busy, I imagine we could cut all the dynastic and politcal regimes and place them all on the Template:Governments of France, and then add that as a second template to all relevent pages. But it depends on what helps people find what they are looking for easily, especially non-experts. We can leave it for a while and see what people have to say. -- NYArtsnWords 17:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

hello are you still on wikipedia after over 10 years also yes i agree 2601:47:2:2B0:1123:26B2:B04A:930C (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an article...

It's an outline masquerading as an article. It is in serious need of prose. --Richard 01:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As the first paragraph of History of France says, the article has been broken up into a series of articles: France in the Middle Ages, Early Modern France, France in the nineteenth century, France in the twentieth century. Repeating -- on this page -- what is already included on those pages is pointless. --NYArtsnWords 01:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You may think so but consider the following articles ... History of the United States, History of Mexico. Those also have significant "daughter" articles. The History of the United States article is a summary of the more detailed "daughter" articles. Also consider History of Spain, History of Germany. Nuff said?

--Richard 03:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that spending one's time writing summaries of other articles (which are already, at times, summaries) is counterproductive for two reasons: (1) wikipedia contributors should be putting their efforts into making the detailed "daughter" articles better; (2) new contributors may expand the summaries beyond all measure (ignoring the existence of the "daughter" articles), bringing the History of France page back to the 53+ kb hulk is was before the subpages were pulled out of it. If some prose is absolutely necessary, it should not be to the detriment of the subpages. --NYArtsnWords 14:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you see any value to consistency of treatment across similar articles in Wikipedia? If so, what do you perceive to be the standard approach for "History of Country X" articles?

--Richard 19:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is still worthwile having good articles for the main countries history article, if people want a quick overview of a country's history rather than having to looking through many "daughter" articles --Astrokey44 11:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As a practical matter, what would you say should be the appropriate length of summaries on "History of Country X" articles? I notice, for example, that the History of the United States article is peppered with expand-section tags, even on sections that have detailed subpages. As I see it, the problem is that some collaborators will always find the summaries lacking and will always add and expand them... until the main page is nearly as long as the subpages. This will require constant monitoring.

On a more philosophical level: at what point does a summary of a summary of a summary become pointless abstraction? What level of abstraction from detailed historical articles is unworthy of an encyclopedia?

Finally, I find it frustrating to spend so much time on summaries (can't people scan a long article?) when there are countless articles that need new content: this is where enterprising scholars should be spending their energies (for example, the Economic history of France page is grossly deficient on 19th and 20th centuries, and has nothing on the Middle Ages).

So if you want them, let the summaries come... but let's not focus solely on them --NYArtsnWords 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well various general articles are at wikipedia like Human history. I think it may actually discourage people from editing the sub-pages if they find the general article on a topic is in poor condition. I agree that it would be good to expand the daughter articles, but at least the main one should be a half decent article with a few pictures. The US history article is probably about the right length now, probably should remove the expand notices. If the info is expanded, the detail can be moved off to the relevant sub-article similar to how info is moved off from a main country article when it gets too long. --Astrokey44 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

i dont care 2601:47:2:2B0:1123:26B2:B04A:930C (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

French History Userbox

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

Code	Result
{{user French history}}	This user is interested in the History of France.

The Fleur de Lis as a Monarchist symbol

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)

Muslim tensions

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)

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)

History of religion in France???

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)

Update §6 'Revolutionary France (1789–1799)'

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)

Trial of the Dantonists (1794)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Fragment in the lead

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)

Just to follow up

On my revert Mathglot, [1]

1. When making the argument that "here is some text on this one page that indicates I'm right", subsequently arguing that "this one page is neither policy nor guideline" does not support your case and in fact argues against it.
2. On the point that in this case the one page says one thing, you are trivially/clearly misinterpreting the intent of that page. As such, no, you are incorrect: |p/page= is for singular page citations, and |pp/pages= is for multi-page citations. You are welcome to consult with Help talk:CS1 if you do not believe now 2 editors on the point. If you do not believe it is sufficiently clear at Help:CS1, you should also take it up at that page's talk page.
3. On CITEVAR, that defends whole styles. A whole style in context of that policy is "Harvard", "MLA", "CS1", "CS2", and etc. It does not extend to sub-elements of that style that you are in fact using incorrectly. It decidedly does not extend to specific formats per RFC in recent years.

Do not revert again without discussion. Izno (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Already addressed this at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No, Mathglot, you did not. Separately, if you believe the discussion there is sufficient to defend your decision making here, feel free to copy-paste it and I will respond. I'm not going to have a discussion in two locations, and since it is not particular to me but instead the article, I'm not going to have it on my talk page.

Certainly, what you wrote there does not defend your reverts here, given what I said just above. Izno (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

To your points:

1. Nonsense. That Help:CS1 is neither guideline, nor policy, is a fact. The person who appeals to it for basing their actions is the one who has to "defend their case" in some other way. Someone arguing against it, need only refer to guideline or policy (as I did); if on top of that, the original reference, neither guideline nor policy, was used incorrectly, it's fair to point that out, which I did.
2. Not misinterpreting anything. It's perfectly common for editors to use one of p. or pp. params for pages. I see nothing wrong with changing them on an individual basis to improve a page, but systemic changes of this nature which cause no other substantive improvement to the page are not supported by policy. You may be right that someone should take it up at Help:CS1 and improve the doc, but I'm already past my quota wrt how many words I feel like devoting to such a minuscule point, so I don't think I'll be addressing that for the time being. Would be good if someone did, though.
3. Wrt CITEVAR, yes it applies to styles, but I believe I originally said something about MOS:VAR as well (or should have) which includes the particular case of multiple valid ways to do something, and not arbitrarily switching among them.

This kind of change executed as part of an AWB run is okay, imho, when there are specific improvements to the article that accompany it; I believe there's a guideline that says something about that wrt AWB or perhaps bots in general. That was not that case this time, it was just a run hitting any article with citations with 'p.' and 'pp.' and applying the fixes on this page was inappropriate. As far as "reverting without discussion", it was the original editor's redo after a revert that was inappropriate, as was yours, but at least you started a discussion, simultaneous to the one I started on your TP. Dontcha just love it, when someone who reverts without discussion, leaves a message about not reverting without discussion? (Based on our xRR rules, it can be an effective technique, unfortunately.) Finally, I do agree with having the discussion in one place, but since we were writing simultaneously and I saw it as behavioral (BRD) it seemed to me a UTP was the right place. Would've been the other editor's TP had they continued a 3rd time, but since you jumped in, it ended up there.

However, all these param-alias changes are just minor annoyances in the grand scheme of things, and I just wish people would stick to policy and guidelines, as well as observing BRD and other best practices. Now, I've got other things to do. If the two of you want it this way that much, fine; I'm done here. Next time, though, can we discuss first, and revert later? Thanks, and happy editing. Mathglot (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

|page=2–9 is an error. It should use |pages=. That is not a CITEVAR issue; it's just a mistake that should be fixed. Fixing errors is not in the scope of CITEVAR. [Edited to add: I have found and fixed a few dozen more such errors, along with multiple citation template errors. Errors are not style.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

One of the reasons WP:3RR and more generally WP:EW and WP:Consensus is the way it is is because sometimes things can be resolved by edit (summary). Much of the time, that doesn't work of course. That's maybe why Goszei reverted. Maybe it's because he didn't know better. (I cannot read minds and don't care to on here. Too many pathological editors. :)

Yes, you are misinterpreting what the uses of those parameters are (irrespective of why the wording in question on Help:CS1 is the way it is). As for "perfectly common" -> WP:OSE. Many editors do not do X correctly. When you (general) see that, you fix that and move on, whether it's parameters like this or someone using {{navbox}} as a {{sidebar}} (cough {{campaignbox}} cough). That's why the change in question is in AWB's general changes list (it wasn't made specifically by Goszei): AWB can see that someone did something wrong here and took a shot at cleaning it.

MOS:VAR still doesn't protect the wrong way, it protects multiple acceptable ways to indicate something. The template guidance subsequently indicates (or tries to, perhaps badly or in such a way that you particularly were able to misinterpret it) the acceptable way to have page X or pages Y and Z in a CS1/2 template. That said, MOS:VAR doesn't broadly apply to citations because we already have CITEVAR. (For better or worse; I know that SMC was considering a general WP:Variation in style some time ago to collect our *VARs, as these are not the only two.)

You're looking for WP:COSMETIC. This change was not cosmetic, however. It meaningfully and correctly changed some |page= uses to |pages= uses where appropriate, which has a subsequent change in the appearance of the article. (And trust me, if this edit were not correct, we would have heard about it at WT:AWB a long long time ago.) Izno (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Missing or ambiguous full citations

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 |year= value in both the short and full citations in question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Chronology of Forms of Government Not Clear

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)