Talk:French First Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

removed this text: This marked the first occasion in many centuries where a major European state moved from monarchical to republican mode, and presaged a new era of republican government(s) in Europe.

and replaced it thus: This presaged a new era of republican government(s) in Europe.

The term "many centuries" is ambiguous first of all. Second of all, the Dutch Republic was established in the early 17th century, less than two centuries before 1795, certainly not "many centuries". I don't know if there were any other European republics established between the establishment of the Dutch Republic and establishment of the First French Republic, so I just removed the questionable line entirely.

--Henrybaker 22:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oppose scholars, editors & publishers prefer "French Third Republic" not "Third French Republic" [and likewise for the others], according to Google Scholar and Google Books search. Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various[edit]

The infobox has a title "Various" which is linked to an irrelevant article. The link is made by the template script, not the parameter to it. Is there a way to unlink it? phma 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm[edit]

there's no french version of this article... Paris By Night 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

french people arent real, thats why 64.56.102.58 (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Renaming[edit]

I think First French Republic sounds a little more proper than "French First Republic" and anyway, I believe it is a more precise translation of Première République française. In addition, it is a different naming convention than we use for First French Empire. That makes no sense. We should stick to one convention; it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to keep things as they are. Funnyhat 04:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion unfragmented, since we will either make all these name changes or none of them. Could everyone please respond on Talk:French Fourth Republic? Phaunt 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Kingdom[edit]

The French article about the flag of France (fr:Drapeau de la France) says explicitely that the de facto national flag of the Kingdom of France was a simple white flag - the lily banner was only used in presence of members of the royal family except the King: When he was present, the white flag had been hoised. To cut a long story short: Please do not insert the lily banner (Pavillon royale de France.svg) anymore, it's the wrong flag here. Louis88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.169.30.46 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag[edit]

I believe the red-white-blue tricolor was only used until about 1794, when it was switched to the current blue-white-red one.141.211.222.216 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They almost always used the Red Flag. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Expansion[edit]

I have noticed that this article is a stub, and I would like to clean it up and add to it. I have some good published sources to draw on. If anyone has any suggestions for changes I could incorporate besides those listed above, keep me posted. Tkbd2009 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2009(UTC)

Sounds good. Which sources will you use? ClioFR (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

suspension of all ordinary legality 10 October 1793[edit]

Would someone with authority on the subject please write something about the "suspension of all ordinary legality 10 October 1793" mentioned in the Constitution of France article? Thank you SaaHc2B (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-class challenged[edit]

I strongly disagree that this is B-class. It is a disguised history article, not very well sectioned nor very well referenced at that. The name implies this to be an article about state, for which the article is grossly incomplete (where is the information on leaders, organizations, politics...)? Not B class, C class at best if we are being generous, I'd say start class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible inclusion of the "History of France" template[edit]

Should one not include the template History of France? I think that would be very useful. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Although alternative proposals have been made, none seems to have gained traction, and new comments made after those proposals disagree with any move. bd2412 T 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– This article's topic is the first of France's republican government, not the French form of a general first republic. Article editor (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It's standard to write of the "Third Republic" and add "French" to the start when necessary to clariy the country. There's no reason to move to a made-up order. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the proposed word order is more natural. Britannica uses "First Republic", "Second Republic", and so forth. So France is implied and "French" doesn't need to be in the title at all. Various countries have first and second republics, but when you hear about a third, fourth, or fifth republic, you can assume its France. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC) !vote by sockpuppet of community banned user struck. Favonian (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: – Sadly for la France, that isn't correct. Please see the disambiguation pages Third Republic, Fourth Republic, and Fifth Republic. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the terms on those DABs are so rarely used that they are almost Wikipedia inventions. Try googling "Fifth Republic" -wikipedia. See also dictionary definitions here and here. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The current name isn't ideal but this would be no improvement. Qualified terms like "First French Republic" or "Fourth Republic of South Korea" are only employed for introductory or comparative usage – assuming context, historians use unqualified terms like "First (Second, et al) Republic" much more frequently. It's important for Wikipedia to keep in harmony with the established conventions of historical writing. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would support a proposal to change all article titles to the style of First Republic (country name). This is already in use for Fifth Republic (France), and seems to be the preferred form in several foreign language wikis. It has clarity, retains the common form, and offers order and applicability across the range of disambiguation. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a better idea. Both "Fifth French Republic" and "French Fifth Republic" and rarely used terms. See this ngram. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could support First Republic (France), Second Republic (France), Third Republic (France), Fourth Republic (France), and Fifth Republic (France). --Article editor (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound better -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would one of you like to take charge of making a new proposal? SteveStrummer (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we'd have to. As long as we show that there is a consensus for an alternative title (and this thread shows that there is), we can ask an admin to close the discussion according to the alternative proposal after the initial seven days. --Article editor (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that proposal. It seems artificial, more so than the present constructions. Sure, what one has isn't perfect. However, in spoken language, I was always taught "Fifth French Republic", as in the fifth entity named "French Republic", and so on. Hence, I agree with original proposal. There is no need to introduce parenthetical disambiguation unless it is absolutely needed, and furthermore, what about other entities with multiple republics? Would we change them to this new form as well? RGloucester — ☎ 20:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support of proposed move as better titles in English. Natural disambiguation is generally preferred and works better here, I think. Red Slash 22:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I have sympathy with both of the proposals mooted, neither is clearly superior to the status quo, the advantages of which are (a) avoiding parentheses and (b) the word order "Nth Republic" is the normal one. Srnec (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, I could support making the French republics the primary topics for Third Republic and Fourth Republic, probably First Republic and Fifth Republic, and maybe Second Republic. These should be individual move requests. Then we can use parenthetical disambiguation for those that don't get moved. The only really strong contenders for primacy with the French republics, as I see it, are the Second Spanish Republic and the Fifth Republic Movement. We could probably ignore the latter on grounds of recentism, but the Spanish republic is more notable than the brief Deuxième République. Srnec (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - these are commonly known as "the Nth republic" and French is basically a disambiguator, and a preferable one to parentheses, as User:Srnec notes.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French republics are primary topic in almost every case, so the titles should be First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, etc. Spain's Second Republic is only case where it is even a close call. The Viking (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title awful[edit]

Just landed here for the first time. I'm surprised that some have supported retaining that weird title. My preference would be "First Republic (France)", but anything would be better than "French First Republic".--Lubiesque (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC) I agree with you, the title should be "First Republic (France)."Gerard de Lafayette (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this title is awkward. "First French Republic" or "First Republic (France)" sound much more natural to me. 2602:306:CFEA:170:802F:8D60:48B1:E876 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To respond (although too late), that shouldn't happen. Because 1) France has not been the name of the country since 1789 and 1815-1830, even if common. 2) In every document, source and even the numerous constitutions, the name was (and still is today) French Republic. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:French Third Republic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically poor title[edit]

"French First Republic" violates the order of adjectives in English. It should be First French Republic. See here : https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/adjectives/order-of-adjectives/

2602:306:CFEA:170:7081:FD63:FD81:5C76 (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus higher that this shouldn't happen (to be precise, a lack of consensus to move the page). CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Religion[edit]

Could the infobox be reworked? All articles on the French Constitution of 1791, French Constitution of 1793 and Constitution of the Year III state that freedom of religion is protected. So for all this time there was no state religion and this should be reflected in the infobox. I would be fine with a list of all the different religions that were of significance but they should reflect "equal footing", meaning no official status.

The article on the Cult of the Supreme Being reads: "It was officially banned by Napoleon Bonaparte on 8 April 1802 with his Law on Cults of 18 Germinal, Year X.[20]"

So if at all this should be the time of cessation of these religions.

I would rework it myself, but wanted to ask for consensus beforehand. Icarusatthesun (talk)

Definitely not! Despite what these various constitutions said - and note tht "freedom of religion being protected" doesn't equal to there being "no state religion - the French Republic (before Napoleon) never had freedom of religion but rather fiercely persecuted religions it didn't like. That's even true for the time when France was a constitutional monarchy. Ironically, it was Napoleon who introduced actul freedom of religion alongside reintroducing a religion of state.
However, the "religions" section certainly bloats the info infobox. Str1977 (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms[edit]

The coat of arms shown here is different from the coat of arms shown on the article about the coats of arms of the French state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.186.72.86 (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox is longer than article[edit]

Very amusing. Either the article is too short or the infobox should be pruned. ibicdlcod (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency - move to First French Republic[edit]

CLOSED
Duplicate discussion; moved to Talk:French Fifth Republic; please comment there.

The following discussion 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.

So, the English Wikipedia has articles entitled First and Second French Empire. Number, then nationality - which is proper according to the rules of adjectival order in English.

This is not a matter of empires vs. republics, as we also have articles on the First and Second Spanish Republics.

Yet we persist with this inaccurate and inconsistent "nationality, then number" rule for the French Republics. I'm going to assume that a non-native English speaker made the innocent mistake of writing "French First Republic" in the beginning ... but do not understand why we insist on perpetuating this mistake.

But then, we spent two decades displaying the wrong flag of Austria-Hungary, so I guess we're a stubborn bunch? 2600:1702:6D0:5160:D9B3:92CC:9790:303E (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_First_Republic&oldid=1220001418"