Jump to content

Talk:Françafrique: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→2st century: removing irrelevant source
resolve conflict in PIQA ratings
 
(38 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{British-English}}
{{British-English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject France|class=Start}}
{{WikiProject France}}
{{WikiProject Africa|class=Start|importance=Mid|}}
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=Mid|}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=Start}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=|importance=Low}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{Annual readership}}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice |age=31 |units=days |bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 21: Line 20:
|image-width=
|image-width=
|auto=short
|auto=short
|age=
}}
31

|units=
=="domaine présidentiel"==
days

|bot=
Should be something about former French colonies in sub-Saharan Africa as a "domaine présidentiel", in which for many years the French president could pursue unilateral policies and intervene with French military units, largely without any democratic supervision or scrutiny from parliament etc... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC) --
lowercase sigmabot III}}
<blockquote>"L'Afrique constitue, on le sait, un domaine présidentiel propre qui échappe très largement aux hommes du Quai d'Orsay"[http://books.google.com/books?id=32EWNUyV1ywC&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333&dq=%22domaine+presidentiel%22+afrique&source=bl&ots=ZZklTHS9Hd&sig=a2yaa9g-whEl2eZ3AtAhwmskCp0&hl=en&ei=urzVTcP7DMru0gGnsOy3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBg]</blockquote>

== Be bold ==

Needs some editing. M. Sarkozy is not President anymore...--[[User:E4024|E4024]] ([[User talk:E4024|talk]]) 22:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

== Françafrique is a term ==

@[[User:danielkueh]] I reconsidered and concluded that it is more appropriate to clarify what "Françafrique" actually is (a term with a context) and not simply state what it represents in the first sentence. From the first sentence alone, it's not obvious that it's a term with particular connotations. Secondly, it's in a foreign language, which means there's even more reason to clarify. Thirdly, the lead sentence should be the first to refer to it as a term, not the second, as is the case currently. The fact that it is referred to as a term in the rest of the lead gives further weight to referring to it as such in the first sentence. Lastly, the first sentence simply isn't clear enough. It leaves readers believing that Françafrique is the only term to appropriately refer to France's relationship with its former African colonies, which isn't the case. The term is actually used in a historical and diplomatic context which is explained in the body of the article. [[User:SpikeballUnion|SpikeballUnion]] ([[User talk:SpikeballUnion|talk]]) 19:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
:Wikipedia's policy page ([[WP:ISATERMFOR]]) describes why using the phrase "is a term" or "refers to" is unnecessary. As to your specific points:
:*Of course francafrique is a term. What else could it be? Describing it as a term is meaningless. Besides, the [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/world/africa/13africa.html New York Times citation] doesn't describe it as a term. So why should we do it here?
:*Yes, francafrique is foreign in origin. But so what? In fact, many common words in English are foreign in origin. In fact, francafrique is already widely used in articles written in English (e.g., [[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/world/africa/13africa.html], [https://qz.com/998126/emmanuel-macron-will-not-change-frances-francafrique-grip-in-africa/], [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-lepen-chad-idUSKBN16T34O], [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/global/the-return-of-francafrique.html], [https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/may/26/refused-francafrique-new-track-listen]). It won't be long before it enters the English lexicon. Assuming it hasn't already.
:*Just because the second sentence uses the word "term," doesn't mean the first sentence needs to do so as well. This is a matter of style. The word "term" in the second sentence is used more like a pronoun. Sort of like, "John is happy. That boy is never sad." We don't need to say, " John is a boy that is happy. That boy is never sad." It is just redundant.
:*What does it matter if there are other terms to describe France's relationship with its former colonies? There are other terms for dogs (e.g., canine, hound, pooch, tyke). Yet, you don't see the WP article on [[dog]]s describing it as a "term for ...." do you?
:*"The term is actually used in a historical and diplomatic context which is explained in the body of the article." Yes, you're right. That is what the rest of the article is for.
:[[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 20:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
::Françafrique is not simply France's relationship with its former African colonies. It's the current neo-colonial arrangement of foreign policy that France has adopted. France's foreign policy can change (as Marine Le Pen indicated in the respective article you linked), and has changed in the past, and referring to Françafrique as simply France's relationship with its former African colonies is simply incorrect and misleading. Just improving the lead sentence "Françafrique is [or refers to] the system of foreign policy France has adopted towards its former African colonies since their independence." or something similar would make the lead 100x better. If there isn't any objection to this (since it doesn't need to use "is a term"), I'll [[WP:BOLD|boldly]] edit something along the lines of it. [[User:SpikeballUnion|SpikeballUnion]] ([[User talk:SpikeballUnion|talk]]) 21:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
:::Per Wikipedia's policies (see [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]), you need to provide a source. Otherwise, it is considered original research (see [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]]). Currently, your proposal is at variance with the existing NY Times citation, which supports the current lead sentence. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 21:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

== Lead definition ==
{{ping|SUM1}} Best to continue the discussion here. In the meantime, I have removed three sources from the lead definition for the following reason:
:*Al Jazeera: Not a trustworthy source (see [https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-web-browser-fake-news-how-it-works-2019-1#17-al-jazeera-not-trustworthy-17] for specific reasons)
:*New York Times opinion piece: It's an opinion piece and is hardly neutral
:*OpenDemocracy: Site has an agenda and is not necessarily the best source for encyclopedia articles. The merits of their agenda are not in dispute here. It's the fact that they have one.
[[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 16:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|Danielkueh}} I read [[User talk:SUM1#POV Pushing on Francafrique|your comment on my talk page]], and I'm still not sure why you consider this a POV matter.
:::It is a "POV" matter because you are presenting a point of view of Francafrique from a particular period. As the article clearly states, the term changed over time. The sources you used to support that position are biased or were taken out of context. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 16:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Danielkueh}} No. France's relationship with its former African colonies changed over time, not Françafrique. Françafrique is the term for the specific arrangement sometimes termed "neo-colonial". It wouldn't be written that Françafrique may be "dead" if the word referred to France's relationship in general with its former African colonies. [[User:SUM1|SUM1]] ([[User talk:SUM1|talk]]) 21:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::No, read the sources again and look at the list of descriptions below taken from contemporary sources. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 21:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
::There's no opinion contained within my proposal ("a system of foreign policy adopted by France towards its former African colonies"). My proposal is simply a clearer-worded definition of Françafrique. The current lead sentence ("France's relationship with its former African colonies") is not clear enough. It's inaccurate and open to misinterpretation for the reasons I've already stated many times before.
:::Seems clear to me. France has a relationship with its former African colonies. What could be misinterpretated? [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 16:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
::::Yes, it does. But that's not what Françafrique is. That's what foreign policy is. Françafrique is what I mentioned earlier. [[User:SUM1|SUM1]] ([[User talk:SUM1|talk]]) 21:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::Huh?!?! [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 21:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
::Whether the specific sources cited are opinion pieces is irrelevant to the matter I'm trying to propose. Just remove them and find new ones, and rightly so. I'm not here to debate the sources or their accuracy; I'm only interested in the wording of the lead sentence being unable to be misinterpreted. [[User:SUM1|SUM1]] ([[User talk:SUM1|talk]]) 16:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
:::It is VERY relevant. We only cite reliable sources (see [[WP:NEWSORG]]). And the sources guide us in how we present the information. In fact, [[WP:NEWSORG]] clearly states (my emphasis in bold):
::::"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are '''rarely reliable for statements of fact'''."
:::::I said it's not relevant '''to the matter I'm trying to propose''', which you misunderstood and continue to misunderstand as a POV issue. You think Françafrique is a term for all of France's foreign policy to all of its former African colonies, when in reality it's the term for the specific arrangement that some people have called "neo-colonial" which was at its height during the Cold War. Françafrique is contained within France's relationship with its African colonies. Françafrique is not equal to France's relationship with its former African colonies. That's what you're failing to understand. It's an issue of semantics, not POV. [[User:SUM1|SUM1]] ([[User talk:SUM1|talk]]) 21:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::READ this carefully. Whatever you propose must be backed up by reliable sources. If it is not backed up by sources, you have NOTHING. So there's no point discussing it further. Got it? [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 21:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
:::The lead definition should be based on facts. If all you have are just sources that are overly critical of France and only provide a list of all the terrible things that France did in particular period and then say, "There! That's ''Francafrique'' for you!", then it's bias. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 16:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
::::Not even remotely related to what I'm trying to do in any way. [[User:SUM1|SUM1]] ([[User talk:SUM1|talk]]) 21:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
::::In an effort to move this discussion forward, here's a sample of current quotes describing ''Francafrique'' taken from various sources:
:::::*“France’s relationship with its former African colonies is known as “Françafrique,” which is commonly mocked as “France à fric,” since “fric” is slang for money.” - New York Times [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/world/africa/13africa.html?mtrref=undefined&gwh=73BE6CDB2BF8F54921E0009C3ECAA53E&gwt=pay]
:::::*“Francafrique had strong colonial underpinnings. Former French colonies provided France with valuable raw material and minerals while opening their markets to French imports. In return, France guaranteed national security and a steady flow of aid.” - Quartz [https://qz.com/africa/998126/emmanuel-macron-will-not-change-frances-francafrique-grip-in-africa/]
:::::*“Francafrique describes an informal web of relationships Paris has maintained with its former African colonies and its support, sometimes in the form of military backing, for politicians who favor French business interests.” - Reuters [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-lepen-chad-idUSKBN16T34O]
:::::*“While recent French presidents have vowed to do away with the shadowy network of money and power widely known as Francafrique, business hasn’t slowed down.” - Bloomberg [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-27/bollore-s-african-billions-land-him-in-trouble-back-in-paris]
:::::*‘“Francafrique,” a hydra-headed entanglement of commercial, military and political interests, with France pulling the strings.” - New York Times [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/world/africa/france-airstrikes-chad.html]
:::::*"It might be argued that France, alone of all ex-colonialists, has actively retained strong political, economic and social ties with Africa. Certainly, the word ''la Francafrique'' has no equivalent with regard to Britain or Portugal’s connections with the continent (Chafer, 2002a). Initially, ''la Francafrique'' was a positive expression, crafted by President Felix Houphouet-Boigny of Cote d’Ivoire, denoting France’s historically close ties to Africa. However, the term in contemporary usage has primarily negative and neocolonial connotations, being reused by the noted French critic of Paris’ relations with African autocrats, Francois-Xavier Verschave, in his book, ''La Francafrique, le plus long scandale de la Repubique'' (Verschave, 1998)." - Taylor, Ian The International Relations of Sub-Saharan Africa [https://books.google.com/books?id=sy7gXFGRjvgC&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q&f=false]
:::::*“Verschave defines the Franco-African complex (or Francafrique) thus:

:::::::Francafrique indicates a nebula of economic, political, and military actors, in France and Africa, organized in networks and lobbies, and polarized on the monopolization of two revenues: raw materials and government aid. The logic of this draining is to prohibit initiatives outside the circle of the initiates. The system, self-degrading, is recycled in its criminalization. It is naturally hostile toward democracy. The term also evokes confusion, a domestic familiarity tending toward becoming private (Verschave, 1999, 175).

::::::- Bruno Charbonneau, France and the New Imperialism: Security Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa [https://books.google.com/books?id=s71AUHSEWPMC&pg=PA56&dq=francafrique&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB7cGYv9_hAhWSoJ4KHU53C4cQ6AEwBHoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=francafrique&f=false]

::::As you can see, the above descriptions of Francafrique are complex and has changed over time and not just restricted to the events immediately after the 1960s where "They say France has repeatedly used anti-democratic means on the continent to further dictatorships or overthrow unfriendly governments if they serve French interests, while openly extolling democratic values." ([https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-39843396]) Hence, the current definition is vague almost by necessity, as it seeks to capture all of the above. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]])
:::::{{ping|SUM1}} If you would like to get specific, perhaps we could try something that captures the points made by the above-mentioned sources as follows:
::::::"'''Françafrique''' is the series of economic, political, and security arrangements that France has with its former African colonies."
:::::[[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 20:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::Once again you misunderstand the issue, which is a semantic one. That suggestion would not be semantically correct. Again, that suggestion describes France's relationship with its former African colonies, '''not ''' Françafrique. The fact of what I said earlier, that Françafrique is not equal to France's relationship with its former African colonies, is what you need to understand in order to move forward. [[User:SUM1|SUM1]] ([[User talk:SUM1|talk]]) 21:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Before you make any claim about my understanding of the issue, I suggest you take the time to read the sources carefully and understand the history of the term and how it has changed over the time. You seem intent on restricting the definition of the term to just the period of the Cold War. Yet, you are proposing a bizarre definition that seems impenetrable and doesn't even convey whatever it is that you want to convey. For instance, what on earth is "system of foreign policy?!?!" Where did you get that from? Is that a technical term? Did you just make that up? If so, see [[WP:OR]]. Take a few moments and think about it. That definition doesn't tell us anything. Again, READ the descriptions from the listed sources above. At least the present definition and counter proposal are consistent with them. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 21:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

=== RfC on lead sentence ===

Survey on lead sentence between an Option A and an Option B. 2-year-old debate between 2 editors, initially triggered by a condensation of the lead sentence (Option A) in May 2017 by [[User:Danielkueh]] which I believed left the sentence ambiguous and inaccurate as to Françafrique's actual meaning. [[User:SUM1|SUM1]] ([[User talk:SUM1|talk]]) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

==== Background ====

* Françafrique, as far as I and [[User talk:SUM1#POV Pushing on Francafrique|most sources]] are concerned, is the term given to a specific arrangement of France's foreign policy towards its former African colonies which some sources have called "neo-colonial" and may or may not still be in place.<br>
* [[User:Danielkueh|Danielkueh]] believes that the term refers to all of France's foreign policy with its former African colonies in general.<br>
* I argued that sources would not be writing that Françafrique may be "dead" if the word referred to France's relationship in general with its former African colonies.<br>
::'''False''': I never "believe" that "the term refers to all of France's foreign policy with its former African colonies in general." Anyone who has ready my comments, edits, and the sources will notice that I never even use the term "[[foreign policy]]." READ my comments again before misrepresenting what I actually wrote. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 14:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
::: By all means you were welcome to add your clarifications to this request for comment about what you believed, because it sure wouldn't surprise me if I got your position wrong as you have got mine wrong thus far. But the lead sentence you defended is what I took as what you believed, and that is what it states. [[User:SUM1|SUM1]] ([[User talk:SUM1|talk]]) 20:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
::::You mean I have to clean up your mess?!?!? You couldn't have asked?!?! If you had done so and continued to discuss in good faith, we would have made progress. But instead you wrote all this?!?! Much of which are patently false and dishonest. I have to come in, clarify, and defend myself. Unbelievable. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 03:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
* [[User:Danielkueh|Danielkueh]] believes I'm putting forward a POV issue and is unusually insistent on reverting my clarifications to his lead sentence, despite them being uncontroversial (in my opinion), but I've only ever put it forward as a semantic issue. I don't care about whether Françafrique is neo-colonial or not neo-colonial, I only care about what it is, a specific arrangement in history.
::I reverted your edits because they go beyond what the sources say (see above and see [[WP:OR]]). And yes, your edits do violate [[WP:NPOV]] because they are based primarily on biased sources (see above) AND your interpretation of those sources. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 14:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
2 years later of multiple propositions from me, and [[User:Danielkueh]] doesn't want to budge from his initially proposed lead sentence. (Reverted any changes a total of 8 times despite 2 talk page discussions.)
::You have not provided multiple proposals for the lead nor engaged in serious discussion about those proposals, if any. Instead, you kept editing the article directly (e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Françafrique&oldid=907177318], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Françafrique&oldid=893263980], ) without regard for input from other editors or for WP policy (e.g., see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Françafrique&oldid=787376473]). By the way, when editors write "per talk" in their edit summaries, it means they have successfully resolved an issue on the talk page. You haven't. And here you are, posting an RfC and framing the issue, again, without input from other editors, and you're still wondering why you're not making progress on this page. Good luck. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 14:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure what you mean, but this is my attempt at getting input from other editors. Because the issue won't progress as long as we don't have that. [[User:SUM1|SUM1]] ([[User talk:SUM1|talk]]) 20:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
::::Uh huh. Let me spell it out to you "what I meant." When editors discuss an issue on a talk page, they usually come to a resolution of some kind BEFORE making changes to the page itself. For example, one editor may propose a new text, another editor may suggest a revision, and another editor would suggest another one. This goes back and forth for a while until an agreement (or consensus) is reached. Finally, when the editors have come to a consensus, someone would then write something along the lines of "it looks good. Go ahead and make the edit." The edit is then made. But you have not done that. In fact, you have the cheek to write in your edit per "per talk page,..." (e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Françafrique&oldid=907177318]) when we have yet to fully discuss this issue. I have responded to ALL of your comments above but you, however, have not addressed mine. In fact, you just 1) ignored my comments and WP policies, 2) inserted questionable sources, and 3) edited the lead definition anyway based on your POV. And no, typing out a quote from a source that does not support your proposed lead definition just doesn't cut it. And when things don't go your way, you arbitrarily put out a bias RfC, without even bothering to discuss how the problem should be phrased, and throwing me under the bus in the process. And now I have to clean up your mess by having to "add clarifications" because you misrepresented my views and concerns! Really?!?! You call this collaboration?!?! You have some nerve! You can propose a thousand RfCs or continue to disregard my concerns or those of other editors, but as long as WP policies such as [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:OR]], [[WP:SYNTH]], [[WP:consensus]], [[WP:ISATERMFOR]], etc, still exist, your current proposal, "Option B," will NEVER see the light of day. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 20:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


== International relations ==
The current debate is [[Talk:Françafrique#Fran%C3%A7afrique%20is%20a%20term|no longer]] about the addition of the phrase "a term for" (which itself would've qualified it sufficiently for me and would've been exempt from [[MOS:REDUNDANCY]] by the fact of the article being about a term (and a controversial one at that), which Danielkueh didn't seem to get) and is now about two propositions to the lead sentence. My last suggestion (Option B) made a point of using the past perfect tense to suggest the arrangement may not be in place anymore, but it was still not accepted:
:NO. I "got it" perfectly. You just insisted on ignoring WP's policy [[WP:ISATERMFOR]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrançafrique&type=revision&diff=787665466&oldid=617579175]) even after it was explained to you ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SUM1/Archive_1#Francafrique]]). And as far as I can see, there are NO "EXEMPTIONS" listed on [[MOS:REDUNDANCY]]. In fact, [[MOS:REDUNDANCY]] explicitly states to "'''Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence'''." To state otherwise is just plain dishonest. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 03:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


{{yo|Lubiesque}}, if you believe that francafrique is an "informal term" that is not used in international relations, you're welcome to discuss it here. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 18:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*<del> '''Option A:''' '''{{lang|fr|Françafrique}}''' ({{IPA-fr|fʁɑ̃safʁik}}) is [[France]]'s relationship with its [[French African colonies|former African colonies]].<ref name="Steven Erlanger">{{cite news | author= Steven Erlanger | title = Rwandan Leader, in Paris, Seeks to Ease Tensions | newspaper = The New York Times | date = 12 September 2011 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/world/africa/13africa.html}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-39843396 |title=French election: What Emmanuel Macron's win means for Africa |date=2017-05-19 |work=[[BBC News Online]] |access-date=2017-08-14 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sy7gXFGRjvgC&pg=PA51 |title=The International Relations of Sub-Saharan Africa |last=Taylor |first=Ian |date=2010-04-01 |publisher=A&C Black |isbn=9780826434012 |pages=51 }}</ref></del>
:The lead of the French Wikipedia article "Françafrique" says it all (correctly):
:Although '''Option A''' is consistent with reliable sources, there is a better descriptor. See the discussion below for details. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 02:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
:"The term 'Françafrique' is used, in general pejoratively, to denote the special relationship, qualified as neo-colonial by its critics, established by France and its former sub-Saharan African colonies. [...] In a broader sense, the term 'Françafrique', which has come into common usage due to it frequent use by the major newspapers (such as Le Monde, Libération or L'Express) is used to condemn France's foreign policy toward African countries.[...]"
* '''Option B:''' '''{{lang|fr|Françafrique}}''' ({{IPA-fr|fʁɑ̃safʁik}}) is a system of foreign policy [[France]] adopted towards its [[French African colonies|former African colonies]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-39843396|title=French election: What Emmanuel Macron's win means for Africa|last=|first=|date=2017-05-19|work=[[BBC News Online]]|access-date=2017-08-14|quote=The system of personal networks which backed these controversial practices is pejoratively referred to as "Francafrique".}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sy7gXFGRjvgC&pg=PA51|title=The International Relations of Sub-Saharan Africa|last=Taylor|first=Ian|date=2010-04-01|publisher=A&C Black|year=|isbn=9780826434012|location=|pages=51|quote=It might be argued that France, alone of all ex-colonialists, has actively retained strong political, economic and social ties with Africa. Certainly, the word la Françafrique has no equivalent with regard to Britain or Portugal’s connections with the continent (Chafer, 2002a). ... However, the term in contemporary usage has primarily negative and neocolonial connotations... Consequently, there has been somewhat of a rethink regarding relations between France and Africa and a move away from some of the more nakedly disreputable activities associated with la Françafrique (Cumming, 2000). This has now been included in President Nicolas Sarkozy’s wider calls for a “rupture” in French politics and economics ... La Françafrique is ostensibly included in this break from the past.}}</ref> <small>(with quotes in the citations)</small>
::We don't rely on other WP articles as reliable sources (see [[WP:USERG]]). And since this is an English language version of Wikipedia, all things being equal, English sources are preferred over non-English ones (see [[WP:RSUE]]).
:There's nothing in the quote (or book) by Taylor to support wording the lead definition in this way. In fact, many reliable sources use terms such as "sphere of influence, networks, ties, relations, etc" to describe ''Francafrique'' (check out the links to reliable sources in the discussion below for details). None uses "system of foreign policy," which, frankly speaking, is a meaningless and unexplained phrase. It was inferred and made up, which is inconsistent with WP policy ([[WP:OR]]). In fact, it's not clear what the OP intended when he used that phrase as he contradicted himself when he stated:
::I don't doubt the negative connotations associated with the term francafrique, but that is already explained in the third sentence of the first lead paragraph, details of which are covered extensively throughout the entire article. Moreover, many reliable sources have gone beyond just describing the initial negative connotations associated with the use of term. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 01:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
::"Yes, it does. But that's not what Françafrique is. That's what foreign policy is. Françafrique is what I mentioned earlier (see [[Talk:Françafrique#Lead definition]] above)."
:The origin/etymology of the word is dealt with in the core of the article only. Naturally, there is nothing about the use of the term "in international relations". --[[User:Lubiesque|Lubiesque]] ([[User talk:Lubiesque|talk]]) 00:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
:So ''Francafrique'' is a "system of foreign policy" but not a "foreign policy"? Does that even make sense?!?! And no, ''Francafrique'' is not dead. That's a misquote of a 2017 BBC article, which clearly states "'''But Francafrique is not totally dead. Mr Macron says he will finally kill it off'''."[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39843396] Finally, Option B is based in part on questionable sources (see [[Talk:Françafrique#Lead definition]] above). In fact, the OP even deleted a reliable source ([https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/world/africa/13africa.html]) that is inconsistent with one of his edits in the past ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Françafrique&type=revision&diff=795532636&oldid=791264976]). Unreal. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 03:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
::The current lead definition is based on several English language peer-reviewed journal articles taken from journals that specifically cover international relations such as the [[European Journal of International Relations]], [[The National Interest]], [https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-international-relations-of-sub-saharan-africa-9780826434012/|The International Relations of Sub-Saharan Africa], and [[African Affairs]], just to name a few. Their coverage of francafrique is quite rich and extensive, and goes beyond the origins and initial pejorative use of the term. We could, if you like, specifically mention that francafrique is published in academic journals and taught at institutions (e.g., [https://www.hamilton.edu/academics/offcampusstudy/france/curriculum/courses-in-paris-schools],[https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/polwiss/forschung/oekonomie/ipoe/mitarbeiter/Kopie-Ehemalige/ehemalige/dreher/Bild-dreher/Syllabus/Syllabus---_GEND_-The-Politics-of-Economic-Growth-_WS-16-17_.pdf]) to make it clear that it is a topic of interest in political science and/or international relations. But that is just silly and overkill. Besides, if the historical, economic, political, and cultural relations between France and her former colonies do not constitute "international relations," then what does? [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 01:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
:::"The current lead definition is based on several English language peer-reviewed journal articles taken from journals that specifically cover international relations such as the...."
:::I will remind you that in Wikipedia, the lead should be a summary of the key point of the article, and not something based on "peer-reviewed journal articles".--[[User:Lubiesque|Lubiesque]] ([[User talk:Lubiesque|talk]]) 01:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
::::I strongly suggest that you take a moment to familiarize yourself with WP's policy of verifiability, which clearly states that all WP articles must be based on reliable sources ([[WP:V]]). More specifically, "'''material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses''' (see [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]])." And yes, the current lead does summarize the entire article. Not only that, it must "'''conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation''' ([[MOS:LEADCITE]])." [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 01:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: African Politics=={{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/African_Politics_(Spring_2022) | assignments = [[User:Faridama|Faridama]], [[User:Gtardieu|Gtardieu]] | start_date = 2022-01-17 | end_date = 2022-05-11 }}
{{reflist talk}}


==Wiki Education assignment: Aid, Arms, and Armies - The Politics of Intervention in Africa==
I invite any editors from any area to add their input and put an end to this once and for all. [[User:SUM1|SUM1]] ([[User talk:SUM1|talk]]) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Williams_College/Aid,_Arms,_and_Armies_-_The_Politics_of_Intervention_in_Africa_(Spring_2023) | assignments = [[User:Aleksander Ramirez|Aleksander Ramirez]] | start_date = 2023-02-02 | end_date = 2023-05-08 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Kchiuc|Kchiuc]] ([[User talk:Kchiuc|talk]]) 02:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)</span>
==== Survey ====
*'''Option B''' does a better job reflecting the usage of RSs cited in this discussion. Both the BBC and the Taylor text refer to Françafrique as a subset of French policy in Africa: the BBC specifically identifies Françafrique as referring to the personal networks undergirding French policy in Africa, whereas Taylor strongly implies that it would be possible to establish (new) foreign policy in Africa that represents a break with the practices of Françafrique. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 21:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks for the input, Rosguill. My principal objection to option B would be phrase the "system of foreign policy." It is not clear what this phrase actually means nor is this phrased used in any of the sources. The sources do, however, use terms such as "networks, ties, relations, etc" to describe Francafrique. <del>and I would certainly be open to using those terms in the lead definition.</del> In fact, [[sphere of influence]] is the most appropriate term to describe ''Francafrique''. Here are quotes from reliable sources that use this term:
::*In the peer-reviewed [[European Journal of International Relations]], Maja Bovcon, an Oxford-trained Africa Senior Analyst, stated that:
:::"In its simplest sense, ''Françafrique'' can be interpreted within IR literature as meaning France’s ‘'''sphere of influence'''’ or its ‘pré carré’ (backyard), which presupposes the hierarchical order of an otherwise anarchical international system."[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1354066111413309?journalCode=ejta]
::*In Chapter 3 (p. 66) of Taylor's book, he concludes the following:
:::"It seems now apparent that the very concept of ''la Francafrique'' when it to pertains to a form of gross dependency on France by African elites is now unattractive. But conversely, when it facilitates the benefits that may be accrued from parts of Africa being within the French '''sphere of influence''', or the continuation of the exploitation of the continent's raw materials, then close ties between Paris and African capitals is desirable."[https://books.google.com/books?id=sy7gXFGRjvgC&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q&f=false]
::*In the journal Modern and Contemporary France, Professor Tony Chafer of the University of Portsmouth writes:
:::"Since political independence, France has maintained a privileged '''sphere of influence'''—the so-called ‘pré carré’—in sub-Saharan Africa, based on a series of family-like ties with its former colonies."[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0963948052000341196]
::*In the foreign policy journal [[The National Interest]], journalist Kaye Whiteman wrote:
:::"For those involved in what has become to known nowadays as "Francafrique", denoting the special French '''sphere of influence''' in Africa, many along Albert Bourgi of ''Jeune Afrique'', saw Foccart's death as an end of an epoch."[https://www.jstor.org/stable/42897073?casa_token=3IdXT_hWLCQAAAAA:QqD7pmpczY8hCQsLkR4CtTu5UtDEmRHJiIET8o5sGQ5AENs6m2ijhbqoZI8B05Rgcq8tndai0JoZUqG1p_Wsc1Dq2PUxJM8XqPjFBHCXSDxk1DHPGgw&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents]
::*In the coverage of Robert Bougi by the news network France24, they wrote:
:::"Foccart, who helped De Gaulle maintain France’s '''sphere of influence''' over its former colonies after the fires of independence spread across Africa in the 1960s, took Bourgi under his wing."[https://www.france24.com/en/20110912-bourgi-chirac-cash-briefcases-campaign-funds-villepin-african-diplomacy-sarkozy]
::Based on the above sources, I proposed replacing "France's relationship with its former..." with "France's sphere of influence over its former...", which is consistent with and supported by the sources. [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 22:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
:::I accept this proposition. [[User:SUM1|SUM1]] ([[User talk:SUM1|talk]]) 05:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


== 2st century ==
== Map ==


While the map used on this page is very interesting and informative, I don't think it should be used without any information on the source. Specifically the way that spheres of influence are drawn seem somewhat arbitrary, and leave information out such as the dominance of rebels in Northern Chad. [[User:Catjacket|Catjacket]] ([[User talk:Catjacket|talk]]) 13:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello {{u|Danielkueh}}, I added some other info to the 21st century section. Please tell me your thoughts on why this piece is irrelevant:


:Agreed. A complete lack of sources places into question both the borders shown and the spheres of influence. The borders for Jihadist activity in the Sahel look far more detailed than comparable maps of the conflict (https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/mi/research-analysis/africa-conflict-series-sahel.html). It has serious errors like showing Djibo under Jihadist control, which was not the case when the map was last updated in November 2023. The spheres of influence are also suspect and seem more based on "vibes" rather than the views of reliable sources (Gabon for example is shown as Russia despite the coup's appointed prime minister stating "The junta will keep its close relationship with France as it was a major investor in Gabon, while it will also strengthen ties with other countries in order to boost the economy" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66745738).
On January 19, 2019, Deputy Prime Minister of Italy [[Luigi Di Maio]] accused France of creating poverty in Africa and fueling the [[European migrant crisis]], saying:<blockquote>"If France didn’t have its African colonies—because that’s what they should be called—it would be the 15th largest world economy. Instead, it’s among the first, exactly because of what it is doing in Africa."<ref>{{Cite news|last=Willsher|first=Kim|date=2019-01-27|title=Italy and France’s refugee dispute awakens a dark colonial legacy|language=en-GB|work=The Observer|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/italy-france-refugee-dispute-awakens-dark-colonial-legacy-migration|access-date=2020-06-21|issn=0029-7712}}</ref></blockquote>
:The map is still useful in the contents section, such as the Post-Cold War era. However, for the infobox it needs to go unless serious efforts are made by the mapmaker to cite sources. If nothing changes after about a month I'll move it out of the infobox. [[User:HetmanTheResearcher|HetmanTheResearcher]] ([[User talk:HetmanTheResearcher|talk]]) 07:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
[[User:إيان|إيان]] ([[User talk:إيان|talk]]) 17:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:19, 1 March 2024

International relations

[edit]

@Lubiesque:, if you believe that francafrique is an "informal term" that is not used in international relations, you're welcome to discuss it here. danielkueh (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of the French Wikipedia article "Françafrique" says it all (correctly):
"The term 'Françafrique' is used, in general pejoratively, to denote the special relationship, qualified as neo-colonial by its critics, established by France and its former sub-Saharan African colonies. [...] In a broader sense, the term 'Françafrique', which has come into common usage due to it frequent use by the major newspapers (such as Le Monde, Libération or L'Express) is used to condemn France's foreign policy toward African countries.[...]"
We don't rely on other WP articles as reliable sources (see WP:USERG). And since this is an English language version of Wikipedia, all things being equal, English sources are preferred over non-English ones (see WP:RSUE).
I don't doubt the negative connotations associated with the term francafrique, but that is already explained in the third sentence of the first lead paragraph, details of which are covered extensively throughout the entire article. Moreover, many reliable sources have gone beyond just describing the initial negative connotations associated with the use of term. danielkueh (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The origin/etymology of the word is dealt with in the core of the article only. Naturally, there is nothing about the use of the term "in international relations". --Lubiesque (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current lead definition is based on several English language peer-reviewed journal articles taken from journals that specifically cover international relations such as the European Journal of International Relations, The National Interest, International Relations of Sub-Saharan Africa, and African Affairs, just to name a few. Their coverage of francafrique is quite rich and extensive, and goes beyond the origins and initial pejorative use of the term. We could, if you like, specifically mention that francafrique is published in academic journals and taught at institutions (e.g., [1],[2]) to make it clear that it is a topic of interest in political science and/or international relations. But that is just silly and overkill. Besides, if the historical, economic, political, and cultural relations between France and her former colonies do not constitute "international relations," then what does? danielkueh (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The current lead definition is based on several English language peer-reviewed journal articles taken from journals that specifically cover international relations such as the...."
I will remind you that in Wikipedia, the lead should be a summary of the key point of the article, and not something based on "peer-reviewed journal articles".--Lubiesque (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest that you take a moment to familiarize yourself with WP's policy of verifiability, which clearly states that all WP articles must be based on reliable sources (WP:V). More specifically, "material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP)." And yes, the current lead does summarize the entire article. Not only that, it must "conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation (MOS:LEADCITE)." danielkueh (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==Wiki Education assignment: African Politics== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Faridama, Gtardieu (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Aid, Arms, and Armies - The Politics of Intervention in Africa

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aleksander Ramirez (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kchiuc (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

While the map used on this page is very interesting and informative, I don't think it should be used without any information on the source. Specifically the way that spheres of influence are drawn seem somewhat arbitrary, and leave information out such as the dominance of rebels in Northern Chad. Catjacket (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A complete lack of sources places into question both the borders shown and the spheres of influence. The borders for Jihadist activity in the Sahel look far more detailed than comparable maps of the conflict (https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/mi/research-analysis/africa-conflict-series-sahel.html). It has serious errors like showing Djibo under Jihadist control, which was not the case when the map was last updated in November 2023. The spheres of influence are also suspect and seem more based on "vibes" rather than the views of reliable sources (Gabon for example is shown as Russia despite the coup's appointed prime minister stating "The junta will keep its close relationship with France as it was a major investor in Gabon, while it will also strengthen ties with other countries in order to boost the economy" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66745738).
The map is still useful in the contents section, such as the Post-Cold War era. However, for the infobox it needs to go unless serious efforts are made by the mapmaker to cite sources. If nothing changes after about a month I'll move it out of the infobox. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Françafrique&oldid=1211242450"