Talk:Françafrique

"domaine présidentiel"

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... AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC) --

"L'Afrique constitue, on le sait, un domaine présidentiel propre qui échappe très largement aux hommes du Quai d'Orsay"[1]

Be bold

Needs some editing. M. Sarkozy is not President anymore...--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. 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 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., [[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). 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 dogs 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.

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 boldly edit something along the lines of it. 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. danielkueh (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead definition

@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 [7] 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.

danielkueh (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Danielkueh: I read 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. danielkueh (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@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. 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. 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? 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. SUM1 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Huh?!?! 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. 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. 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? 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. danielkueh (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Not even remotely related to what I'm trying to do in any way. 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 [8]
• “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 [9]
• “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 [10]
• “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 [11]
• ‘“Francafrique,” a hydra-headed entanglement of commercial, military and political interests, with France pulling the strings.” - New York Times [12]
• "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 [13]
• “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 [14]

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." ([15]) Hence, the current definition is vague almost by necessity, as it seeks to capture all of the above. danielkueh (talk)

@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."

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. 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. 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. SUM1 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Background

• Françafrique, as far as I and 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.
  
• Danielkueh believes that the term refers to all of France's foreign policy with its former African colonies in general.
  
• 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.
  

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. 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. 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. danielkueh (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• 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. 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., [16], [17], ) without regard for input from other editors or for WP policy (e.g., see [18]). 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. 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. 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., [19]) 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. danielkueh (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The current debate is 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 ([20]) even after it was explained to you ([[21]]). 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. danielkueh (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option A: Françafrique (French pronunciation: [fʁɑ̃safʁik]) is France's relationship with its former African colonies.

Although Option A is consistent with reliable sources, there is a better descriptor. See the discussion below for details. danielkueh (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Option B: Françafrique (French pronunciation: [fʁɑ̃safʁik]) is a system of foreign policy France adopted towards its former African colonies. (with quotes in the citations)

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:

"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)."

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."[22] 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 ([23]) that is inconsistent with one of his edits in the past ([24]). Unreal. danielkueh (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

References

I invite any editors from any area to add their input and put an end to this once and for all. SUM1 (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 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. and I would certainly be open to using those terms in the lead definition. 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."[25]

• 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."[26]

• 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."[27]

• 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."[28]

• 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."[29]

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. danielkueh (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)