Talk:Organisation internationale de la Francophonie

Significant non members (United Kingdom)

Looking through the significant 'non members' of the Francaphonie, I am surprised to see the absence of the United Kingdom. French is the most popular foreign language in the UK and 23% of British residents claim they can speak French. This I believe is more significant than some of the official observers such as Slovakia who can simply say that 2% can speak French. I believe this is a case to put the UK forward as a significant non member. This is also not to mention the huge number of French expats living in major British cities and studying in French 'lycées' on British Land. This presents the French culture in many British neighbourhoods and it's still evident that people taking French in the UK is on the rise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.252.31 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, add it then! Aaker (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Francophonie, like the British Council, is a post-colonial entity exercising a neo-colonial agenda of promoting language and national interests. Hence they're essentially rival international players. Britain would not join Francophonie, just as France would not join the British Council. A greater proportion of French people speak English than English people speak French.Gymnophoria (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC) poo pee

Name

Article might be misnamed. See french wkipedia article on "Francophonie", I quote: "En outre, on confond parfois la francophonie en tant que concept avec l'Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF), organisation beaucoup plus politique et économique que culturelle, qui regroupe un certain nombre de pays qui ne sont pas pour autant ceux où le français est fréquemment utilisé ou reconnu officiellement."

This article is only discussing the political organisation, which at least in French is not to my knowledge often referred to as "la Francophonie". Is this really what people call it in English? Even if this is the case the article could benefit from distinction between francophonie and the OIF; numerous members of latter are not normally thought of as being in former.

Human rights

I am tempted to delete the paragraph related to the observancy of human rights and I will do it unless someone timmmy is my best firends me that it is essential to keep it. It is irrelevant to the spirit and contents of this page. Otherwise we should include it in practically any single page of the wikipedia. Pedron 17:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Several of the member states have a poor record when it comes to the protection of human rights and the practice of democracy. A proposed measure to sanction such countries was debated at least twice, but was not approved."

temptation was too strong for me, of course this paragraph was totally irrelevant and absolutely non neutral. Why do not add a paragraph about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the one of Dresden by the British? The nations the most prompts of giving democracy lessons are not necessarily the legitimate ones if you know what i mean. We also could add a paragraph or two about The Great Upheaval of the French spokers Acadians by the Americans, wich is described by some as an ethnical cleansing. Another paragraph could note the Cajun prosecution in Louisiana when the Americans have prohibited the use of French wich was their native language! We could also add a reference to the British treatment of the forbidden children born of British and natives in Australia! How they were separated from their family to be "humanized" and get proper education, those who were assassinated. Yes there are many irrelevant things to reveal about those who consider themselves as teachers of the Human Rights. Synchronicity I 04:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is relevant because other similar organisations do make a point of promoting democracy and human rights. Is it appropriate for prominent democracies such as France to associate with less salubrious regimes without making an overt effort to promote good governance? EdC 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the promotion of human rights and democracy are stated as official goals of the oganisation. Check the website. 12:07, 5 September 2006 Taciturnus

A painting of a French seaport from 1638, at the height of mercantilism.

AFAIK (from what i red in the fr vers and watched on french TV about the creation/promo of a new sat channel) this OIF organisation is NOT political, but only economical and cultural.

British editors tends to compare it with Commonwealth wich is totally different. This is actually a way for the french to promote and to sell overseas their own artists, writers, publishers, French speaking satellite TV channels and TV shows and series!! this is it! The french uses the fear of uniformisation of cultures (understand the americanization of cultures), wich is associated to anglophony, as an excuse. The true purpose is mercantilism of the french culture. Francophonie is an international economical network linking sellers (French publishers etc) and buyers (former colonies) with each others to create a french culture market. Since there is no more colonial expeditions, now they use "francophonie" as a new vehicle for an economical/cultural imperialism.

Oh, OK. I think that has helped me understand the situation. Still, the comparison with the Commonwealth has been and will be made, and deserves at least to be touched on. EdC 11:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Francophonie's geostrategical importance is minor, even though people consuming french products and french culture will more easily support france's international political views.

The Commonwealth, geostrategic? Actually, I suppose it is in a way. EdC 11:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think france is that much a democracy, as many foreign political observers (and even some french university teachers) describes it more as a monarchy in disguise with a few priviliged people inc. the president, of course, who had amnestied his friends (see the polemical, recent, "Guy Drut" case) and even himself! This is not a direct democracy like Switzerland (mainly because the latter is a small scaled state). there's not that much referendums in france (its said to be too expensive!!), but how could it be true democracy when nobody asks the people before acting?!

Well, direct democracy has its own problems, as do referenda. Not that it couldn't work elsewhere, but Switzerland is a pretty special case. Have you read Why Switzerland? (ISBN 0521484537) - I very much recommend it. Also, while certainly the énarques run everything in France, it still retains a certain democratic cachet - liberté and all that. EdC 11:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Is it appropriate for prominent democracies such as France to associate with less salubrious regimes without making an overt effort to promote good governance?" i'm sorry to tell, but what you're saying now is just the colonialist's traditional speech. france (and nobody, being the british, or the americans) is legitimate to promote any kind of "good governance" in a country. What is a "good" governance? how can you define "good"? is it on a religious aspect? wich religion? yours? them? what is "good" and what is not is defined by each culture. no country is legitimate to promote a specific governance into a foreign civilization. what about the right to self-determination for each people that was granted by WWII winners wich included the 2 major colonialists Britain & France ?? the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is NOT universal since its intrinsic "universality" was self-proclaimed by UN members of that time who claimed that THEY were the humanity and that THEY were universal, but this is bullshit since there is no universality in this declaration wich was proclaimed by a bunch of christians countries who were the WWII winners. Nobody asked the Chinese nor the Indians whose populations covers half of the whole humanity, nobody asked the muslims while its the second world religion. This is a well known and ancient tendencie named Ethnocentrism, since the beginning, the colonial expeditions led by the British and the French were Europeocentrists, they considered themselves both as the center of the world and as the standard of humanity just like the Romans, or the Athenians before them, calling all non-Athenians as barbarian wich is pejorative for non-greek (ie "non-human") spoken languages. But no country is legitimate to promote a political regime over another one to a civilization that is older and who didn't asked such advice. Each People has the right to self-determination THIS is a legitimate universal right. Synchronicity I 05:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, to me the rights of the individual trump a people's right to self-determination. (A viewpoint shared not only by crazy anarcho-liberals like myself - of which there are a fair number on Wikipedia - but also pretty much anyone who finds themselves on the receiving end of their people's "right to self-determination". Oh, and "there is no such thing as society".) "Good governance" - is a fairly technical term in the context of international development, actually. The Wikipedia article of that name does a pretty fair job of exploring its facets. It's a fairly empirical concept, the idea - borne out to a degree by historical evidence - being that countries which work towards good governance will do better (on metrics such as HDI) than countries which do not.

I don't think mention of alleged WWII war crimes is relevant to the article. Mention of previous French-speaking populations in the now United States could well be appropriate, if written in an appropriate historical context. I don't think the experience of Australian native populations is relevant, unless of course they were French-speaking. (Were they?) EdC 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

it wasn't relevant, it was just cynicism, a reminder, a demonstration the british nor the americans are legitimate to promote human rights in foreign countries, nor to judge or condamn local political views abroad, they are not even legitimate to do this in an "encylopedia". considering their own History, these human rights teachers are absolutely not legitimate to get a such arrogant attitude toward foreign countries. Synchronicity I 05:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one opinion. Another is that now recognising past mistakes, the richer countries are bound to help the nationals of poorer and less free countries towards the rights and privileges their own citizens enjoy. By the way, "legitimate" can't be used as a part of speech in the way you have done above. (No, I have no idea why.) I would suggest "have the right to"; I don't think there's a direct Latinate equivalent. (Perhaps "are entitled to", but that's subtly different in tone.) EdC 11:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not very relevant.... Several former English colonies have a poor record when it comes to the protection of human rights and the practice of democracy. Ericd 14:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And why is that relevant? Aaker 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And Commonwealth of Nations mentions that organisation's policy on human rights: "... placing moral pressure on members who violate international laws, such as human rights laws, and abandon democratically-elected government ...". Human rights policy is a fit subject for this article, however it reflects on the organisation. EdC 20:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Francophonie is simply not that ambitious. it's not the French Commonwealth. Synchronicity I 05:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV stuff

Does anyone else think this is really necessary. I believe it makes the page very NPOV. 'Several of the member states have a poor record when it comes to the protection of human rights and the practice of democracy. A proposed measure to impose sanctions on such countries was debated at least twice but was not approved. This is not surprising as the purpose of the organisation is not to promote international cooperation or human rights.' -- the preceding unsigned comment was added by User:136.159.219.190 20:07, 6 July 2006

I don't really get why that paragraph breaks the NPOV rule. No specific country is even named. It is only normal to discuss a little bit of what is going on within the organization. This is a good example of something that is a subject of debate between these countries. -- Mathieugp 12:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the organization, this is only an irrelevant free talk while many important things are missing when comparing this article with the French one, starting with the colors used on the Francophonie map to separate the different uses of French language as native, language, cultural, minority!

Bleu foncé : langue maternelle

Bleu : langue administrative

Bleu clair : langue de culture

Vert : minorités francophones.

This is what happen when editors mistaken francophobia to francophonie and start editing with no knowledge at all. I'm sorry if the truth hurts. By the way i noticed that even the French article used "Francophonie" w/o the article... Synchronicity I 04:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you can improve the article by importing information from the French-language article, then please do so! I'll start by importing the map. EdC 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

i'll be happy to do it, i was just afraid that some people here would revert my edits if i dare. i just need some time and i'll translate stuff from the FR to the EN, so the localization/neutralization would be able. Synchronicity I 05:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Great! EdC 11:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided against it; that's a map of French language distribution, thus not appropriate for this article per se. Also, we already have a map of members of the organisation. I added it to Francophone instead. (It's already at French langauge, in the infobox.) EdC 19:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The assertions made in the quoted segment ('Several of the member states... cooperation or human rights.') however true they may be (or may not be) are worded as if they were the mere opinion of the person who wrote that segment. That passage should be edited to be more factual. 'Amnesty International has repeatedly faulted X, Y, Z for human right violations..., etc.' or 'At the 200X annual meeting of la Francophonie, sanctions against X, Y, Z were proposed but not approved...' It is not that the topic covered is inappropriate, just the wording. --Kartavyam 10:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the NPOV problem settled? Cause whatever it was is apparently removed from the article, can we remove the NPOV tag yet? Xlegiofalco 06:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Italy, Francophonie as cultural vehicle

Francophonie claims also the Val d'Aoste region of Italy.

Good original article, the comment above on Francophonie as the vehicle of an alternative culture to Anglo-Saxon/consumer society/etc. is bang on (I would be interested to know if anyone has ever read anything comparing or about the influence of Francophonie on the EU). But should this not be pointed out in the article, as it is the raison d'être of the enterprise? Jeremynicholas 06:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about member states (ExpandSection, Wikify)

Off-topic, out of curiosity: I've just seen the list of member states, associate members and additional states of La Francophonie. The membership of many of these countries is obvious, like France, Belgium and Switzerland. But could anyone explain to me what the link of Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania, Egypt, Albania, Greece, Republic of Macedonia, Armenia, Austria, Croatia, Georgia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia with the French language is? Is Armenia's membership possibly related to the fact that France has a large Armenian majority? Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started on this and added Expandsection so hopefully someone will complete it (if that's overkill, feel free to detag it). However, it doesn't look like Mediawiki likes nested dictionary lists, so I've added a wikify to hopefully get some guru attention (if there's a better way to ask for that, feel free to implement it). My reasons were handraulically generated from parsing country articles, so this should also be checked over by an expert. (Or at least someone who speaks French! :O Vagary 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the opening section, as it's a whopping lie to call the Francophonie a collection of French-speaking polities and governments. As an English speaker who CAN speak French, I would not say that I am a French-speaker. Greece and so on speak Greek etc., then English, then French. Just because it's taught in schools doesn't make them Francophone. Also, there is a difference in understanding in English between 'Francophone' and 'French-speaking'. There are only a few properly French-speaking regions: France, just under half of Belgium, Monaco, a quarter of Switzerland, Haiti, etc. Francophone countries may use French as a lingua Franca (no pun intended), that is as an official means of communication between different languages in the countries (like Berber and Arabic, for example). By this standard, India, Nigeria, Burma and even to some extent most of the world would be 'English-speaking'. This is clearly nonsense. They are Francophone. However, greece, Albania, Bulgaria and Armenia are involved just to seek ties with France and for educational purposes - there are benefits if they want French as an option in schools. This is De Gaulle's dream; a perfect opportunity to claim mentorship over most of the world. They are in the Francophonie for the same reason that Mozambiquei is in the Commonwealth despite its lack of any historical ties to Britain whatsoever. It doesn't ask much to join but there are some benefits. It doesn't mean much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.91.225 (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with the Commonwealth of Nations

The article states: "Unlike some similar organisations such as the Commonwealth of Nations, La Francophonie does not have in its stated aims the promotion of democracy and human rights. This has led to some criticism as several of the member states have a poor record when it comes to the protection of human rights and the practice of democracy; a proposed measure to impose sanctions on such countries was debated at least twice but was not approved."

That is not true.

1) The stated missions of Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, include "Paix, démocratie et droits de l'Homme" (Peace, Democracy, and Rights of Man). Read the Novembre 3rd 2000 Déclaration de Bamako on this subject. There is actually a section on the initiatives, financing and agenda of the organisation in regards to one of its stated mission of "Paix, démocratie et droits de l'Homme" here: http://www.francophonie.org/actions/democratie/index.cfm

2) Since 1) is not true, "it" (the alledged absense of aims to promote democracy and human rights) cannot have lead to the criticism. The criticism actually came from within the organisation itself. The media relayed information on internal criticism around 1997 when Premier of Quebec Lucien Bouchard, former Ambassador of Canada to France, promoted the idea of a Charter in order for the organisation to sanction member countries that are known to violate Human Rights. The idea was rejected by France. Read this Le Droit article by journalist Paul Gaboury dated November 18 1997 : http://www.vigile.net/francophonie/gabouryvoix.html -- Mathieugp 03:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Membership

I have no particular interest in la Francophonie but rather a Ghanaian interest. While reading my daily dose of African news this morning (30 Sep 2006) I learned that Ghana is now a full member of the organization. http://news.africast.com/africastv/article.php?newsID=60007 Your article states that there are 53 member nations. I linked over to the la Francophonie website from your article and, if I am reading the French correctly, that site states that there are 55 member nations. Also, as of this morning Ghana is still listed as an associate member on that site. I am writing this only to give you guys a heads up. CaliOjosAzules 13:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"?

I bevieve that it's best to use the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" and not just "Republic of Macedonia" on the list of the EU members, since the official name that this country entered the organisation is "Ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine" http://www.francophonie.org/oif/membres.cfm xvvx 14:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be listed under the name FYROM. Also, why is FYROM a member of the Francophonie? What's the rationale? --myselfalso 03:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mauritius

AFAIK french is co-official in Mauritius http://www.geonames.de/coumu.html Ybgursey 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Serbia - a member or only an observer?

The Francophonie website does not list Serbia as its member, but rather as an observer. [1]. An anon IP listed it here two weeks ago under the observer heading. However, it was "elevated" to a member status by a registered contributor a couple of days later. The remark about Serbia's "historical traditional friendly relations" with France also looks like POV. I will wait for the time being before making changes to see if anyone has anything to share on the subject . RedZebra 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Both questions seem to have been taken care of by an anon IP. RedZebra 08:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit member table

Would it help the table by listing the countries by membership status rather than alphabetically? Xlegiofalco 01:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try to change it. Aaker 18:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

French minority in Romania?

The member states table says that French is a "minority language" in Romania and provides a link to Romania#Demographics, which does not contain any such information, though. I have never heard about any French minority in Romania, neither has a Romanian friend of mine. Unless someone can provide plausible evidence I suggest to remove this information. --Thorsten1 11:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if the claim of the existence of the French-speaking minority in Romania eventually proves to be true. However I invite the person who inserted it to provide a valid reference. In the meantime this interesting assertion will have to go. --RedZebra 12:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

French is understood and spoken by more than a quarter of the population. This is probably the reason why the reference was made to it being a minority language. - Parmaestro 05:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I still think it would be incorrect to call it a minority language. By the same token, English would become a minority language in dozens of countries. --RedZebra 21:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

French understood by 24% of Romanians? Lie!!!

Yeah, 24% doesn't seem t be enough, they are probably even more numerous than that. Aaker 11:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

French and Romanian are both Romance languages, though I believe Romanian is closer to Italian. I know that Spanish and Portugese are similar enough to read, though spoken are more different. Perhaps there is some kind of relationship between Romanian and French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.45.254 (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalism!

someone more expert than me should revert the vandalism... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.59.145.201 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Albania

Could someone explain why Albania and other Eastern European states have joined the organisation? Aaker 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a sizeable number of French-speakers in some of these countries (Romania, Bulgaria etc). French has also beein the preferred language of the elite in many of these countries. Besides one shouldn't forget political advantages of the joining an organisation which is quite reputable and whose members and particularly leading countries would like to offer some alternative approaches to managing the process of globalisation.--RedZebra 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wallonia

Wallonie and the Communauté Française are NOT alternative names for the same thing - one is a geographical region, one a rather more ethereal body which includes French speakers throughout Belgium (for most intents and purposes covering Wallonia minus the Ostkantonen plus the separate Brussels-Capital region). The flag shown in the table is that of Wallonia; I don't think that the Community has a flag although the official site (http://www.cfwb.be) does use the cockerel emblem in red on white. 82.71.38.203 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

True; I've corrected that, thanks. I've kept the Walloon flag of red cockerel on yellow field; fr:Communauté française de Belgique#Drapeau says that the Walloon flag has been adopted by the Community. The red on white emblem is for the Administration. –EdC 10:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

French Community

Is the Francophonie the formal successor to the French Community? If so, neither article mentions this. Wl219 07:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) No. The Francophonie includes Canada, Belgium, and a number of other countries that were never part of the French Community. Joeldl 12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

English name

The name "International Organization of La Francophonie" is used in English in official Canadian documents. In Canada, "Minister responsible for La Francophonie" has been an official title. Josée Verner is currently the "Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages". (She holds two portfolios.) The only thing that seems to vary is whether to capitalize "la". One sees it capitalized in "The Agency has been La Francophonie's direct operating agency for higher education and research since 1989 [...][2], and uncapitalized in The first Charter of la Francophonie was adopted in Marrakech, Morocco, in 1996 during the annual Ministerial Conference of la Francophonie." [3]. In the very same text, you can even see "the Francophonie" in "The first Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, political spokesperson and official representative of the Francophonie internationally, was elected at the Hanoi Summit." Nonetheless, the capitalized form "La Francophonie" seems to predominate. The acronym for the organization is OIF, even in English. Joeldl 09:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another aspect of the English form of the name which varies (or is there a standard way?) is whether to spell organisation with an "s" or a "z". 86.42.212.74 (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the argument can be made that this is a Canada-related topic in the same way that EU institutions are considered UK/Ireland-related. (See WP:ENGVAR for this.) With the complication that the Francophonie could also be Cameroon-related! In any case, we have an attested English name used by a member state that speaks English.Joeldl (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Should a {{Canadian English}} tag be slapped on this article then? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the title should be in english, since this is english wikipedia. --Rochelimit (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Critères d'adhésion

Before you start complaining about the status of French in some member states, you should read these critères d'adhésion. Aaker 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Observers?

What do the observers actually do? This article just lists them without any explanation. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

History section

Wouldn't it just be grand if this article had a history section? Zazaban (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

In the first sentence, it's said that "La Francophonie is an international organisation of French-speaking countries ". This isn't really the case, nobody could call countries such as Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania and Cyprus "French-speaking" by any stretch of imagination. In none of these countries is French even a minority language, it's not a community language and it is not even the first foreign language in most of these countries, coming after English. JdeJ (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

countries and governments

It is indeed an organization of "countries and governments", in the sense that some of its members are sovereign States, while others are non-sovereign States. Quebec and New Brunswick both have the status of "participating governments". -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thailand is an observer

The page shows a map - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-Francophonie_organisation_2008.png - in which Thailand is shown in the same color as members. However, the page lists Thailand as an observer. Can someone please clarify and correct it? --RohanDhruva (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki links

The links with the French wikipedia seem a little confused. The link from here goes to Francophonie on the fr.wiki. However, the equivalent should surely be Organisation internationale de la francophonie. Francophone should be the target for the French Francophonie article as that discusses French speaking in general. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 12:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If it was done by an interwiki bot, it's likely to be quite messed up. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd title

Are people aware that the title of this page is actually Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (olf) not oif? I suggest that this article be moved to Organisation internationale de la Francophonie in any case, but this "olf" thing is pretty odd. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a typo, in any case, it's odd to have the "(xxx)" anyways... just strip the parenthetical text, and have a better title. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Francophonie?

Does anyone think there should be a WP:WikiProject Francophonie? It would be like WP:WikiProject Commonwealth that handles the British Commonwealth. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. I doubt it would have enough members or interest to be effective. Oreo Priest ^talk 11:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

After a week... it looks like not so much interest. It would have been nice to have a WikiProject to cover former French colonies, the OIF, the francophone world, and the French language... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is to be presumed that most if not all people who would be interested in participating to such a project can read/write French. If that is true, then bilingual French-English users can join the French fr:Projet:Français and declare their intention to work mostly on improving the French-related articles of the English Wikipedia. The project has already produced a decent fr:Portail:Francophonie. -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

One could make a task force of the French language, but it would have to be the daughter of a parent project. Then maybe the task force will grow and become a project at a later date. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That would only cover language issues, not territory, or history. It could not be a TF for WPFRANCE either, it'd have to be a joint task force between the WPCANADA/Quebec/NB, WPFRANCE, WPBELGIUM, WPSWITZERLAND at the very least. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia-Herzegovina is not listed as an observer or member on the official Francophonie website... can someone please remove their light blue status on the map? --BignBad (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of changing the map, the Francophonie accepted BiH as an observing member of the francophonoe in 2010 :) -- 92.241.140.194 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Madagascar

Madagascar is a suspended member according to this article [4]. Aaker (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Move to 'Francophonie'

This page should be at Francophonie as per the WP:UCN policy: 'Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.' 60.242.48.18 (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)