Talk:Entente Cordiale

An event in this article is a April 8 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

---

just amazing!

"When Britain and France nearly married": BBC. and all after the english treachery against the french during the Suez Canal building... god saves the providence and dieu et mon droit. a section would worth it. Cliché Online 13:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation

I have tried to explain in the best possible way what "Entente Cordiale" means in french. - But it is neither friendly (That would be "amical"), nor an understanding (That would be an "accord"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.102.244 (talk • contribs)

I am not a linguist, but would have assumed the closest translation would surely be "cordial intention"? I believe this has the same etymology as entente cordiale. However the Oxford English Dictionary does express the phrase as meaning "A friendly understanding". - REB 26th March 2008

"Entente cordiale" or "Entente Cordiale"?

What's the reason for the move? --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Being a French locution, the proper typography is “Entente cordiale” and not “Entente Cordiale”. Med 14:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this typography of French locutions in the English language? sbandrews (t) 15:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to look for some but i have not been able to find anything useful. Frankly this locution comes from French and is used talking about France. I would find it really weird to apply english typography, especially as Wikipedia widely respects the spelling of foreign words. For instance i would compare “Entente cordiale” to Déjà vu where the french typography has been respected. Med 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not an average French phrase, but a proper term which refers to a specific treaty. Please familiarize yourself with the content of this article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have known what is the Entente cordiale for quite a while and i am quite familiar with the content of the article which, as i have already specified, talks about France. Entente cordiale is widely used in french refering to the exact same content as in the article, and as such has been picked as is by english speaking people, just as “déjà vu”. There is no difference. Med 22:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference lies in the fact that this is an English-language project. Consequently, the rules of English orthography apply here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Your stance is contradicted by numerous examples and therefore doesn't hold. I let you pick as many examples as you like in [1]. Moreover it is a matter of typography here, not orthography. And observing the content of the english speaking wikipedia makes me think that foreign locutions should be written respecting the original typography. Med 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: no need to be aggressive or patronizing with me.

“déjà vu” is not a proper noun, so is not comparable to this case,sbandrews (t) 22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want something similar to Entente cordiale, check détente, the accent has been kept, which is clearly non-english. Med 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a proper noun either. While I sympathise with the wish to remain true to the French typography, there has to be some recognised policy or reference we are following, that's all I'm saying, for example English_words_with_diacritics covers détente but not Entente Cordiale. Other example of a capitalized loan word from French is Baton Rouge sbandrews (t) 22:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Entente cordiale will never be in English_words_with_diacritics as there is no diacritic in french anyway. And Bâton-Rouge is already written Bâton-Rouge in french, not Bâton-rouge. Contrarily to Entente cordiale. :) I agree that the typography rules have to be applied. And i am sure there must be a paragraph about foreign words in any good english typography book. However if it is written that they should be englicised then Wikipedia will have an important problem given the fact that foreign words are generally written using the original typography. Med 22:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me - it is not the diacritices I was refering to - those are fine, the more the better - it's the capitalisation. English_words_with_diacritics says nothing about capitalisation of proper nouns, thats the point I was trying to make - Entente Cordiale is a proper noun, I'm giving up now, cya, sbandrews (t) 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway it is an endless talk until we find some serious references. My impression that english generally respects the foreign typography when borrowing words is just an impression. From my part the talk stops here. I won't make me sick for so little. :) Happy editing Med 23:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a case of WP:POINT, changing the title of the article to reflect how the user percieves loan words should be written rather than how they are written, together with a failure to understand the point (WP:POINT) of proper nouns. A good reading of WP:NOT would also help us see that Wikipedia is not here to correct the injustices of the English language. Discussion of this topic would probably find a good home in the French language article. sbandrews (t) 04:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Support "Entente Cordiale" as correct, formal spelling for the particular alliance system. Paul Davey (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)