This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Some of these links were pointing to articles such as 'Minister of Culture' whilst displaying 'Ministry of Culture' (for example) as the title. I have rectified them. We need to be consistent at least. Also, the proper English translation would be 'Department of Culture' rather than 'Ministry of Culture', something that needs to be addressed through all related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgill (talk • contribs)
Question, do ministers have to be chosen from among assembly members? If so, do they still retain their seats in the assembly and of their consituencies/district? --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
No, ministers don't have to be chosen among Assembly members. It is possible to be a minister or the Prime Minister, without having ever been elected anywhere. And yes, if a minister is an Assembly member, he retains his seat. Akseli9 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved: discussion ran 30 days, no messages in last 15 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Mr Appleyard, there is no dispute. Instead of trying to verify what was done, you've made a false mess. Let me repeat what I wrote on my talk, and explain why I did what I did and support closing this speedily. Also note that I created Political background of France to play home to the political parties stuff, which is more appropriate. This is not a conflict between varieties of English. This is a conflict between stupidity and intelligence.
@Oreo Priest: Do you speak French? I imagine not. That body is not a Cabinet. It is not a Cabinet in French, and it isn't one in English either. "Cabinet" means something else in French, specifically, it usually means the staff of each minister, called the ministerial cabinet. What's more, the Government is not even equivalent of a "Cabinet". Instead, the Council of Ministers, which is a meeting of senior ministers, is equivalent to the British Cabinet. That body is sometimes informally called the "cabinet" by the French. If you don't understand parliamentary systems, and if you don't speak French, you need to not work on these type of articles. "Cabinet" is a pure blatant falsity, because this article isn't about ministerial cabinets, and it isn't about the Council of Ministers either. It is about the government, just like with the British government. The idea of translating "Gouvernement de la République française" as "cabinet" is absurd in every possible way. By the way, "government" does not mean "cabinet" in British English either. "Government" refers to the Her Majesty's Government, which includes all ministers, junior and senior. "Cabinet" refers to only the senior ministers. This same exact arrangement is used in the Commonwealth realms, such as your mentioned Australia and Canada, along with France, and so on. The problem is that you're applying concepts that don't work in a parliamentary system to a parliamentary system. RGloucester — ☎ 15:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
About the words "stupidity and intelligence" used above :: please avoid argumentum ad hominem. Thanks. As there was dispute as to which article to move to the name Government of France, to try to be neutral I turned it into a disambig between the two pages involved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I shan't, I shan't. If there is stupidity, I'll call it as such. RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that set of lovely ad hominems; naturally anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid. As for whether or not I speak French, I must say you "imagined" far too much. I do in fact speak French, as even a cursory glance at my user page would show, and I speak it every single day. Having addressed the personal attacks, I'll address the substance of the discussion below. Oreo Priesttalk 22:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I suppose your French isn't doing you any favours. Do you speak English, then? RGloucester — ☎ 23:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Johnbod: It isn't a shorthand. It is the official name. The official name of this body is the "Government of the French Republic", aka "Gouvernement de la République française". Please see the Constitution (Title III, Article 20). It isn't a shorthand in reference to the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of Australia, or the Government of Canada, either. That doesn't change the fact that this body is not a cabinet. This is not a cabinet, at all. If there is an analogue to a cabinet in the French system of government, that'd be the Council of Ministers, which is an executive sub-group within the government. The government is not a cabinet. It includes junior ministers, as well. RGloucester — ☎ 17:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The executive branch of France has no official English name, because English is not a national language of France. Whatever word is used in French is of tangential relevance at best; if the French word has a different meaning than the English one, then its false friend should not be used in English. I can't imagine you would argue that shower gel soap (gel douche) should be translated as douche gel, and likewise gouvernement does not mean exactly the same thing as government and should not be naively translated that way. Oreo Priesttalk 22:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
gouvernement may not mean exactly the same thing as government, but gouvernement certainly cannot be translated as cabinet. Translating "gouvernement as government, is by far much more accurate than translating it as "cabinet", which is simply wrong, false and misleading. Akseli9 (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
It does mean the exact same thing, in French and English. RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
It cannot possibly mean the exact same thing in French and English because it doesn't even have a single consistent meaning in English. In a similar vein, 'cabinet' being a poor, misleading title is no argument for moving it to 'government', another poor, misleading title. Oreo Priesttalk 07:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you think this article is about a cabinet? Do you agree that this article is not about a cabinet? Then why would you leave it at that, being called cabinet when it's not a cabinet? Akseli9 (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not clear to me why you haven't acknowledged the proposal of other titles that have the drawbacks of neither 'cabinet' nor 'government'. Moving it to an illogical title that violates policy is not the only option. Oreo Priesttalk 12:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I've seen them all and they are sensible efforts but I still think the simple and straightforward (and correct, btw) "government" is the one that works best (makes most sense) for this article. Akseli9 (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Moving it to the common name, the correct translation, is not illogical. You're trying hard and failing here. This is a "government". There are no drawbacks to calling it a "government". "Executive government" is a not-existent phrase that no one uses to refer to this body. Therefore it cannot be used. RGloucester — ☎ 14:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
There are no drawbacks to calling it a "government". Then you haven't even read what I've said. For the vast majority of readers, it is not a 'government' at all, but only part of one. If you like, we can call it the 'executive' or 'executive branch', which are terms people certainly do use. Oreo Priesttalk 17:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
What "vast majority"? The vast majority of the English-speaking world (Britain, Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, all English-speaking African countries) calls this a "government", and Americans call this particular entity a "government" too, because they're not so dumb as to be incapable of understanding that there are multiple meanings of the word government in contexts outside the United States. You're mixing up parliamentary and presidential systems, which are different. No one calls this the "executive branch", because it isn't the "executive branch". The executive branch of France is made-up of the government and the president together, not by one or the other alone. Once again, if you don't understand the constitutional situation of parliamentary systems, I don't understand what there is to debate with you. ☎ 17:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Now you're really failing, sir. In British English, like in Australian English, American English, Canadian English, &c., we also have the broad meaning of the word government. That isn't lost in our dialects. We have both meanings, as do all Commonwealth states, determined by context. Haven't you read the OED? Are you denying the existence of the Australian government, the Canadian government, and the New Zealand government? These exist, as they were based on the British model of government and cabinet. As far as The New York Times article is concerned, sir, it clearly refers to successive "previous governments", and also to the "Socialist government". These are clearly referring to this particular body, a component of the executive, controlled by a certain party, and not to the broad associative definition. Regardless of that, sir, you once again fail to recognise that this is not the executive branch. The executive branch of the French Republic is composed of the government and the president together. The government is not the executive branch, but only half of it. RGloucester — ☎ 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Such a move would be in violation of WP:ENGVAR. 'Government' means 'cabinet' only in British English, whereas it means the whole governing body in US, Canadian and Australian English, so the title would not match the content for the vast majority of readers. As such, I strongly oppose such a move. Further, this page began life under the US English versions, so moving it to the confusing, British English-only title violates the requirement at WP:ENGVAR that the existing variety be retained, absent a consensus to the contrary.
If the website of the French Government translate the word as "government", if the official translation of the Constitution translates the word as "government", then that's as close to official as we need to get. The English and French words have the exact same meaning. There are no "false friends" involved. In fact, the word "government" in English came into our language from French. This article is not about a "cabinet". It is about the government. As I said, if there is an equivalent to a "cabinet" in the French governmental system, that's the Council of Ministers. The government includes all junior ministers, and everyone else. The Council only includes senior ministers, and mimics almost exactly the British cabinet, which is not the same thing as the British government (which likewise is composed of all ministers, junior and senior). If you're trying to compare the French government to the American cabinet, that's not an accurate comparison. The American cabinet, firstly, exists in a presidential system. Secondly, it does not include junior ministers, which is not a concept that I think the American system even has an analogue for. It only includes secretaries that head a department. The French government includes people that are not the heads of a ministry. It includes all government ministers, including those is in ministerial cabinets. Again, if there is something you could call a cabinet in France as compared to the American concept, that'd be the Council of Ministers. However, in French, and in English scholarly works, "cabinet" usually refers to the ministerial cabinets, as I mentioned before, making this title even worse. This article simply isn't about a "cabinet". It is about the totality of the government.
This move would not violate ENGVAR, because "government" doesn't mean "cabinet" in British English either. It doesn't mean "government" in any variety of English. Honestly, have you read what I've written? This body is called the "government". And no, by the way, this article did not start at the title "Cabinet of France". It started at the title French government ministers. RGloucester — ☎ 22:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
If I may add one advice, I think RGloucester is correct. There is no such thing as a "Cabinet of France", there is a Government and this article is about the Government of France. Akseli9 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the government, not about the ministers themselves. Anyway, "Ministers" only refers to members of the Council of Ministers, and excludes Secretaries of State. The government includes both Ministers and Secretaries of State. RGloucester — ☎ 08:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the solution, Government of France should not be a disambiguation page. We have a clear WP:TWODABS situation with the subjects being closely related, almost to a WP:DABCONCEPT level. There are templates that call the "Government of" articles of different countries, so leaving it as it is would require a complicated workaround. bd2412T 04:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It is a matter of determining the primary topic. I would say that the entity called "government of France" is the primary topic of the phrase "government of France". That's just me. RGloucester — ☎ 04:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I would say that the entity called "government of France" is the primary topic of the phrase "government of France", as was the case before you unilaterally moved the page with no consensus. I would say that the status quo ante unilateral moves is the most logical solution, barring any effort by RGloucester to find compromise on a title for this page that works for everyone. Oreo Priesttalk 07:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what "works for everyone". It matters what is supported by reliable sources, and your position simply isn't, as I've demonstrated. The "status quo ante" wasn't a status quo, since it itself was a title established through a unilateral move without consensus, which totally screwed up Wikipedia and provided misinformation to readers since 2011. The government is not a cabinet. It never was a cabinet. It never can be a cabinet. The Council of Ministers is the vague equivalent of a cabinet, but it is almost NEVER CALLED A CABINET in English of French, because "CABINET" refers to something else in France, i.e. the "MINISTERIAL CABINETS". This is documented by reliable sources, which I provided when I rewrote the article, and in the above discussion. You can't do what you like and ignore sources. The sources say what they say, and nothing about them has changed. You cannot challenged reliable sources. I've provided sources that show that even Americans call this a damn government. So you know what, your whole argument is a bunch a bunk. Please stop with your little WP:BULLDOZERING exercise. It is failing. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
For fun: even Fox News, that most American of news outlets, refers to this as a government. It says "Socialist-led government", obviously referring to the collective group of people that control the executive. So does the Washington Post, which says "French senators voted 153-146 Thursday in favor of a non-binding resolution “inviting” the French government to recognize Palestine". Once again, this refers to the people in control of the executive. RGloucester — ☎ 16:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Support moving it back Horrible decision to move it away. Gives a lot of unsolvable problems elsewhere. The Bannertalk 11:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, the unilateral move was to the title 'government', and the title 'cabinet' is the status quo. Oreo Priesttalk 11:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, the unilateral move was to the title "cabinet" on 28 May 2011. RGloucester — ☎ 09:57, 12 December 2014 (5 days ago) (UTC−5)
To be clear, no French-English dictionary ever support translating the word gouvernement as "cabinet". Even if you ignore all the sources I provided that show that this body is called the government in English by reliable sources, and that show that the French government is not equivalent to a cabinet in any sense, and that the word "cabinet" means something else in the French political system, it is indefensible to translate the word gouvernement as "cabinet". One will not find ANY dictionary supporting that translation. Note, for example, the Collins Dictionary. RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is yet another book on the French constitutional structure, just to add more stuff to the pile. It only ever uses the word "cabinet" to refer to the ministerial cabinets. A quotation:
In France, ministers run their departments through personal staffs, or cabinets, each combining, within a total membership of twenty to thirty for a full ministry, a majority of high-ranking civil servants and a leavening of the minister’s close political friends (the total tally of official cabinet members for any government typically runs to about 500).
As you can see, using the word "cabinet" for this article makes no sense, and would cause so much confusion that it isn't even worth thinking about. Ministerial cabinets are what "cabinet" refers to in the French system. "Cabinet" does not ever refer to the government, and the government is not even equivalent to the concept of a cabinet in the American system. The Council of Ministers, on the other hand, may be considered equivalent to the British cabinet. Regardless, this book, like all the other sources, makes clear that this body is called the government. Note the constant references to the "prime minister and government", referring to this body. Please see page 57, which provides a nice chart to make this even more clear. Note that this book was published in the United States as well, further killing the idea that Americans cannot understand that this is called a government. RGloucester — ☎ 18:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It also makes clear what I've been trying to say, which is that the government is only one half of the executive, not the whole thing as Oreo Priest likes to say.
The Constitution of the Fifth Republic reinforced both halves of France’s dual executive: the prime minister and government in straightforward ways, the presidency in more complex and variable ways.
As I've said repeatedly, the government and the president together make the executive. The government is not the executive alone. Again, people that haven't taken the time to review the French Constitution should not be commenting on this. If they don't understand these distinctions, I don't know what I'm supposed to do here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
That source of yours only makes it clear that the title 'Government' matches British English usage, which was never in dispute. The fact that it was published in the US is wholly irrelevant, as clear British use including the use of the spelling 'colour' persists throughout. Oreo Priesttalk 10:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
So what? It doesn't matter whether sources are British or American. One cannot disqualify sources on the basis of origin or spelling-style. It matters what the totality of sources call this, and they all call it the government, whether published in America, Britain, or France. It is not irrelevant that it was published in America, as that implies that Americans can understand what "government" is. If they thought it was confusing, they would've either explained it further or chose a different word. The problem is that no other word is suitable, and that this is common usage. To be clear, once again, Britain does have a cabinet, you know? Our cabinet, however, is not the same as the French ministerial cabinets, referred to in the book as "cabinets". So no, it doesn't follow "British usage", it follows the usage of the system it is describing, not surprisingly. Still, you've provided absolutely zero sources to support your untenable position. RGloucester — ☎ 14:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Support a return to Government of France. This is Wikipedia, not Ameripedia. User:RGloucester has given ample explanation above as to why "government" is the correct term. Trying to impose terminology from a different system on France is misleading. — AjaxSmack 04:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Support return to "Government of France". I am English (BrE for convenience), absolutely nonexpert on politics, but completely baffled by this discussion. Above there appears to be a claim that BrE: "government" means XE: "cabinet", or in other words, that in some variety of English (XE), the word 'cabinet' means what we call the government. Putting aside the problem of what XE calls a cabinet, can anyone explain what variety of English XE is? It doesn't seem to be Murrican (AmE): I searched for "Austrian cabinet" (for closely related reasons) and found myself in the CIA handbook . The only thing on that page that is odd to me is "Chiefs of State", which I would expect to be "Heads of State". Otherwise, the page (AmE remember) refers to "Cabinet members of (the Austrian) government". Seems to be precisely how we would say it in BrE. I am aware, even as a nonexpert, that the bunch of people around the president are called the "Administration", so we hear "Reagan administration" and "Thatcher government", because the system is different. The only thing I could find in Norman Moss's bilingual AmE/BrE dictionary is the AmE entry for "Administration", for which he says: 'A cabinet and other officials appointed by the President'. In other words, 'cabinet' (I confess it is not 100% clear if this word itself is AmE or BrE) in the US refers to exactly what it refers to in Britain, which is the close circle of ministers around the PM/Pres. So I submit that even if this were Ameripedia, it would still be Government of France. (Look: Conservapedia  f'goodness sake!) Imaginatorium (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking at Conservapedia, as you suggested, and under the heading 'Government' it covers the parliament, the senate and the president, among other things. This certainly agrees with the having the page Government of France covering the whole topic, prior to RGloucester's unilateral move of it to Political system of France, a title that doesn't even match the content of that article. Oreo Priesttalk 13:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.