Talk:Françafrique

International relations
, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, |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., ,) 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)

Wiki Education assignment: Aid, Arms, and Armies - The Politics of Intervention in Africa
— Assignment last updated by Kchiuc (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

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. Catjacket (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)