Talk:Entente Cordiale

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) 22:44, 1 April 2007‎ (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.95.199 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"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)

Role of the Entente in the path to the war

I removed the following paragraph. "Convinced that they had British support, the French became ever more belligerent in their attitude towards the Germans, fully demonstrated in the Moroccan crises of 1905 and 1911.[opinion needs balancing] Concerned by possible encirclement, the Germans grew ever more alienated. An arrangement that had been intended to improve Britain's standing in the world merely added to the tensions within Europe, and became just another milestone on the road to the Great War[citation needed]." There are two breach of WP:NOP. First a judgement non substanciated on a change of attitude from the French, second a suggestion that the agreement was not good for Britain and was actually a positive factor leading to the war. This is controversial argument which is certainly not the one the historiography has adopted. Who could say that war would have been less likely without the agreement? Without disrespect for Germany, it is fair to state that in 1870 as in 1914 the German state opted for an invasion, "Entente Cordiale" or not.Gpeilon (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you can explain why you find the representation of that point of view more problematic than The change had its roots in a British loss of confidence after the Second Boer War, and a growing fear that the country was isolated in the face of a potentially aggressive Germany. Hidden behind this vague trope-laden word salad, it is glossed over that the UK had a growing fear of no longer being the world hegemon and no longer living off the world at everyone's expense, with no power of equal size and ability. This notion of a world conqueror like the UK being a vigilant watchman "forever determined to stem aggression" is real cute, though. And for the record, France invaded Germany in 1870, not the other way around. Please don't tell me your Ph.D is in history, because this is extremely basic knowledge. Asa3432 (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Entente aimed against Germany or Russia

In Christopher Clark's book on the outbreak of World War I, in the third chapter, he suggests that Britain in approaching France had less Germany in mind than Russia, and the imperial competition with it. What is the opinion here? Should the article touch on this point? -- And Rew 21:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This article should be expanded to cover the interwar & WWII

As it says on the tin. Suggestions on how to do this? Or please don't be shy to feel wp:bold & just {{sofixit}}. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Entente cordiale didn't really exist formally after World War I. 108.207.32.2 (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I am removing the tag on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Entente Cordiale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160104235929/http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/entente_toc.html to http://www.heritage.nf.ca/exploration/entente_toc.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110610125404/http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/publications/pdfs/entente/ententeenglish.pdf to http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/publications/pdfs/entente/ententeenglish.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110610125434/http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/publications/pdfs/entente/ententefrancais.pdf to http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/publications/pdfs/entente/ententefrancais.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Entente Cordiale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115034035/http://www.entente-cordiale.org/ to http://www.entente-cordiale.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The UK had no ally but Japan? What about Portugal?

I see the reference explicitely says "the UK had no ally but Japan" but what about Portugal? Please check these articles and their sources:

Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance: "may be the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force"

Treaty_of_Windsor_(1386): "established a pact of mutual support between the countries"

I propose Portugal to be added alongside Japan in that sentence.

179.159.56.84 (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Portugal was a very weak country that was on the verge of bankruptcy --the alliance was very old but did not help Britain. Mentioning it is misleading in the article's context of power politics. Try "no significant ally except Japan." Rjensen (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If no one objects I am changing that to "Britain had no major power ally apart from Japan"

- 179.159.56.84 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

″A stronger relationship between France and Britain in the face of German aggression″

″The Entente was not a formal alliance and did not involve close collaboration, nor was it intended to be directed against Germany. However, it paved the way for a stronger relationship between France and Britain in the face of German aggression.″ – that's a little bit biased in my view. There was no ″German aggression″ at the time and French politicians clearly pursued a policy of encirclement of Germany by forging alliances with Russia and Britain. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 17:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

our views don't matter - only matters what the RS states 2603:6080:21F0:6140:387D:58AF:CDF4:732F (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)