Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States/archive 6

message: Hi. I found this in the part that discussed France's military intervention in the Ivory Coast. Since I don't know how to NPOV it, and can't find a place in the article to put counterarguments, I did what hardcore fans of the Wiki system balk at and moved it out altogether.
(this last point does not hold since France intervened in the frame of a long-signed assistance treaty with the Ivorian government as a consequence of the peaceful de-colonization involving maintenance of permanent troops even in times of peace).
Those who know what should be done with it are encouraged to do so. -- Kizor 17:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from the article

message: Marskell: I disagree, although anti-french sentiments exist in other countries, the american francophobia is unique and very disturbing. The french opposition to american policies on irak was not an isolated position. Many other countries such as germany or russia (former foes) opposed. Nevertheless, american hatred was focussed on france (a longtime ally). Why? This article is definitely justified!
:I agree, it's an interesting subject. There are some things that distinguish French opposition to the Iraq War from others. France plays, or tries to play, a leadership role. French opposition was more active and effective than others. For example, when the U.S. was lobbying UN Security Council members for support, France was counter-lobbying. Essentially, France is disliked in the U.S. because France behaves much the same way as the U.S. behaves - they take a position and expect other countries to fall in line. Whether this is leadership or arrogance depends on your point of view. Mirror Vax 21:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the "why" is concerned, it would be wise to remind the Condoleezza Rice's "Punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia!". It started the anti-French campaign in USA.--DanDx (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep and improve 

message: -- In 2001 the French ambassador to London called Israel "that shitty little country", which may explain some of the beliefs about French anti-Semitism.
Note [2007]: in French such a reference is not done on the person/country but on the mess that it creates. Litteral translation into English is a counter sense.
-- "Horrifying Fraud", a French book alleging that September 11 was faked by the Americans, was a bestseller in France.  This is one source of beliefs about anti-American French attitudes. Ken Arromdee 21:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs some more items 

message: France does have remaining overseas territories, which are represented at a national level and have varying levels of autonomy. The French territory which wants independance most is, in fact, Corsica, which few would consider a "colony".
I believe this argument to have been added in bad faith but again, maybe some people really give it credit. Any clue whether this is a significant criticism of France among the anti-French Americans? Or should we remove it?Jules LT 16:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "colonies" 

message: I have added the merger tag to this article. I think fully half of this could be dropped or compressed and the rest moved Franco-American relations. Marskell 17:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger 

message: *Francophobia 11,500 google hits
* Gallophobia 729 google hits
*Anti-French sentiment 9,320 google hits
*anti-frenchism 429 google hits
I say we go w francophobia, as it has the most google hits, and besides, I've actually heard of it ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's an adjective (or at least "adjectival") and thus I don't think right for an article. "See my Anti-French website..." "His Anti-French comments..." "Salad is also known as the 'Anti-French fry...'" :). Ah well, let's edit the article and continue the debate. Marskell 16:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Francophobia is NPOV: it's meant to emphasize its irrationality as phobias are irrational fears. I'd go for Anti-French sentiment.Jules LT 18:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Options for new article title

message: This is to say that I think there certainly should be an "Anti-French sentiment" article and that I don't think at all that it should be based on a reshaping of this one, for two main reasons:
*I think the structure of the article would be different and unsuitable things inherited from here would remain.
*The "Anti-French sentiment in the United States" is absolutely entitled to exist, just not as an article as big as Franco-American relations. I personally don't think this is such an important and peculiar thing, but it is notable and noted.
I think we should put all the relevant infos from here that aren't in Franco-American relations where they belong and start a new comprehensive Anti-French sentiment article and put there all consequently remove from here all that is not peculiar to the United States. Then, and as thing s go along, things that don't need to be here anymore will naturally be deleted, don't you think?
My idea would be to sort the Anti-French sentiment article by type of anti-Frenchism; that would be something like:
*General stereotypes and accusations of arrogance (the main accusation I hear all the time, and often justified, too).
*the Franco-English rivalry (I couldn't find an article on Franco-English relations, even on the French wikipedia! This relationship is soooo much more complex and eventful than that of France and the US, I can't understand...  Or maybe I'm not so good at searching in wikipedia; I disbelievingly hope that's what it is. Eventually, I expect such an article to take most of this section out)
*colonialism
*the revolution
*Napoleon
*the Iraq war's special case
I think I read somewhere that a study asked people all over Europe how they would describe the people of each other European country. It appears the French got only negative adjectives from everyone, although not always the same ones. Also, the French and English gave each other nearly the same adjectives, all negative, again. I've got to find that study again, but in any case I think this justifies entirely making
By the way, I'm French and I'm proud of my country. Only sometimes not of its denizens (including myself).Jules LT 18:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, if you are willing to do so much work. I am like to have a french editor helping here. I myself am american, and I can say that many people feel safe to insult the french, when jokes of blacks or others would seem impolite. I am glad of your ideas, and glad to help. Tasks  you can do 23:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I already have worked quite a bit starting the Anti-French sentiment article. I am not willing to do so much work alone, though, so I could use some help. Also, I think people feel free to make fun of French people simply because there aren't that many of them in the US, so they won't know. Also, it's easier making a caricature when you can't compare it to the facts. I know that's why I came to the US: I wanted to see the real thing.Jules LT 17:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't evolve, mutate!

message: Get busy here: Francophobia. Thanks a lot :-)
Rest of the discussion moved where it belongs: Talk:Francophobia. Jules LT 20:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Francophobia]] is now UP

message: Does anyone here want to give an opinion on Pardon my French?  Should it be expanded or merged with Francophobia? - Tεxτurε 17:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pardon my French]] 

message: The whole article is a mess. The content is alright (perhaps somewhat bowdlerized, i.e. some of the most egregious anti-French claims have been removed), but it needs to be better sorted. David.Monniaux 17:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is still a mess. It mostly talks about anti-French sentiment raised by the US invasion of Iraq (but everything in Wikipedia is soooo five minutes ago), but in the middle of that brings up a 1995 Simpsons episode. Worse, the article fails to put its subject in context by pointing out at the beginning that the US and France have enjoyed excellent diplomatic and cultural relations thruout their history and that anti-French sentiment is a persistent but minor aspect.  --Tysto 00:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resorting 

message: In the statement "Among many patriotic papers this has had little or no affect on anti-french sentiments." it is not clear what is meant by the phrase "patriotic papers". Are we talking about newspapers that supported the invasion of Iraq? If so then this makes the POV claim that newspapers that didn't support the war were unpatriotic.  It should be rewritten to be more specific as to what newspapers we are talking about what using debatable terms like "patriotic". --Cab88 04:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word patriotic

message: Changed "millennium archaic" to "millennia-old".  The original phrase reeked of pretentious diction and looked as if someone simply looked in a thesaurus for a more "impressive" word, rather than using the one that made the most sense. 160.10.220.24 17:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretentious Diction 

message: I added a quote from de Gaulle: the astounding crudeness of his public statements did at least as much damage to French prestige as his policies.  Also removed the liberal/conservative assertion.  It's unsourced and facile.  Michael Moore's travel to Cannes to accept a filmmaking award is no more a liberal endorsement of France than an American economist's travel to Stockholm to accept a Nobel Prize could be called a conservative endorsement of Sweden.  Durova 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-French sentiments, or Anti-Americanism, or Antisemitism, etc. cannot be legitimated. It can be explained by perceptions that may find support in prejudices or in legitimate criticisms. The objective of such an article is not to discuss the legitimacy of each of those criticisms. I fail to understand how those quotes will help to address this "issue" anyway, since they are just expressing prejudiced point of views. Tocquevil 10:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of edits 

message: Surely this article is about unconscious United States arrogances more than French arrogances. Should I change the title to "United States Pathology and France"? And shouldn't there be a section dissecting the underlying projections?  --Geronimo20
That suggestion is at odds with WP:NPOV.  People in the United States do have some legitimate gripes against France, as I've illustrated in my contributions to this page.  I won't speculate on how much of this sentiment is justified.  The article does have POV problems.  The solution is to balance the article and add references. Durova 22:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Pathology 

message: I removed the statement that French and Russian opposition was distinguished by France's threatened use of the "veto" as opposed to Russia's "no". (In the 2003 Iraq War section.) In reality, there is no distinction between the two. A resolution fails in the event of a negative (no) vote by any permanent member. See UN Security Council Veto Power. If you have a source showing that Russia would have abstained from a further Iraq resolution rather than voting against it, please include that information in this part of the article. AidanBC 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While technically correct, this is realistically inaccurate.  Permanent members can--and frequently do--abstain to oppose a resolution they don't support.  I didn't bother putting the comment back in becuase this article is so broken it needs a complete overhaul anyway, but there is a legitimate distinction between France's veto threat and Russia's desire to not support it.--Bibliophylax 21:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Veto vs. No vote

message: This article barely touches on Twain's apparent francophobia. Why exactly was Mark Twain so hard on the French?
:see http://www.twainquotes.com/French.html
:Some of his comments aren't witty and cross the line into direct racism e.g. "French are the connecting link between man & the monkey." 
Bwithh 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Twain

message: I'd rather just propose the above article for deletion, but I predict that the masses will vote for merging instead, so I've put a merger tags on, then the article can be merged with this article, and hopefully, edited beyond recognition. Bwithh 02:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently it only talks about US views, but hopefully the article will describe views from other countries, such as Rwanda and New Zealand. What are "the masses"? Why do you hope it gets edited beyond recognition? Thanks, 
Andjam 03:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The masses" are the anti-deletionist majority on wikipedia. This article originally started out as a spinoff of multiple attempts by people (not you)  to insert "witty" US-centric anti-french views into the military history of france article, which is why I said I'd like to see it edited beyond recognition. Why New Zealand incidentally? because of Rainbow Warriorand French nuclear testing? That is more accurately the French intelligence services and French strategic nuclear weapons policy than the military exactly Bwithh 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Since its you asking, UberCryxic, okay. But the article really needs to have significant views from outside the US. Bwithh 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Views of the French military]]

message: Although mentioned in passing throughout the article, there is no one section about France's role in the European Union. Having never been to Europe, I don't know first hand the situation there, but most Americans see France's dominating role in the EU as paradoxical. The idea of the EU (if carried out to its fullest original intentions as I understand them) would create a competitive diplomatic, economic, and scientific force that would challenge the United States's dominance. (Many Americans view this as a good thing that can only stimulate creativity and accelerate technological progress.) But France's insistance on a privileged position within the EU (such as its sense of entitlement to extravagant farm subsidies) cripple the continent's progress. Even though EU issues very rarely effect Americans directly, most who follow topic resent France's EU policy and actions because they're seen as protectionist and socialistic. Also, something about the explicit joy that many Americans expressed when the referendums on the EU constitution failed in France might be something to mention. I don't know enough about these issues to make any sort of contribution to the article, but I would like someone to explore them.--Cassmus 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: France's Role in the European Union

message: I think many people are missing the point Anti-French sentiment is, in fact, racism.  Racism is defined by the UN as any distinction or prejudicial view based on "race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin."  This article tries to validate racism against the French people by ennumerating supposed "wrongs" of the French people, culture, or government.  I don't think anyone would stand for an article on Anti-black sentiment that said that the horrid treatment of this population is deserved for some reason or another.  The section on the Iraqi war is particularly inflammatory.  Any article that describes a prejudice should not be trying to justify that prejudice.  It's quite disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AP0820 (talk • contribs) 
:I think you're making this out to be a little more extreme than it is.  Changing menu names and attempting boycotts were done to send a political message (an immature one might I add) but didn't really hurt anyone here in America, therefor doesn't count as prejudicial acts.  I skimmed through the Iraq section and found nothing particularly inflammatory about it.  The reasons given are meant to be informative to the reader, not to justify the claims.  If you find something to be incorrect, or showing a specific POV, you can discuss it here or , just be sure to keep a NPOV. --Roccyraccoon 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Unsigned on this one. This seems to be an article which attempts to justify Racism, a sort of "100 reasons why the US hates France." I look forward to the next installment, "100 reasons why the US hates black people", or even "100 reasons why the US hates the middle East", and who can forget "100 reasons why the US hates the far East". Will we ever see "100 reasons why the US hates Judaism", as we all know the US to be a fine example of racial tolerance??? Paul-b4 15:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The present article is not markedly different in tone from the Anti-Americanism article or other similar articles on antagonism toward a particular nation.  These articles attempt to delve into the reasons behind the development of prejudices, which some mistake as excusing the prejudices. If we remove all such explanations then the article is left with little more than "there are people who don't like (whoever), and we know that all such broad prejudices are unjustifiable", end of article. The anti-(whoever) articles are difficult in that they tend to be polarizing and I sometimes wonder if they are inherently unsuited to the Wikipedia model. These articles very often lapse into struggles between those who share opposition to the nation in question and those who want to remove or explain away criticism of the nation in question. Raymond Arritt 17:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Raymond arritt, while what you wrote is generaly speaking right, this article is, in fact, slightly biased. For instance, I do not approve your last edit : "While this anti-French sentiment should not be confused with rational criticism of French government, culture, and society, the distinction may not be clear in situations that do not fall in either extreme." replacing "This anti-French sentiment should not be confused with rational criticism of French government and society, though it may be fuelled by French government policies." That sort of edit blurs the line between a sentiment that is close to xenophobia and racism, and a rational criticism. There is nothing rational in anti french sentiments, and the distinction should be clearly made -or else you're legitimating these sentiments. Gedefr 19:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I blurred the line, and deliberately so. My point is that not everything is black and white and some things fall into a gray area.  At one extreme we have the "cheese eating surrender monkey" stuff, which clearly is prejudiced.  At the other extreme we have academic treatises on subjects like increasingly divergent interests of the U.S. and France after World War II, which obviously is objective criticism and not prejudice.  But my wording in the intro is meant to acknowledge that not everything falls into one of these extremes.  Take for example a statement that "France is no longer an ally of the United States."  Is that a francophobic statement? Some have argued that it is.  Others have said that it is an objective assessment.  My answer is, "it depends." In some cases the statement may be in the context of a tirade about the dirty French. In other cases it could be in the context of a discussion of concrete incidents such as de Gaulle's ejection of NATO, the Operation El Dorado Canyon affair, and so on, concluding that on balance France and the U.S. are not allies.  In the latter case I would argue that while the statement is not correct, it is not based in prejudice.  To summarize, I propose that there is a broad range between the extremes that depends on context and nuance, and that it is overly simplistic to insist that everything be treated as black (prejudiced) or white (not prejudiced). Raymond Arritt 19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But this article is about anti-french sentiments in the US -that is francophobia in the US. It has to focus on these hate feelings, and not on any assessment on the US/France international relationships. It's all about "surrender monkeys" and has nothing to do with an academic essay on "France is still an ally of the U.S ?" (answer : yes, by the way). But we've had this talk before - and I guess I won't convince you, and you are more stubborn than I am when it comes to edit this article :) Gedefr 21:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: I would like to point out that the website www.fuckfrance.com is neither a racist nor xenophobic page, but a culturally most diverse internet news collection and discussion site. About 66% of its users reside in the Anglosphere ( UK, US, Australia etc. ), 33% of its members are frenchmen, dozens of others from other European countries like Italy or Germany. Some of the several thousand members may be prejudiced, racist, and so on - but FF.com is based on free speech, and no user is being banned for his convictions. However, the few users who are racist, xenophobic etc. face the permanent and relentless ridicule and dismissal of the majority of the users, who are mostly level-headed, tolerant and cosmopolitic. It's a free market of ideas, without restrictions - contrary to other internet discussion forums.
:Then I kindly suggest this site be renamed CulturallyMostDiverseDiscussion.com Tocquevil 14:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the name is inherently racist.  Can you imagine the backlash one would get if they tried to post or defend 'FuckAmerica.com' somewhere?  :) Jachin 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FuckFrance.com

message: I see no POV in my edit. It just addresses the fact that this report that is considered by some as antisemitic (blaming the IDF for the killing of a Palestinian child) was actually made by a Jew, who is of French and Israeli nationality. That's interesting enough to mention. This statement has many sources. Just check the Charles Enderlin article on English Wikipedia or the one on French wikipedia :fr:Charles Enderlin.Gedefr 12:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your material isn't necessarily POV but does read like it's grasping for an excuse, so it may not have the effect you intend.  It also adds unnecessary detail to an issue that is minor in the context of the article - I follow Franco-American relations fairly closely, and have seen little discussion of the Muhammad al-Durrah incident in the US.  A quick Google of Muhammad al-Durrah shows very few hits originating from the mainstream media in the US, confirming that this is not a major issue in "Anti-French sentiment in the United States."  And there's already an article on Muhammad al-Durrah if anyone wants the details.  Your edit should go; in fact the whole discussion of Muhammad al-Durrah could be deleted (or reduced to one short sentence with a link) at no loss.  Raymond Arritt 13:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea of the place the Muhammad al-Durrah controversy had in the US mainstream media. If you think it should be deleted, I don't object. But if it is kept, I real do think that my edit should be left, as it put this accusation of antisemitism into perspective.Gedefr 13:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching for "Muhammad al-Durrah" is very sensitive to spelling.  "Muhammad al-Durrah" produces 597 hits.  "Mohammed al-dura" produces 47100. Ken Arromdee 17:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Even with the alternate spelling there are few hits in the US mainstream media.  The only US-MSM citation in the top 10 or so hits is a piece in the Atlantic -- and the very first sentence of that article states "The name Mohammed al-Dura is barely known in the United States." So, we should delete the "Muhammad al-Durrah" material since it isn't germane to "Anti-French sentiment in the United States." Raymond Arritt 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have a point if the article was titled "Anti-French sentiment in the US mainstream media".  It isn't.  (Besides, using the top 10 hits is wrong.  If you count the references in a fixed number of hits, that means that increasing the number of hits of other types will reduce the number of hits of the type you're looking for, without there actually being fewer of them.) Ken Arromdee 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, there's simply no evidence that the al-Durrah incident was a substantial contributor to "Anti-French sentiment in the United States."  Indeed, as mentioned in the James Fallows article in the Atlantic, very few people in the U.S. have even heard of it. If we are going to catalog every single act that could possibly induce a perception of French anti-semitism -- even if it had no substantial effect on the issue at hand -- then the article will fall of its own weight. Raymond Arritt 17:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Over 40000 hits doesnt show that few people have heard of it.  And searching for "France anti-semitism al-dura" produces 15800 hits; most of them are relevant. Ken Arromdee 22:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A raw count of search hits is at best a dubious way of gauging relevance. ("France anti-semitism tractor" yields 37,900 hits and "France anti-semitism guitar" yields 95,600.) But this incident is important to you, so given the nature of Wikipedia it's pointless to argue further.  I only ask that you help out an already over-long article by rewriting your material to make it clear and concise. Raymond Arritt 23:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charles Enderlin

message: I've edited this to clarify that it's the thesis of a particular researcher -- before, it was simply posed as a self-evident truth. Also, after reading Vaïsse's article, I've made a few minor changes to reflect more closely what Vaïsse says. Raymond Arritt 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There might not have been a diaspora from France, but there are actually quite a lot of Americans of French descent. Especially in New England and the Midwest. Still the French more thoroughly assimilated than several other groups so I don't know how much of a French identity there is. According to the census only about 526,000 French-Americans speak a language other than English. I don't see how that's much different than the Dutch or Germans though.--T. Anthony 08:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The missing French diaspora

message: It seems to me that the article does not place enough of an emphasis on the partisan nature of anti-French sentiment in the post 9/11 world. While some American liberals may have made the occasional "cheese-eating" joke prior to the Iraq war, none would dare to do so now, out of fear of being labeled as right wing supporters. This became especially true following the "freedom fries" incident, which liberal Americans found terribly embarrassing. Regardless of the "old" origins of anti-French sentiment, today it is completely bound to left vs. right politics. 70.20.136.170 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  its partisan nature 

message: From the Socialism subheading of this article:
"In addition, the French comprehensive welfare state system of public education, social services, publicly-funded health care and social security is often criticized as being "socialist" in the United States. Although it has been noted that with the exception of Americans who are in the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party, most Americans who critique French socialism for its social programs make no effort to dismantle American socialist programs or rush to defend American socialism, essentially creating a double standard."
The latter sentence is blatantly non-NPOV, and, besides that, has absolutely no relevance to the topic of this article. I've removed it. ObeliskBJMtalk 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Socialism" section 

message: Wikipedia continues it's fine postion of being anti-American... why is there no "pro-French sentiment in the US" section? The US is not an inherently anti-French country, we've gone through cycles.--Rotten 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, why don't you just create the page ? Arronax50 (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-French sentiment in the United States 

message: France was an ally of Israel before the Six Day war. More precisely, France was an extremely close ally of Israel until 1962/1963 (arguably closer than the us today), than the relation became more distant, but not, in any sense, hostile. Before the war, an embargo on weapons that Israel had bought to France was used by France in an attempt to prompt Israel not to go to war. That did not mean that France did not support Israel any more -just that it tried to avoid the coming confrontation. At the time, the US had an embargo policy of its own, and for the same reasons, that really ended only after the Six Days War -and I guess no one would say that the US was not an ally of Israel (details here : ). The French policy toward Israel changed dramatically only during and after the war, france embracing its so called arab policy. Gedefr 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You concede that France placed an embargo on weapons that Israel had bought from France BEFORE the war. You personal opinion that this was  "an attempt to prompt Israel not to go to war" is nice, but unsourced. This relatively minor point aside, you keep removing material sourced verbatim to a reference you provided, which clearly states that France was using the war as an excuse to cozy up to Arab countries, and replacing this well sourced material with your original research . Please stop it. Isarig 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not my personal opinion, but the commonly held view on this matter. To only quote the reference that I provided, and that you twist into a childish caricature of anti french opinions : "In 1967, during and after the Six Day War, France reversed its policy toward Israel radically. Before, France had been a supporter of the Jewish state ; after the war it increasingly opposed Israel on crucial matters." Gedefr 10:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if it is the commonly held view that France placed the embargo as "an attempt to prompt Israel not to go to war" it should be easy to source it. And again,this is a relatively minor point- you are delting other relevant info, sourced to a reliable reference. Please stop it. Isarig 12:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "other relevant information" from a "reliable source" you are refering to are your POV imposed on this source. The way you cannot even accept that simple sentence from that source ("In 1967, during and after the Six Day War, France reversed its policy"), is a good testimony of the way you are dealing with it. Gedefr 12:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV imposed on the source? How so? This is word-for-word what the source says. Isarig 12:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Word for word, the source says :"In 1967, during and after the Six Day War, France reversed its policy toward Israel radically". during and after, not before. By the way, I know that France is BAD, really BAD, but can you try to write something neutral ?Gedefr 10:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided two other sources that say France did this before the war. You are reeverting well sourced material - which is vandalism. If you persist, you will find yourself blocked. Isarig 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  France/Israel relations 

message: pff, such ridiculous sections are a pain in the ass really. kids should not be allowed to edit wikipedia. this whole stuff about indochina is just stupid. why don't you learn on a subject before editing such nonsense?! Paris By Night 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "One concern was that the current North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) arrangement had a large number of American troops stationed in France. Americans were unhappy about the actions of de Gaulle and believed he was ungrateful as many Americans had lost their lives liberating France." magnifique! it's even worst that i imagined in the first place, frankly i'd like to smack at the kid who wrote such a ridiculous line. Americans were unhappy about the actions of de Gaulle and believed he was ungrateful as many Americans had lost their lives liberating France is this the encyclopedic way to sum up decades of geopolitics and history? pfff, "the actions of de Gaulle", i'm sure the one who wrote this doesn't even know how de gaulle looks like and what he did in his life. i've better things than rewrite a such stupid article, but i'll do it for sure when i get time to kill. i'm speechless. "Lafayette nous voilà!" they said Paris By Night 23:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can correct the material in a neutral manner that is well-supported by reliable sources, please do so.  An ongoing problem with this article has been lack of references for assertions, as well as editing to promote a given point of view (by both pro- and anti-French editors). Raymond Arritt 03:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post World War II

message: This section seems to be mostly about France's relationship with Israel. It says nothing at all about the Unitied States - so I wonder what the relevance is. Unless someone can provide a source that explictly says that the France/Israel relationship is causing Anti-French sentiment in the United States, this section probably needs to go entirely. Isarig 06:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of France/Israel section

message: Whenever this page becomes unprotected, would someone please add :Category:Francophobia to this article? Thanks. --Wassermann 21:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to wait for unprotection, some admin shouild do it right away. -- Petri Krohn 17:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add category 

message: Jerry Lewis who obtained the Legion d'Honneur, this medal is not just the "France's highest civilian award" but also the France's highest military award.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.82.238.186 (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just about...

message: How is Anti-Americanism not a form of Americanophobia, but Anti-French is a a form of Francophobia? Maybe the introduction of either was those articles needs to be rewritten. IronCrow (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it seems highly suspect to equivocate Anti-French sentiment with Francophobia, and then go in in the first paragraph to portray the latter (and by extension the former) as irrational. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 05:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francophobia? 

message: In the section writen on the Iraq war it is said Chirac said Eastern European states "missed an opportunity to shut up". Sorry but that is foxnewesque (at most) stuff. He said "ils ont manqué une bonne occasion de se taire", while the first part is easy to translate the second one (se taire) does not translate at all in English for such concept does not seem to appear in English at all. To tell about someone he should have "shut up" is extremely rude, that translation is clearly abusive to anyone with a good command of the French language and does not correspond to the intensity of the declaration. I know some newspapers (like the Washington Post) used this translation but it definately is mediocre journalism. Actually, in order to translate as "shut up" the declaration should have been "manqué une bonne occasion de fermer leur gueule" (litteraly, "to shut it up"). The English translation that transcripts "se taire" the best is probably "to remain silent" or "to stay quiet" which dramaticaly changes the tone of the declaration. Matthieu (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "se taire" does not equal "shut up"