Talk:Military history of France/Archive 2

message: Sorry that I wasn't here to edit this article before it got FA status, but I found it to be woefully incomplete in its coverage of non-European theaters.  I added a sentence about Vietnam, I plan on adding another about Africa, and I'd appreciate it if they weren't reverted.  We remember the big European wars, but the times that we think of as "peacetime" for France were usually periods of major extracontinental conflict. --M@rēino 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: I just want to remind people that the above page goes hand-in-hand with this article (I made it specifically for this article). It has many wars and battles that were not mentioned here. This article is supposed to be theme-based, not war-based, because French military history is ridiculously long.UberCryxic 02:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of French wars and battles]]

message: No, I don't think adding such a paragraph is a good idea.
* Firstly, there is no precedent for it, the Military history of the United States does not contain the French (or for that matter, Albanian, to name one example) view of the United States military. There may be an article where this info is more suitable, but this isn't it.
* What makes the US view on the French military so special? What about the British view, or the Dutch view? Or the South African view? A bit parochial, I think.
Personally, I don't find the article "smug" at all, just factual.
Regards, Elf-friend 06:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that could be an interesting article ... I still remember the freedom fries episode and all that. Elf-friend 07:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've taken some of the deleted material (and added some see alsos) to my sandbox. France's military has been mocked well before the runup to the Iraq invasion, BTW. I feel this article doesn't give enough emphasis on France's modern history, but c'est la vie... Andjam 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I do think there was a carefully organized campaign in 2003 aimed at mocking the French, therefore mocking whatever they would say (in this case that there were no WMDs in Iraq), in order to divert attention from it in the mind of the American public. France is a strong ally of the US, even if less of an ally than the UK. Mocking other nations like Russia or China would have been proven very dicey. I cannot of course prove that anything was organized then, but the whole "French Fry" and "Boycott France" sticker thing came up in a very timely manner.
Granted, fine. But who cares? Do you care? Cuz I certainly don't!UberCryxic 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Out of the 1.2 million articles currently in the anglophone Wikipedia, I may be only caring about, say, 200,000, potentially, knowing that in my lifetime (and I am about halfway through it) I will only be able to fully concentrate on, say, 10% of them. I care about this topic. You don't. Fine. --WhiteEcho 18:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US view of french military 

message: OK people, I know the relevant page says that a FA should almost never be protected, but this one looks to be drawing more tha average vandalism, so I'm putting a semi-protect on it. Those who differ with me are entitled to their opinion, of course. Elf-friend 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many featured articles on the Main Page have drawn more vandalism than this one has so far today.  There was not an unusual spate of vandalism; it should not be semi-protected.  See User:Raul654/protection.  -- ALoan (Talk) 14:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: One person's vandalism is another person's content dispute. Andjam 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Vandalism is quite clearly defined, and it's extremely rare that there could be any confusion between the two. Stevage 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but what Elf-friend was referring to vandalism is merely a content dispute. Andjam 00:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I have been here for a number of years, so I quite clearly known the difference between a content dispute and vandalism ... it is always dangerous to assume what another person was thinking ... please check the edit history before the protection ... there were quite a number of cases of blatant vandalism, such as blanking. From a grumpy Elf-friend 06:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect 

message: I'm a bit concerned by this edit here  which makes a large number of reverts, with no comment besides the "minor" flag! Let's improve our game here - if you disagree with a change, discuss it, don't simply silently revert it.
In particular, I take objection to the phrase "humiliated" instead of "suffered a devastating defeat". I don't really see how an invaded country can be "humiliated". Had France invaded a country and lost, that might be humiliating. But it was invaded, and was simply underprepared and caught by surprise. If you have a convincing source for "humiliated", please provide it. Otherwise, please don't make these sort of reversions without discussing them - it's a form of incivility. Thanks! Stevage 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you describe the US' inability to control the insurgents post-Iraq as "humiliation"? I don't think losing a battle is cause for humiliation unless one had made bold predictions ahead of time or something. And wouldn't "suffered a devastating defeat" capture it better, in any case? Stevage 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It were my edits that were reverted. I changed some factual mistakes. But i changed only half of the data, which should be changed. The Romans called the Celts Gallic. Celts or Gallics settled and ruled from Ireland to Turkey. Gaul is presented in this article as the territory between the Rhine, The Pyrenees and the Alps and that is correct. But before the emergence of Gaul during the campaign of Julius Caesar, there were two Gauls: Transalpine Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul. Cisalpine Gaul is in present Italy and these Gallics are the heroes of Padania. The Gallics of Cisalpine Gaul had nothing to do with Gaul.--Daanschr 18:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit-warring

message: The first era usage is here . It is BC rather than BCE, so I've reverted to this preference. Arcturus 16:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of BCE 

message: When I worked at a newspaper, editors would always correct the word 'massive,' when it was used as in the first sentence of this article(History as a massive panorama), ie to mean anything but something with a lot of mass (ie physically heavy). In newspaper english our usage here is considered incorrect. but maybe I'm being needlessly picky. jackbrown 17:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of the word "massive" 

message: From the article : "Following the Second World War, visceral struggles ensued to preserve French territories, with France losing both the Algerian War of Independence and the First Indochina War, the precursor to the Vietnam War, to guerilla resistance movements."
Visceral has to do with the internal organs (like a visceral reaction is a "gut reaction).
What is a "visceral struggle"?
Visceral can also be used to mean a very involved struggle, as it's used here.UberCryxic 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a "visceral struggle"? 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 11, 2006.  Thanks.--Pharos 18:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the mainpage blurb 

message: It were my edits that were reverted. I changed some factual mistakes. But i changed only half of the data, which should be changed. The Romans called the Celts Gallic. Celts or Gallics settled and ruled from Ireland to Turkey. Gaul is presented in this article as the territory between the Rhine, The Pyrenees and the Alps and that is correct. But before the emergence of Gaul during the campaign of Julius Caesar, there were two Gauls: Transalpine Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul. Cisalpine Gaul is in present Italy and these Gallics are the heroes of Padania. The Gallics of Cisalpine Gaul had nothing to do with Gaul.--Daanschr 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaul

message: I have offered a compromise solution, but it has not been taken.  I find it clear bad faith to see a totally relevant category (:Category:Military of France) removed from the Views of the French military article.  I have already explained that I believe the articles should all be linked, and you have stated that you refuse that.  Neither of us seem ready to back down, and now you reject the compromise.  I suggest you come up with a proposal to stop this pointless edit war.  violet/riga (t) 06:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not like or accept your compromise. What else do you want me to say? Can we please return to the debate now?UberCryxic 17:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest the only way forward is mediation.  violet/riga (t) 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An end to this?

message: Out of curiosity, is there anything in wikipedia about the French military (especially the Foreign Legion) in popular culture? Andjam 05:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: French Foreign Legion, of course. See also :Category:French Army. Thbz 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French military in popular culture 

message: Couple of requests:
# Can people please stop edit warring, instead discussing controversial edits?
# Should part of this talk page be archived? 193kb is a bit large.
# Can the discussion calm down a little? There have been:
## appeals to authority: "I have studied French military history for years"
## weasel words or unverified claims "The vast majority of derisive comments about the French military come from Americans." and "We are not doing them a disservice at all because that belief is common and relevant only in the United States, nowhere else in the world."
## Statements such as "I am personally irritated about the enormous arrogance of America." are not helpful either - we're supposed to write about enormous arrogance (if notable sources allege that it exist), not be irritated about it. If wikipedians are being called arrogant, it's not constructive criticism.
## Making criticisms too personal, eg "created only once a disgruntled Wikipedian saw this article and apparently didn't like the content (or thought something was lacking)" (what's the point of calling someone disgruntled?) 
Thanks, Andjam 12:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war always means failure 

message: Does stuff about Gaul strictly belong in this article? I'm as big an Asterix fan as anyone, but isn't the main connection between the Gauls and France that the two overlapped in land? By contrast, France's history in WWI seems to be only one paragraph long. Andjam 13:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-modern history 

message: In the paragraph starting with "A perennial problem ... ", does the word "impressive" seem a bit much (in the latter case, if not the former)? 
Could "good news" be replaced with "success", and "disaster" with "defeat"? Thanks, Andjam 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French navy paragraph 

message: Why isn't surrender included in the "French influence of military terms"? I smell a bias ...
According to the dictionary:
surrender  
noun [C or U]
when you stop fighting and admit defeat:
The rebels are on the point of surrender.
And its etymology:
surrender  
1441, "to give (something) up," from O.Fr. surrendre "give up, deliver over" (13c.), from sur- "over" + rendre "give back" (see render). Reflexive sense of "to give oneself up" (especially as a prisoner) is from 1585. The noun is recorded from 1487. 
Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona  15:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my discussion about Old French under the Cowardice (word) section above Bwithh 15:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a specifically military term, and is not of modern French origins. Bwithh 15:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm specifically talking about words coming from Old French/Anglo Norman - please read the historical explanation above of the relation of these languages to the English language. Bwithh 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Calm down, Rex.  He is right.  Why does an article on French military history have a section that lists English words that were originally French?  That belongs in a language article, or perhaps in an article on 'Effects of the Norman Conquest on the English language'.  The most it deserves from here would be a link.  MilesVorkosigan 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's odd that you don't want them in, tbh.  You've not given any good reasons for not including them as further examples.  violet/riga (t) 20:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Because we all think the French surrender a lot.  That is obviously the only reason we have and it's not because we think it's appropriate. </sarcasm>  violet/riga (t) 21:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't understand how to discuss, avoid edit wars, or compromise, do you?  violet/riga (t) 21:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Another 3RR by UberCryxic.  violet/riga (t) 21:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcasm isn't exactly helping either, and given the topic, UberCryxic's question was rather fair. How many times has this entry been vandalized, the whole text replaced with 'surrender' etc ? What a coincidence the exact same words used by vandals should find their way in a side note that doesn't even need to grow bigger ? Equendil 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I love your idea Perim. I just deleted them. Violet, I am not much into compromise. Either way, you yourself should acknowledge you've mischaracterized me in light of what I did yesterday. I don't think I was being unreasonable then. I cannot say the same for you.UberCryxic 21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am not much into compromise" - good luck with all your other interactions here.  violet/riga (t) 21:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I may be late in this discussion, but, unless I can't read, the etymology actually proves that surrendre was not a military term when it crossed the Channel. It only received a military meaning centuries later, when it became reflexive: Reflexive sense of "to give oneself up" (especially as a prisoner) is from 1585.. Reflexive verbs in French (almost) always use the reflexive particle se (rendre is transitive). This is different from the English, where reflexivity depends on the context (e.g. I stopped and washed vs. I stopped my car and washed my it). But I may be wrong: I'm French and I ain't speak English good. Thbz 18:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Come on, she's got an entry, now that's an encyclopedia :) Equendil 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: She may actually have better name recognition on Internet than here in France, since she 'only' appears on a news cable channel in the morning (apparently), which doesn't have all that many viewers. Saying that, I don't watch TV and I'm talking out of my ass. Still, I wouldn't known about her if not for Internet. Rather appropriate here too, she's the one woman in France that can single handedly interrupt the french bashing simply by having her picture posted :) Equendil 23:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No idea what's the viewership of LCI, let alone in the morning, but quite low would be a good estimate. Evening news on TF1 on the other hand ... TF1 is one of the historical channels, received on any and every TV set, and evening news are watched by millions, I'm finding it hard to believe she turned down such an offer. Equendil 21:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What if I think she's the second or third hottest woman alive ? :S By the way, I feel we shouldn't be discussing Melissa Theuriau here, though seeing as the talk page for this entry seems to be filled with endless attempts at introducing negative spin on the french military, it's probably improving the overall quality of the debate. I'll give it a rest still :) Equendil 21:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh there's nothing going on here anymore. All other conversations have pretty much ended.UberCryxic 21:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrender 

message: Personal discussion moved to User talk:UberCryxic.  Continue like that and you'll both face a short block.  violet/riga (t) 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 

message: According to the French embassy to the United States  “France was the only country, along with the United States, to have flown bombing missions over Afghanistan in direct support of American ground troops, in particular during Operation Anaconda”
This seems misleading. Harriers from the Italian carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi, and F-16s from Norway, Netherlands and Denmark have also supported Operation Enduring Freedom (as well as ISAF). France may have been the only nation that dropped bombs other than the US (although I don’t think that is true) or during Anaconda but other nations conducted missions. Chwyatt 08:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French over Afghanistan