Talk:Attack on Mers-el-Kébir

message: Quite so, there was narrative in the article but it was not citable when the article got a spring clean. Thanks for the reminder. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, that makes sense. I merely tagged, but did not remove this, suspecting that something of this sort must underlie it. As I'm a newbie at this article, and you seem to be a veteran, what do you recommend: remove the assertion from the lead, move it to the body and add sourcing, something else? We can always just leave it there for now. Mathglot (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blanked the sentence temporarily and I'll see if I can find a source. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. If you've a mind to, see also Military history of Gibraltar during World War II#Vichy French attacks: 1940 and Gibraltar#Contemporary history. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text:   Oh, and you might be amused by this. Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text: In the body of the article, details of the French reprisal attacks are cited to two sources, "Playfair 1959, p. 142" and "Greene & Massignani 2002, pp. 94–95". A year ago, the text appeared as part of the "Attack" section. In the meantime, the "Attack" section has been split into two subsections, "Attack on Mers-el-Kébir" and "Actions of 8 July", leading to various anomalies, including that the reprisal attacks, which didn't happen on 8 July, now appear in a subsection labelled with that date. I would recommend that the blanking in the Lead is reversed and that the division of the original "Attack" section reviewed.      ←   ZScarpia   12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Moving details about the attacks on Gibraltar to the "British–Vichy hostilities" section was a sensible thing to do. In the Lead, it might be better to explicitly link the bombings to the attack on the French fleet, describing them as, in some way, a response, rather than leaving readers to assume that, since they are being mentioned, that there must have been a link.      ←   ZScarpia   00:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, sources are the trouble but I'll see what I can do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can dig up too. I think I have a copy of at least one of the cited sources.      ←   ZScarpia   13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air raids on Gibraltar 

message: The main result of the attack was the Vichy regime supported Germany during the occupation, French citizens were encouraged to collaborate, recruitment for the Free France movement plummeted, and French forces in North Africa and Syria increased their opposition to British and Free French forces. All of this is detailed in numerous sources such as this one: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/09/22/why-did-the-royal-navy-sink-the-french-fleet-in-world-war-ii/ (Gndk1111 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source is insufficient for the weight you place on it and the edition before disputed edits needs to be retained during a search for consensus. Whether the information merits inclusion in the lead is a separate issue. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede is too one-sided, neglecting to mention any of the negative consequences of the attack. Also some historians have asserted the raid was a war crime, this too should be included. (Gndk1111 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I might agree that we need to say there were negative consequences, such as something like "The British attack was almost universally condemned in France and resentment festered for years over what was considered a betrayal by their former ally. Marshal Philippe Pétain, who was appointed the prime minister of France on 16 June, severed diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom on 8 July.". But I am not sure that the views of some historians who have asserted the raid was a war crime should be included in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Every biography I had read of Pétain states his government decided to collaborate more closely with Germany as a direct result of the attack. The bombing was not as effective as Churchill had hoped - only two of the four capital French ships were disabled. (Gndk1111 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet the best source you can find are things like warfarehistorynetwork.com?Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not own the biographies, I read them years ago from the library. What is wrong with warfarehistorynetwork? The attack may have ultimately led to France handing over its foreign Jews to Germany so the negative consequences need to be mentioned more in the lede. (Gndk1111 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

text: The Allies were largely anti-Semitic. (Gndk1111 (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So? your argument is that the attack on Mers-el-Kébir encouraged the French to deport jews to Germany to be killed. You need an RS saying that, not your assumptions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Laval himself said it during his trial. However thanks to him French Jews had extremely high survival rates, like foreign Jews in France. Obviously the Germans never told the Vichy authorities about the death camps. (Gndk1111 (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, so let's see, they were encouraged to do it, but not a lot? Sorry again I am out now, you have not made your case.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to 90% of French Jews survived the war thanks to Laval. In contrast only about 10% of Jews in Poland survived the German and Soviet occupations during World War II. (Gndk1111 (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encouraged French collaboration 

message: It's written in the first para that five British aircrafts were destroyed but in the table, it's 6. Any ideas? ShauryaOMG (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Him many British aircrafts were destroyed during the attack? 

message: I reverted your edits because they weren't helpful to an article in BritEng but I'm happy to discuss them here if your wish. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Keith-264: It's not clear to me what about my edits isn't helpful for an article written in British English; I only fixed typographical errors. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't look like typos but I will check again. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "neither side was likely to make an agreement" they can't agree separately; takeoff is a two words, hyphenating is better take-off. <niwiki></nowiki> dashes aren't used in this article.  can't see the point of a capital N. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Keith-264: Those are fair points; however, considering the changes I made were few, I would have appreciated it more if you had corrected what I did wrong rather than reverting. For instance, I didn't notice that em dashes were used in this article; as you have now informed me of this, I'll fix that sentence which I added en dashes to using em dashes this time. DesertPipeline (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

text: User:Keith-264: No harm done; there's no need for you to apologise :) DesertPipeline (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Wasn't an attack on a neutral country regarded as a war crime? (FrancoisDeEstay (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, no attacking a neutral country is not a war crime. Do you have any RS supporting this idea?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on the attack on Pearl Harbor says it was called a war crime because the US was still officially neutral. (FrancoisDeEstay (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't look at other Wikipedia articles for a comparison. The two attacks are different, and have different literature written about them. You need to find a book saying that the attack on Mers-el-Kébir was a war crime. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

text: FrancoisDeEstay -- Pearl Harbor was of course a suprise attack, while Mers el-Kebir was an attack preceded by an announced ultimatum which included a list of alternative acceptable courses of action to avoid any attack.  Britain had a very legitimate concern that the French ships might eventually be used to augment Germany's naval might, a factor which was absent in Pearl Harbor... AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise, FDR was informed of the attack on 4 December and he said he was expecting it within days of the Hull note. The Japanese believed the fleet in Hawaii would be used to bolster US forces in China. (FrancoisDeEstay (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Its irrelevant unless RS say it was a war crime, do any RS say it was a war crime?Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Taylor wrote it was an act of realpolitick, but by the rules of war it was a war crime. (FrancoisDeEstay (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read wp:or and wp:synthesis (Ohh and wp:v sources must say (explicitly) what you are using them to support).Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crime? 

message: Has many of the source are British , I genuinely ask the question ? 
-Did the attack was a victory, it's ambiguous . 
More importantly it misleads people on the significance , it's not really a remake of Trafalgar 
- Did the french planned to surrender their fleet to the Germans ? 
It's perhaps the worst defeat of French , the battle for the internet . 
Some misleading media * try to enforce the idea the French fleet was destroyed by Churchill because they goeing to surrender their fleet .
We must debunk this fake news . 
* The national interest , Warhistoryonline  , We_are_the_mighty are good examples of politically oriented media . 2A01:CB00:BF8:9800:7DEF:E53B:C437:4CE3 (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been discussed before, the British substantially achieved their goal of preventing the French fleet in North Africa from being used to aid Germany, while the French leaders dithered ineffectually, and didn't have any particular plan, but presumably they wanted their ships not to be sunk, and to retain freedom of action, but did not succeed in this... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you have any sources that contest this?Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Then add them, not one is saying you can't. But read wp:rs and wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I reverted as A. you did not cite correctly, B. (as I said) it was poorly written and thus I was unsure what you were trying to say (and the above is not what your edit claimed). Also Wikipedia is not an RS. It might be best if your propose any edit here so we can work on it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Not as an inline citation. And again, what you have posted here is not what your edit said (which was poorly written). As it was poorly written it was hard to know if what you wrote is what the source wrote. So please tell us what changes you want to make, so we can look at them and then ask for clarification if we are unsure what you are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

text: OK what is wrong with it, there is no English word "blocus", I assume you mean blockade, but what word does the source use? Second, we already mention the Strasbourg's flight and arrival at Toulon on 4 July (so this just duplicates material we already have) Third The Strasbourg did not run the blockade after the fight, but during it (so it was not part of any aftermath).Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

text: And we mention it, and the other ships with her (just not by name) have you actialy read our article?Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

text: We already have enough about it, in fact far more than you wanted to add.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

text: And as I have said, we already do.You are adding nothing we do not already say. And this is now getting so wp:tendentious I will let others take up the slack.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English bias 

message: I reviewed the table and noted it was in disfavour of the French .
-1 ) In the table , it's say a tugboat was sank , is this really relevant ?
-2 ) In the table , it's say the french seaplane tender was damaged . Yes that's true ..i checked on wikipedia 
"She was lightly damaged by shell splinters during the British attack on Mers-el-Kébir on 3 July 1940, but suffered no casualties. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_seaplane_carrier_Commandant_Teste
Is this really relevant ? Crazy defender 2 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes if the reliable sources say so. Keith-264 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable source , the same who claim the victory ? Crazy defender 2 (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overstating effect on the french navy  

message: Good stuff but do we need that many citations? Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Dear watchlisters,
As a Frenchperson, I am appalled by the pov-pushing towards embellishing Vichy France by a lot of French in this talk page, but my question is other : I'm curious to know why Operation Catapult possesses its own article in nine languages but does not exist in WP:en, given that it's a British war operation ? (No idea myself) Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the English language, not British Wikipedia. B, because this article covers it just fine. Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to have a strange conception of the parts and the whole, and wikidata people might disagree with you including a more general article within another more particular one (and by the way you're aware Britain does belong to the Anglophone world, are you ?), but hey, I don't care, after all. This is not my area of expertise. thanks for replying.Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Catapult 

message: Why not rename the last paragrath ? Crazy defender 2 (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why, it's short, sharp and to the point. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case Anton and the Scuttling of the french fleet 

message: Greetings, I reverted quite a few of your wikilinks because they were duplicates. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Swapped online citations with Rohwer and Hümmelchen (2005) Keith-264 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The article says Operation Lever took place 8 July but French battleship Dunkerque says it was 6 July. Housecarl (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki isn't a source so a discrepancy like this needs to be resolved by reference to the sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of follow-up air attack 

message: "The orders to the four French submarines were quickly decoded and London ordered Somerville to act; the boats were unable to close with Force H" is used verbatim two times in a short distance. is this intended or a copy mistake ? 46.15.45.246 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  double use of paragraph