Talk:Free France

message: I've expanded this as I think the original was too Anglo-centric. Brits tend to see the Battle of France as ending at Dunkirk but that wasn't the case even at the time (eg Alanbrooke and the Canadian First Division were landed in France on 2 June). It matters because one cannot understand French bitterness against both the British and De Gaulle without the context of what happened after Dunkirk (a period that features a number of the most heroic episodes in French military history eg the Samur cavalry cadets).
Happy to discuss.  Robinvp11 (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates on Prelude 

message: As of this date, there are no section edit links. This can be caused by an archive template, which turns them off, or unbalanced tags of other types. I will check briefly, but don't have time for an extended investigation of this. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked as far back as 809824702 of  17:47, November 11, 2017, and there are no section edit links that far back.  It's extremely unlikely this would not have been noticed that long, and in any case, there are plenty of edit summaries with section names generated by section edit link editing; this is almost certainly the fault of a template transcluded here, with a bug in it recently added.  (I just hope it's not something I introduced, because I edit templates, but haven't made any relevant changes lately to anything that seems a likely culprit.) Can someone take a look?  Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the  template in this edit, as analyzed and fixed by users  and , with my thanks. Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section edit links missing 

message: Looking at that map in the infobox with its complicated color scheme and dates ― probably made by some editor with too much free time on his/her hands ― I can understand why so many Wikipedia contributors hate infoboxes.--Lubiesque (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  That dreadful infobox map 

message: I'm new at this but the above mentioned paragraph really strike my attention for it's totally unneutral tone, and some facts (like in the liberation of Paris black troops were prevented to act when the only Free French unit present was the 2nd Armored, a unit formed by white french from all over the world) seems wrong but the thing at the end a about the last betrayal about ending colonial troop pentions, is false. They were frozen after the independences.
Here you have a BBC article from 2010 about a change that make again those pentions like the one's for metropolitan France. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/10617955
The whole paragraph seems based on a few pages of one book. I hope that somebody with more experience and some knowledge can clarify this.
I do agree with this editor; the racism section is completely biased and needs to be renovated. Have tagged it for POV issues. Lettlerhello • contribs 20:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the racism paragraph. 

message: Would anyone know if there was a unified name for the Free French land forces/army? I have been looking through the article but have found nothing to answer my question. Lettlerhello • contribs 20:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free French land force name 

message: The whole section is written in a non-neutral and biased tone. It refers to the "final betrayal" of the soldiers and reads more like a book review or summary than an encylopedia. There are other examples throughout the whole section(eg."disheartening rejection", "valiant efforts" ) as well as collected anecdotes used to further highlight an editors viewpoint. I tried to remove the section for these reasons and got reverted but I feel that the whole section still needs to be removed due to it being unneutral and being partially irrelevant.Originalcola (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism Section 

message: It is completely accurate and sourced. The complaints about this section are racist and incorrect. This section should absolutely not be labeled as disputed or inaccurate. 24.101.44.56 (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: freeflee 45.122.44.209 (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The racism section 

message: The opening paragraph is simply untrue. De Gaulle was still in France when the French Cabinet agreed they had to ask the Germans for an armistice. He had been conspiring with the British already, while an Under-Secretary of State. This was discovered and General Weygand issued orders for an arrest warrant for de Gaulle. The British Ambassador in France secretly aided de Gaulle to escape to England. The French army units which had been evacuated with the British at Dunkirk had in the meantime already been recalled to France, leaving tiny numbers of men in England who, essentially, deserted and did not return. The Armistice was signed on June 22, 1940 by the legitimate French Government, then situated in Bordeaux, having evacuated Paris. De Gaulle placed himself at the disposal of British Government and Churchill, who allowed him to make broadcasts to France. It was some time afterwards that the British set up the so-called "Free French" force, then a tiny unit of de Gaulle and the AWOL dissidents already mentioned. France had left the war in June 1940 and this was begrudgingly acknowedged by Britain. It was much much later that the British set up their fake French "Government-in-exile" which had no credibility whatsoever under international law and at a time when the USA still maintained full diplomatic relations with the French Government now relocated to the town of Vichy (Paris being under German military occupation). Your page reads like a British propaganda page. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:CDDE:F751:312E:83D9 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untrue

message: jffevsns
Vvjond gen DJ dlsbdbd 45.122.44.209 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindi 

message: I was recently translating this article into the Chinese Wiki, and when I checked the references inserted, I found a lot of mistakes.
1. When quoting the books of Kim Munholland and C.P. Stacey, one author's name is put into the other's book, and vice versa.
2. Two books by Jean-François Muracciole are cited. However, the footnotes are not marked with the year, so it is impossible to figure out which book the footnotes refer to.
3. None of the footnotes follow Harvard's book citation format, and according to my inspection, many of them do not match the content to be cited.
-- Yankees from Canada (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the mistakes in this article