Talk:French Armed Forces

message: Hello to all of you following this board. I know I'm going to be off topic, feel free to delete if you want. I just wanted to share something with you. I've been checking the articles about French army, British army and US army both in english and in French. You know how "French armed forces" in english is often vandalised. US and UK change logs are full of racist or nationalist comments. But you won't find anyone trying to biase the numbers on the french articles, or insult other countries armed forces. I didn't find any vandalising in italian or german either. I was surprised to be honest, I didn't think we europeans were so wise. If anyone has any idea why hatred seems to go only one way, I'd be glad to hear ! Thanks --Montcalm89 (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Off topic

message: I recently read an article from the Telegraph that the French military is not in the best state of repair. I added a short blurb to the end of "recent operations" (where I know it doesn't really belong) and included the citation. Expansion of that subject is a good idea, perhaps giving it its own section? I'm just not a very good editor, so I'll be content with planting the seed and hope someone else can do a better job than I.
From what I understand, there's going to be a report released soon ("the white paper") detailing the course of the french military for the next 15 years. I gather that France is leaning towards significantly downsizing its armed forces and pushing for greater emphases on sharing defense with other EU member states. I'm not sure how well that will fly, since besides France (and the UK, which has been less than thrilled about full EU integration) there isn't much in the way of force projection abilities among the other EU members. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Dziban303 (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: State of repair?

message: There's an other important mission in which French army's involved, not mentionned here : in Lebanon, more than 3000 soldiers (For French speaking people, see this quote from fr.wikipedia : "Le 24 Aout 2006, Jacques Chirac a annoncé que la France était prete à prendre le commandement de la Force intérimaire des Nations unies au Liban (Finul) et que plus de 3000 soldats français vont etre envoyés au Liban.")
Could somebody add it ? (my English is not very accurate...) Thanks!
Bébert
Done, although my addition would benefit from some more in-depth knowledge, as I am not aware of the exact composition of the mission or the units from which it is drawn. --Spoonman.au 23:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent operations

message: The article's images are predominantly not of the FAF. The pictures in the basic information table are of the United States Armed Forces and the People's Liberation Army. --Spoonman.au 23:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: someone who knows about this topic, please incorporate this news item into this article:  Kingturtle 22:07, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Afghanistan

message: I think that another useful addition to this article would be the effect on the military of the recent end of mandatory military service in France. --Mprudhom 03:05, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Military service

message: This article is very confusing. It DENFINATLY does not use simple english. I'm not understanding it.
*Perhaps you're looking for the Simple English Wikipedia?--M@rēino 20:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ????????? 

message: There was an accusation of POV regarding the statement that the French armed forces are one of the most technologically advanced in the world (and one of the most powerful). I will find a source for this quickly. However, America, Britain, and France are generally recognized to have the three best militaries in the world (in that order by most people), everything considered.....
Additionally, I do not see how one half of the statement is POV. France has very technologically advanced forces. No way anyone can deny that. I can see where some might question the "one of the most powerful," but there's no basis to question "one of the most technologically advanced." Just look at equipment like the Rafale fighters, Leclerc tanks, and the Triomphant submarines. Those are among the best weapons in the world for their categories.UberCryxic 06:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro statement 

message: It is well known that French counter-insurgency doctrine as theorized during the Algerian War had a lasting influence. It is less well known that Paris had a military agreement with Buenos Aires as Marie-Monique Robin has shown. But it is clear that it is relevant to an article concerning the French military, as it is text about French military. Tazmaniacs 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not it is not. It is relevant to on articles about the Algerian war, counter-insurgency and individuals like mister Trinquier, not on the article. Wikipedia is not just a dumping ground for information. One other thing: Is there anything similiar on other Military of X country articles? Carl Logan 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just one little question that might speed things up a bit. If it is so important why not add it to the article about France? Carl Logan 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-insurgency and the "French School" 

message: I've add the NPOV tag. Removing a three line sentences is POV (old diff). Please see WP:NPOVT, and in particular forking#ARticle spin-out and Wikipedia:Summary style. We are talking here about something else than just Roger Trinquier, don't reduce French military training to foreign military to this theorist. Tazmaniacs 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one little question that might speed things up a bit. If it is so important why not add it to the article about France? Carl Logan 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I've removed the NPOV tag, since the discussion was not active, and since the disputed sentences were not sourced in any case.  Chick Bowen 01:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag removed 

message: check this! and type "FRENCH" as search. Shame On You 04:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a load of good quality french military PD pictures for wiki

message: The French Armed Forces however have the 3rd highest expenditure of any military in the world and this high spending on relatively small numbers of personnel, research, design and procurement of defence equipment means that they are one of the most powerful and technologically advanced forces in the world.
This sentence is jumping from two sourced facts (3rd highest expenditure and 20th highest size) to an unsourced conclusion ("one of the most powerful and technologically advanced forces in the world").  I'm looking to remove the last part of this, unless someone can provide a source. Jpers36 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't this violate [[WP:SYN]]? 

message: Someone needs to edit this to be more professional, My onlook was that it seems a bit Pumped up with Patriotism.
it has added Statments that make it seem made by a patriotic man, then a guy who knows what he's talking about. it needs edited to seem Like France has the best military, as portrayed by a frenchmen.
List of militaries accepted as the best.(Top 7 Militaries as accepted by the world community and Worldwide strategists.)
1.United States of America
2.Britain
3.China
4.Germany.
5.France
6.Israel.
7.Russia 
Like i said, the french military is NOT the most technological in the world, the United States and Britain is, infactuality, France has relied alot on Improving they're military structure then on new equipment.
Furthermore, Patriotism isnt aloud in these great halls. Simply put, Everything put in there to the effect of "Our army is this good" or "The french military is the most technologicaly,Militarily advanced army in the world", wich would be patriotism. i respect how Patriotic French are, But try and stay on facts, the French military is the military of france, it protects this, this is its history. Period. It doesnt matter how good it is. Also,as for rusty's statment. These are not based on numbers, Money or Technology, it is based on the performance of armies as evaluated as Fighting Strength. According to General's and Scientists' in the U.S Military, This is how it is set up.. this was agreed upon by Britain. The lethiality is also based on location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.21.86 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can name these so-called "worldwide strategists" then we might be interested. And the "worldwide community" could not agree on who's country has the "best" military - I see my country is only second in your estimation while I would put it first. Finally, we can't define "best". Do you mean the country that spends the most on its armed forces, the country which has won most conflicts, the biggest army, most high-tech, the most widely-known, etc etc...  Rusty2005 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriotism Over truth? 

message: This needs to be revamped, seriously. NOT BY A FRENCHMAN!:
1.Take away the intro statments about how technologicaly advanced, and good the french military is. 
2. grammar check, its definatley made by french patriots.
3.NUETRALITY. seriously. if i said it wasnt the best in europe right now, i could easily find out who the frenchmen are in the article. 
4.It needs to be edited by a professional on the matter, to just state the facts without it seeming like some patriot just put the article up to state their military is best. and then it needs to be LOCKED. to prevent the patriot frenchmen from editing it.
I myself as a German patriot feel offended by the article. and i'm sure many british and russkies think so too. that this article is not being educational, but simply stating how good the French military is. wich is not the point of Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.122.173 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro statments

message: The first sentence is a comma splice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.65.235 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First Sentence

message: "The French Armed Forces however have the 2nd highest expenditure"
Yet if you click on the link in that statement, the first thing you see is a graph showing franch as the country with the 3rd highest expenditure. -OOPSIE- (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I see World, Nato, US, Europe then France. World, Nato and Europe are only in the list as expenditures of groups of countries, (and that's why they are not really ranked). FFMG (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: French forces expenditure

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:British Armed Forces which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RFC bot 19:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in process

message: The Picture of the Rafale is incorrectly  described as an Air Force aircraft. It's a Rafale M (navy version) on an aircraft carrier (probably the CDG)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.30.114.58 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rafale 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mirage2000-5F 1-2 Cigognes.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:C160G Gabriel.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The caption to the interactive map on the history section uses the word "bellow" instead of "below". Someone with edit access to this article needed to correct the please.
Done. Obscure Reality   Ping me 02:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor spelling correction needed. 

message: The box on the page listing the number of people fit for military duty lists female twice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.212.183 (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Blaue Max (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Box 

message: There is a fascinating report from the RAND corporation which could and should definitely be used to improve this page. I don't have time to expand right now, but I encourage anyone interested to read the report. The paper is public and free to download through this page: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR770.html
Salaco (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential great source 

message: @Kaloyan34-FR, can you please provide a source for your edits to the personnel figures? At the moment all personnel figures are sourced from the 2014 defense.gouv.fr citation, which is as authoritative as you can get.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel figures

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on French Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100605155257/http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema/commandement/organismes_et_directions_interarmees/emia_fe/emia_fe to http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema/commandement/organismes_et_directions_interarmees/emia_fe/emia_fe
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is France still enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya? This appears to be dated info. Kortoso (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libya? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on French Armed Forces. 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/20080921130731/http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/anglais/speeches_and_documents/2007/white_paper_on_defence_and_national_security_letter_to_m_jean-claude_mallet_member_of_the_conseil_d_etat.79322.html to http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/anglais/speeches_and_documents/2007/white_paper_on_defence_and_national_security_letter_to_m_jean-claude_mallet_member_of_the_conseil_d_etat.79322.html
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U426hw_IfDAJ:www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/400382/6028076/file/Chiffrescle%25CC%2581s2015GB.PDF+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie with https://web.archive.org/web/20150906213134/http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/400382/6028076/file/Chiffrescle%CC%81s2015GB.PDF on http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/400382/6028076/file/Chiffrescle%CC%81s2015GB.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The cited source doesn't appear to support this in any way whatsoever. In fact I saw no references to the militaries of France or any other nation in the citation. 96.241.3.67 (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sixth most powerful military according to Credit Suisse" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion