Talk:French battleship Dunkerque

message: Having read this article one could question how neutral the commentary within is, when it covers the circumstances of the attack upon the franch ships in Algeria by the British Royal Navy.  Indeed as stated, the aim of the attack was to sink the ships, but the initial visit upon the ships by the Royal Navy was intended to coerce them to join the allied cause; abandoning their Vichy alliegiance.
There is no mention of the much documented and oft quoted deadline for action handed to the French, then there are documented cases of French officers not accepting the individual british Naval officers sent to negotiate with them.  
Indeed there are documented cases of blind xenophobia from French officers towards British officers for the outcomes of the battle for and defeat of France in 1940.
I feel that in the interests of accuracy, this all; in some form; needs mention, one can not deplore the attack on their once allies by the British ships as unfortunate in the extreme; and clearly this is the intent of the original author of this article.
However, the initial imputous on the Britsh approaching the French at anchor was not to destroy them, quite the opposite, this is not delivered by this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelous (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: The following line has to be in error.
, one of the torpedoes hit a small patrol ship carrying depth charges aboard Dunkerque.
I would have corrected it but I don't know how to write it so that it would be accurate, but I do know that it can't make sense as stated. I would prefer that the original writer correct it, if not, I will delete the line.
Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please correct 

message: What's with the "only"s in the last sentence? "The remains of the ship (not more than some 15,000 tonnes only...) were refloated in 1945 and sold for final demolition in 1958 only." Can they just be removed or is there some intended meaning there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.97.36 (talk • contribs) 
Strasbourg was stricken on 1955, March 22nd, and sold for scrap one month and half later, on May 5th of the same year. 
But stricken on 1955, September 15th, Dunkerque was sold only on 1958, September 9th, because no buyer was found for her wreck earlier.Paul-Pierre Valli (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  last sentence 

message: For what it's worth, I've massively overhauled the article and it should be ready for WP:GA, which I've nominated it for. It will probably need more work to get it up to standard for A-class or WP:FAC. I probably won't have much time to do further work (apart from what needs to be done to pass the GA review) for the time being. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul

message: The article indicated that the British attacked because they "misinterpret[ed] the terms of the armistice as providing the Germans access" to the fleet. This is incorrect. The British were aware of the terms of the armistice but did not believe that it provided sufficient assurance: they took the view that the Germans could break it at any moment and seize the fleet. See, e.g., https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1940/jun/25/war-situation for Churchill's contemporaneous comment. 
Amended to eliminate the offending sentence. It's sufficient to say that the British were concerned that the ships might fall into German hands. 202.74.221.14 (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The British were wrong, Jordan & Dumas are clear on that point. That you don't like it is not sufficient justification to remove sourced content, particularly if all you have to point to are contemporaneous statements from politicians seeking to justify their own actions (i.e., little better than worthless from the perspective of a historian). Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack on Mers-el-Kebir