Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Toasts of Freedom"

I wanted to point out something that needs focus within the article. I heard a program on NPR some months ago where they explained that the anti-French sentiment in the US is not designed to annoy the French. It is designed to annoy the American Left. They tend to be agreeable towards France, and despise nationalism, jingoism, and ethnic pejoratives generally. France is an acceptable target, because they are white, and because of the long tradition of anti-French jokes going back to pre-American England. Of course the French find it all rather silly, particularly the names of food, but we also would find it silly if we knew more about French attempts to remove English terms like "O.K." from their language. There is the obvious example of this article itself, where the overwhelming majority of those shocked, offended and concerned were native-English speakers, whereas the French largely understood it for what it was, nationalistic foolishness and jokes. Sam [Spade] 02:19, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Interesting point of view. I suspect that all this agitation had two targets: one of them France, and another was, as often when political leadership has trouble justifying its policies, to portray those who do not approve of government's action as anti-patriotic, friends of foreign countries.

"but we also would find it silly if we knew more about French attempts to remove English terms like "O.K." from their language." Which attempts? David.Monniaux 23:33, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I can't speak to that in depth, but the program I heard mentioned in passing some attempts in France to purify the language, particularly of trendy english words and phrases, in favor of the French equivelent. Sam [Spade] 23:50, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to compare the preservation of a language with the renaming of French fries to freedom fries. The first practice is hardly unique to France. The Académie française is just one of many language regulators, and it isn't the strictest. The Icelandic language in particular is much more linguistically pure than French. And in any case, the Académie's attempts at language preservation have been ongoing and are not tied to any petty political sniping. ShadowDragon 09:48, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

At least to an American, an attempt at "language preservation" sounds like an act of haughtiness, especially given the history of English and French. English has been absorbing French words since William the Conqueror. To openly snub the return favor, in favor of "pure" French, untained by American words, comes across as rude. I am quite sure if the US started a language academy, and required that all the billboards in America be in English (and a lot of them, especially in the Southwest, are in Spanish) that there would be a lot of negative comment from around the world. --Prosfilaes 02:40, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this can be fairly compared. The "Freedom Fries" thing was a deliberate punctual political action meant to annoy the French (and possibly some left-wing Americans). What you're alluding to is: 1/ the Académie française (which has had the role of standardizing French since the 17th century, so we cannot say that it operates in a view to annoying the Americans) 2/ the terminology commissions of various ministries (which only deal with governmental messages) 3/ the "Toubon law".

1/ is hardly relevant: nobody cares what the Académie says, including the government; the Académie is just kept for tradition and folklore and has no enforcement powers. 2/ is needed because governmental has a constitutional duty to convey information about its activities to the people (and the official language is French, so government should publish information in French, primarily). 3/ was a bit of gesticulation, but not entirely: it mandates that advertisements should be translated (which surely protects customers).

When you say "France wants this, France wants that", it's a good idea to be more specific about which agency wants this or that. David.Monniaux 09:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

If I may add my opinion to "French attempts to remove English terms like "O.K." from their language":

there is a law (loi Toubon, called "loi Allgood" by jokes, "all good" = "tout bon") that obliges to translate the foreign words (not only english) on the advertisements (you have the english words written big on the wall, and the translation written very small besides); it is not forbidden to use English, it just must be translated somewhere (and this may be seen as a promotion to learn English (-:)
The loi Toubon also forbid the use of foreign word in official documents, this includes laws, administrative papers... well, this is just good sense, you do not have to learn a foreign language inside your own country...

Personally, I strongly believe that in a language, all synonyms are not equal (this is why they exist), a word does not only have a meaning, but also implications; this is all the difficulty in translation, you might know the italian word tradutore, traditore "translator = traitor".
The english words, once imported into french, do not have the same implication than their french equivalent, and sometimes do not have the same meaning as in english! I always remember the movie Riff-Raff from Ken Loach, a man says "We had an agreement"; the subtitle was "On avait un deal" --- in french, the word deal has an implication (low-level suburbs language, associated to the expression "drug dealer") that is does not have in english. But such things are very informal and difficult to touch, this is the reason why I personnaly try, when I write my web pages in French, to use only french word --- just to be sure to be best understood.

So, I think that it has difinetely nothing to do with the renaming of food or such things. -- Cdang 13:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

New article

Since this article is such a mess, I started a new (serious) article on Franco-U.S. relations. 172 05:51, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Is it designed to fully replace this article? Marc Mongenet 23:23, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

As it is now the articles partly mirror each other which I think should be dealt with. Get-back-world-respect 02:02, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Well , i dont really understand the french removing english words, it's stupid to quote all times the conservative anti euro anti french anglo saxons medias, they bring distortion of news and ares biased! i mean that 60% that i'm writing now is french words or words from french roots, it's alway strange to listening english speaking guys getting arrogant positions about "english is world language, french no", english speakers don't have the needed culture to know they speak more french than any in the world! it's as stupid as 'anti french' blah blah, and "refusing to let invasion of iraq" was the reasons to "block" Bush, all that ares biased and very conservatives medias money bag, first France Never block something, and all was about WMD and not war in iraq, or removing saddam, the french was just asking proofs about WMD, and to keep guys there to check out, Chirac was the first ready to attack irak if WMD was clearly "objective", all lies, plagias and distorsions of medias and hawks was far from international inteligences agencies serious repports about the so called "WMD", France took the right decision, wait and see, about priorities in fighting islamists terrorist, France was far ahead everyones, being attacked and in "WAR" against them for years, a War the france won, and without invading London where all terrorists was plotting their attacks, so now that france was right no only about WMD, but dealing after invasion chaos, and issues about Bush fearing medias policies on his own peoples, they never vetoed something, and kept the door open, proving not only they wasn't lackeys, but that 90% of world peoples was backing them, i don't include USA lobbied poor countries govs, that played under pressure of Bush gov to say shy "yes" to bush policy, i just talking about rationals peoples around the planet that takes eash days responsabilities on thier own life, not Medias empire conservative's world! and to be a world leading economy isn't the justification of being the rightfull worl leader of the freedom!

Jaks

NPOV

One reason this article is so bad, is that no one is citing sources. Note how not a single reference work consulted in the making of the article is listed; one can only conclude none were used. Material that is the opinion of the editors is being asserted by the article as fact. This article is a good example of what happens when the NPOV way of having the article state only verifiable facts is ignored. ChessPlayer 06:03, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Where, most specifically? David.Monniaux 06:06, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Much of the article is written without citing any source for what is being said. But if you insist on something, the first sentence is simply someone's opinion, not a fact: Anti-French sentiment or Francophobia in the United States is characterized by disapproval of many or all things French. ChessPlayer 06:19, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Closer to a tautology than an opinion. "Circles are characterized by roundness". - Nunh-huh 06:28, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that sentance is not the best, but its not so very bad either. As for references... are you kidding me? Have a look to [1], where most of them have been moved, and then get back to me on that ;) Sam [Spade] 22:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

"France, more strongly than any other nation, sees the European Union as a method of counter-balancing American power, and thus works towards such ends as having the Euro challenge the preeminent position of the United States dollar in global trade." Those are not facts but judgments. I also doubt the explanation "France was accused of particularly ferocious criticism, because it was seen as opposing not because of a disagreement over what to do about the situation, but as a way of opposing the United States for the sake of decreasing the diplomatic power of the United States and building an opposing power movement." and that "fears that expansion of the European Union would be used by the US to keep Europe politically divided" were "long-extant". "Keep politically divided" also implies that Europe had been politically divided before, which is too general, and another judgment, not a fact. Get-back-world-respect 23:14, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

You point out some sentances in need of work, I agree. Sam [Spade] 23:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please specify what exactly the neutrality dispute is about so we can deal with it? Get-back-world-respect 03:54, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

There have been no replies to the above question for nearly three months so I propose dropping the "disputed neutrality" status of this article. Any comments? -- AdamH 16:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vietnam, Quebec and links

I find it strange that this article mentions de Gaulle's criticism of the American part of the Vietnam war but not that it had all started as a French colonial conflict. And why should his support for Quebec aggravate the US? Quebec is a part of Canada... Furthermore I am not sure why some of the links should be in an encyclopedia, e.g. the silly homophobic joke. Get-back-world-respect 00:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, de Gaulle came to disapprove the French involvement in Viet-Nam and thought that the United States were on the road to disaster there. We may also note that in the end, the French involvement was heavily supported by the US. David.Monniaux 23:30, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Because it was seen as an attempt by a European nation to create a sphere of influence in North America in a country which has historically been the U.S.'s closest neighbor. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:06, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that the Quebecois wanted independence only to get under French hegemony. Get-back-world-respect 23:25, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

That is your POV however, and even if correct not relevent to the tactical import of a revoloutionary change in a bordering nation. I have read more than one editorial accusing France of just what the article asserts, attepting to excite the pro-independance movement in quebec without truely desiring its success, but rather for the aggravation it was causing the United States. Sam [Spade] 23:54, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

To GBWR: Don't you think that people, feeling oppressed, welcome a "big brother" to oppose those who they feel oppress them, figuring they'll deal with any negative consequences "later"? Not to make too fine a point of it, but how many Germans embraced Hitler feeling that what he offered had to be better than what they had? --Cecropia | Talk 00:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you writing this because Hitler was Austrian? I think a separatist movement is less likely to look for another hegemony than desparate people looking for someone who builds them highways. Do not ask me in detail why Germans voted for Hitler, I have no idea, just like I have no idea how Bush could fool the US. Get-back-world-respect 00:22, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

This whole discussion is surrealistic, since France never expressed any view of playing "big brother" to Quebec.David.Monniaux 00:33, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The assumption of many in the opposition (probably wrongly) was/is that quebec would enjoy a similar if not even more subserviant relationship with France as that Canada has with the U.K. Sam [Spade] 01:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Canada subserviant to the U.K.? Which world do you live in? Cannot see that at all. Get-back-world-respect 01:52, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Links

For a long while now I have been asked why there were not enough references, and now I am suggested there are too many? I think it is best that we keep what we have for now, so as not to require them to be replaced when next they are requested ;) Sam [Spade] 00:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I do not think we should link to every idiot who once made a racist statement. I do not know if the wiki servers would be able to deal with all anti-semite, anti-palestinian, anti-gay, anti-environmentalist or anti-whatsoever links. Get-back-world-respect 00:22, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence

Just because one journalist made some remark about this does not mean it deserves to be in the article. I cannot believe it is a widespread cliché in the US. Can anyone explain what it is exactly about? Get-back-world-respect 02:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

It's not a "single journalist". I've seen this bullshit repeated by profs of political science, journalists and politicians. It's generally used as an argument to dismiss any criticism from France about American judicial procedures (see for instance the controversies around the extradition of Ira Einhorn). David.Monniaux 09:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

IIRC, France operates under the Napoleanic Code, which has a presumption of guilt that must be disproved,

No. The Napoleonic Code, properly said, is a code of civil law (property rights...) and does not deal with criminal procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure has been rewritten a number of times since Napoleon. Even so, I strongly doubt that even in Napoleon's days, there was de jure presumption of guilt. (However, I think that the rights of the defense were inferior to what they are today, but I think that can be said of most Western countries including the US.)

while the English common law (basis of the American judicial system) presumes "innocent until proven guilty." This was taught to me in school, but not as an especial criticism of France, just a difference in legal codes.

Well, possibly your school system engages in propaganda (actually, I think that the US school system and media tends to be biased towards self-promotion of the United States; you're not the first person to tell me utter bullshit based on disparaging stuff he learnt at school about foreign countries). David.Monniaux 09:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

That's another thing about many nations (not just French): they argue against the US, taking a specific and making it a broad generality. The information I heard in school spoke about the Napoleanic Code as it was supposed to be practiced in Louisiana in an understanding of a reference in the play A Streetcar Named Desire. There was no comment at all using this as a present-day indictment of France. But you instantly extended that, not to say "well, what you learned is wrong; what you learned is not up to date," but "possibly your school system engages in propoganda" and "I think that the US school system and media tends to be biased towards self-promotion of the United States." Well, excuse my bigoted American ass. How much did the French school system give you a completely balanced portayal of the US and of France? Did you learn about collaboration. Were you told it was just isolated? Did they tell you about willing deportation of French Jews? Did you learn or not the the British evacuation at Dunkirque was a 'betrayal' of the French. And to talk about "overblown," the shocked complaints that the Congress renamed "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries." That's an act of pique and a joke. You won't go to your local US McDonald's or other restaurant and see "Freedom Fries." In the same sentiment, the US Army has "Army Bean Soup," on their messhall menus, instead of "Navy Bean Soup," but there are no inter-branch complaints about it. Recognize here, that on the English Wikipedia, where a huge number of the posters are in the US (if not a clear majority), people feel free to insult Americans in articles like "Anti-Americanism," free to insult Americans in articles about American's feelings toward others, and even have that peculiarly European habit of telling Americans what they should call themselves—"U.S." instead of "Americans." The next time you see a poster saying "Down with America," don't forget to ask them whether they mean the United States or Uruguay. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If there were any insults against the US at the article about the anti-American sentiment you should go to that article and make it neutral. However, I have tried to fix everything that might be seen as offensive already.

Ordinarily, I would attempt to NPOV a biased article of interest. However, the article (like this one) by its title describes sentiments, not facts. I am not in a position to state with perspective what European biases against the US are, and similarly, Europeans lack the perspective to accurate portray US bias against others, as evidenced by bringing up issues like supposed French homosexuality or lack of cleanliness, issues which are insulting but have diminished to the vanishing point. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

People have sentiments, that's a fact. You can also categorize sentiments. Maybe you cannot measure one sentiment, but you can count the number of people feeling it; for instance a survey published today in French newspapers (like [2]) has found that 12% of French and 24% of Americans feel that France is an adversary of US. Marc Mongenet 19:49, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your comparison between Navy and Army soup and French vs. Freedom Fries is inappropriate given that the Freedom Frie decision was willingly taken by elected politicians in a populist attempt to defame the French. I agree that concluding from your misinformation that US citizens in general were badly informed is biased. However, I guess he did not base his judgment on this sole incident. The findings of the National Geographic Society about the lack of education in the US compared to some European countries should make you think. [3] And your "retaliation" by ranting about French collaboration is out of place as well. Get-back-world-respect 00:03, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Believe me, "freedom fries" is the mildest possible rebuke, and most Americans considered it funny. If the French are genuinely insulted by that, perhaps they are a bit too sensitive. I agree that US education has sadly lagged behind, sometimes way behind, much European education, but some of us (and they're not Democrats, who tend to be in bed with the teachers' unions and others who have eviscerated education) have worked hard to change that, and it's taking effect. However, a poorer education (and I went to school before the worst of it) is not the same as a biased education. My point about French collaboration was made not to criticism the fact of it, per se, but to ask whether French education is so unbiased when teaching about France's embarassments. And I will restate my overall point that the world feels free to criticize anything pertaining to the US in the broadest terms where it is often a case of "the pot calling the kettle black." I think the Germans are fairly unique in making a real effort to come to terms with the darker parts of the past. But countries that collaborated with Germany in WWII seem to shrug off any responsibility of any kind. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:49, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You may call it "the mildest possible rebuke", I call it an outrageous scandal and completely unthinkable in France or Germany that elected parliamentarians decide to rename food in order to insult another nation.

I cannot say that in general education in the U.S. were bad. The PISA study seemed to show differently. Although many Germans go to the U.S. in grade eleven and they always come back telling that they did not have to work at all. I do not know if you have a silly system like we have where students who are bad in some subjects have to go to a school together with others who have problems and so they cannot be properly challenged in areas where they are stronger. Anyways, some U.S. universities are extremely good, and the students who succeed there must have gotten a proper education before. Although once they are in they often have a hard time if they want to go for a mark worse than B. In Germany we do not have such elitist universities, on the other hand some U.S. universities could not even compete with German "Fachhochschulen", which are institutions for higher education specialized in certain areas and focussing more on practical issues than on science. Whatever, if the U.S. education were not so bad on average but as National Geographic shows there is an extreme gap to Europeans when knowledge about foreign countries is concerned you may interpret that as a bias. Get-back-world-respect 12:22, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I doubt most Americans are even aware of this, no less hold it as a point of prejudice against France. I should comment that "innocent until proven guilty" is a shorthand phrase not in the US Constitution. It is not fully accurate. If an accused person were truly "presumed innocent" he would not be detained before trial or have to appear at trial, but would be notified of the results when the trial was over. Obviously, this is not the case. It would be more accurate to say that a US defendant's guilt must be proven and that he is not adjudged guilty unless and until that guilt is proven. IOW, the burden is on the prosecution. Before trial, a person is not supposed to be detained unless the nature of the crime and/or the background of the person causes the court to deem it necessary. Also, the conditions of a person's confinement before trial is supposed to be no more onerous than necessary. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

So essentially, the US practice is supposed to apply the same requirements as those cited in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which has constitutional value in France. David.Monniaux 09:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

David, I think most countries, including France, have a tendency to see themselves in a more positive light than they are seen from outside. Up to now it seems to me that this "presumption of guilt" is utter nonsense, as Cecropia rightly describes a defendant's guilt must be proven and that he is not adjudged guilty unless and until that guilt is proven, that holds for the the US and any other western country, apart from US-run prisons like in Guantanamo. Get-back-world-respect 16:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. My perception is that the US media and education system instills in Americans wrong notions of exceptionality (see American exceptionalism) about their country, as well as disparaging and false claims about other countries.

This tendency of countries of seeing themselves in a better light is, I think, quite commonplace (except for people who are disgusted by their country and think the grass is greener elsewhere). However, I think that the US (and to some extent the UK) push it to high levels by Western standards, and this is an important factor in the clash with other countries ("why don't they like us?").

As a matter of fact, supposedly all countries in the Council of Europe are supposed to uphold a number of human rights. David.Monniaux 16:16, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Is that really particularly American? Some Israelis call their country "the chosen", fascist Germany and Italy thought they were something special, and whenever you go to a sports event you will find people who think their country is the best in the world. I do not have the impression that this is very un-French. And you will find prejudices everywhere about everywhere else. Get-back-world-respect 16:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Currently, I think that this cultural and political exceptionalism is peculiar to the US and to a lesser extent UK and France, each of which pretends to be the embodiment of democratic principles. David.Monniaux 17:46, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Political exceptionalism is also very strong in Switzerland. Marc Mongenet 20:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I cannot find that. I lived in Switzerland for a year, and while I perceived the Swiss as usually quite proud of their system that allows rather direct democratic control over the policies of the country they also often complain that it is just a mess because no one likes to vote every other weekend, and I certainly have never heard any of them speaking in a condescending way about the system of others. They were quite critical of the US war in Iraq, but pretty much everyone is, and for obvious reasons. Get-back-world-respect 23:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, some talk about the french laws, the best is to go and see the source: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr (official website for the french laws) — you have a small English flag, click on it and go down to Code of Criminal Procedure, then click on Texte and read the preliminary article:

« III. Every person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent as long as his guilt has not been established. Attacks on his presumption of innocence are proscribed, compensated and punished in the circumstances laid down by statute.

He has the right to be informed of charges brought against him and to be legally defended.

The coercive measures to which such a person may be subjected are taken by or under the effective control of judicial authority. They should be strictly limited to the needs of the process, proportionate to the gravity of the offence charged and not such as to infringe human dignity.

The accusation to which such a person is subjected should be brought to final judgment within a reasonable time.

Every convicted person has the right to have his conviction examined by a second tribunal. »

Concerning "IOW, the burden is on the prosecution", go down to the article #81 to have the point of view of the french law on this topic:

« The investigating judge [...] seeks out evidence of innocence as well as guilt.. »

French people talk about "instruction à charge (guilt) et à décharge (innocence)". Cdang 13:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

recent edits

I found the recent edits to contain signifigant grammer and POV errors. While a discussion of hurtful statements towards Chirac may be acceptable, "Hate speech" is not a NPOV term, "hate speech" itself being controvercial. As for the homosexual bit, you recently requested the citation for that be removed, so clearly you are aware of it. Properly referenced information is not to be removed, and references are generally beneficial. Sam [Spade] 03:02, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Citations for homophobia are useless for an encyclopedia. I insist that no thinking person could label the nationals of any country as homosexuals nor do even people with prejudices against France think that the country was anti-semitic, only that anti-semitism was widespread. Please talk before you revert and handle grammar and neutrality separately. Do you have a more neutral proposal for the hatespeech? And could you specify what people allegedly dislike about the hygiene of the people who are famous for their perfumes?

Labelling French food as foul or disturbing is not neutral, only some find it so. You did not answer my above question about the alleged presumption of guiltyness in France. Please check talk before you revert. Get-back-world-respect 03:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

(Note: perfumes may be used to mask bad hygiene.)

Well, the sort of people that engage in such activities are fools, bad taste humorists, and those who wish to distract the discussion away from the issues. Look at the Iraq war: the main objections, apart from the WMD issue, were about the stability of the region and the difficulty of rebuilding the place, but clever media distraction focused on France's and Europe's alleged unwillingness to confront radical Islam, "cowardness", "weaselness" and other bullshit.

Such actions are the parallel in foreign relations of ad hominem attacks in discussions between individuals. David.Monniaux

Joke about French homosexuality

Is it really a joke about France? What about (from the joke): In fact, the US State Department had upgraded France to exclusive "Flamboyant" diplomatic status in the mid-seventies, above the more ambiguous "A Little Too Friendly" category occupied by Spain and Norway, the "Talks About Clothes Too Much" grouping of Italy and Greece and the "Am I Paranoid, Or Was He Just Flirting With Me?" class of which Portugal is the only member. For me, it looks like a joke about homosexuality, but I am not sure because I don't find this text funny.:-) Anyway, I don't think this single joke is significant. A list of citations/jokes/insults could be used as a reference, but not a single humoristic text. Marc Mongenet 20:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed it. There have been a couple objections, and the page was so stupid and also not funny to me. I searched for something better, but found nothing, so will leave out this widely contested particular. Sam [Spade] 22:44, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Jokes, prejudices, accusations

The chapter Popular anti-French insults and allegations mixes accusations (ungratefulness, anti-semitism, bad economy), "clichés" used in political jokes and insults (weakness, arrogance, lazyness) and unused "clichés" (food, flamboyance). Very common clichés used in popular jokes are missing (notably sexuality and hygiene). This chapter should be complete and make clear what cliché/prejudice/accusation is used for what. For instance it should be clear that anti-semitism is used in accusations, while weakness is used in jokes. In particular, the chapter introduction is first about "jokes", then "argumentation", then "accusations". Marc Mongenet 21:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

These seem good suggestions. Sam [Spade] 22:45, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

A hypothesis on the origin of this sentiment

I think this paragraph has interesting thoughts in it, but it is not in an encyclopedia style and certainly is not an appropriate introduction for this article. I put it in brackets. Get-back-world-respect 12:32, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it has to be reworked, but if I put it here, it is because I thought it has its place in an encyclopedia (-: Attempts to explain the reasons of a fact are "legal" and in the spirit of the encyclopedia (get back to Diderot and the "esprit des Lumières" --- the Enlightenment), and it is not NPOV as long as it is presented not as a truth but as a hypothesis or a discussed point. But I like being provocative, so maybe the style is NPOV... Just rework it as you like and we'll discuss it -- Cdang 14:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just realised I used the wrong sense of NPOV: I reformulate "the style may not be neutral, but the content is IMHO neutral as long as it is presented as an hypothesis or a discussed point." IOW, presenting a point of view of someone is not neutral because it is the person's point of view, but the article can be anyway neutral (it means you can present for example the marxism in a neutral way).

An hypothesis
I believe both of them are correct. Write It Right, by Ambrose Bierce, complains that "A for An. "A hotel." "A heroic man." Before an unaccented aspirate use an. The contrary usage in this country comes of too strongly stressing our aspirates." This is clearly not the last word on the subject, but neither is using a there.

As far as I know you can only use "an" before a word beginnin with h when the following word is pronounced as if it started with a vowel: An h-bomb. Get-back-world-respect 23:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Among many Americans, using "an" before any aspirated aitch is seen as a pretentious affectation, though it is likely to go unnoticed in rapid casual speech. In Britain, there are many dialects that do not pronounce initial aitches at all, and for centuries the elite in Britain also did not pronounce some initial aitches, so the use of "an" before words such as "historic" is more common and is less likely to find detractors. --Atemperman 23:26, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Finally, we, French, are lucky to have the Académie française to deal with such discussions ;-) (see Toasts of Freedom above -- Cdang 07:23, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Haha -- AdamH 16:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Saying something nice about M. Chirac

I could say lots of nice things about France and the French people, but I have to give credit to Chirac for something. At the G8 summit all these high and powerful world leaders were dressed casually except Mr. Chirac, who wore a suit and tie. You'd think with these dudes deciding things that will affect millions or billions, they could dress up a little. Way to go, Monsieur! :) -- Cecropia | Talk 19:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) :First of all I doubt very much that a good dress makes a good statesman, second, this has nothing to do with the article, I suggest to delete this paragraph and to stop writing off-topic. Get-back-world-respect 17:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) 17:02, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comments in talk are considered by the great majority of Wikipedians to not be editable by others or subject to the ordinary rules of relevance or NPOV. Most don't even delete all but obscenity even on their own talk pages. I suggest you devote your worry to more important topics. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you devote your worry to more valuable things than dumping article talk pages time and again with your personal opinions on off-topic issues. Thanks for your insight. Get-back-world-respect 20:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I actually found Cecropia's story uplifting, soothing, and nonconfrontational (somewhat dissimilar to the response it recieved ;). I wish there were more gentle stories and expressions of personal anecdotes in the talk (as opposed to the article space! :). Thank you Cecropia (that isn't your given name, is it? ;) for your rather uncontrovercial musings re: Chirac. Sam [Spade] 21:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing articles. If you want to chat, use email or chat rooms. Get-back-world-respect 22:25, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Offensive links

I do not think that wikipedia should link to grossly offensive pages, not even for reasons of "documenting". "Fuckfrance" is a totally unacceptable title for a website, and we should not advertise such things under any condition. What would you say if we listed crap like FuckUSA.org or FuckIsrael.com? At both George W. Bush and John Kerry even all "critical" links were deleted. I do not see why there should not be a limit of indecency for link lists of other controversial articles as well. What do others think? I ask the same question at Talk:anti-American sentiment and Talk:anti-Semitism - and a similar one at pedophilia-related "Childlover". Get-back-world-respect 20:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am quite disturbed by extreme American francophobia, of course (like all similar extreme movements directed against another nationality). Also, nations can have legitimate minor conflicts. I do think that the f*ck France attitude is a part of the Anti-French sentiment in the United States and links to such webpages probably should not be censored. If you are against such ideas, giving ways to people of seeing the irrationality you perceive in their arguments can be relatively positive. With this point of view, if we only give links to the more moderate side of the movement, people might not see the most harmful part of the movement as a whole. --Liberlogos 11:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If there were links to pages with child pornography, would you welcome them in an article about the topic as a proof of how evil child pornography is? Get-back-world-respect 22:27, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this is an apt comparison. No, I would stand against posting and keeping links to such sites because these pages would be *part* of an act of direct harm on a human being and part of a criminal act. If it were a page only of writings speaking of less legislation on the matter, without directly inciting anything criminal, even if I find such a thing ludicrous and offensive, I might, might have a different stance, depending on the content of the said page.

I have not read everything on f***france.com; if someone were to bring before us a quote constituting a criminal act (a direct invitation to physical harm, for example) or a clear proof of the site causing a true threat of harm, I would stand against its inclusion. Right now, the most offensive thing of the site I see is the title. This is indeed a question of where censorship should begin, of where freedom of speech should end... If we decide to ommit such a site because we do not agree with its content, that might be against the neutral ideal of an encyclopedia. In no way whatsoever I would include this in a subjective work that I'd have something to do with.

Regarding what you rephrase as proof[s] of [...] evil... I have here, of course, the ingrate task of devil's advocate. I don't like to make comparisons to this particular movement (because most arguments including this sort of thing are usually rubbish), but I think it can be pertinent here: if we were to ban all references to the Shoah from history books, censor in them the parts of Hitler's speeches that we find wrong and leave in the less displeasing segments, remove all copies of the Triumph of the Will movie and anything with their speeches, etc., how would we learn the lessons of History that must be learned?

I was only giving the other side of the medal. I think that we must work, in our own lives, so such sentiments do not even arise in the first place, before they are even published. In the meantime, while they still exist, we should expose them, not let it plot comfortably in the undergrounds. But you know, I'm a human beign. I might be wrong. --Liberlogos 23:50, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for not reading this page regulary, I had no idea that my addition of this link would have induced such a discussion. This site actually does quite often suggest things like massive nuclear strikes on very much anything, but I do not think it constitutes a serious menace. I actually linked to it because of the way information which is to be discussed is selected, and because of the kind of comments (typically, the number of posts which have no other purpose than to express full agreement with the author, with no information or comment whatsoever). I tend to consider it sociologically interesting, and also an interesting example of the way information can be presented.

Vive le Québec libre

Some believed that de Gaulle's support for Quebec independence was more a bid to aggravate the United States than to actually foster Quebec independence. (This refers to his 1967 speech at the balcony of the Montreal city hall. See the page I created about this subject for more information: Vive le Québec libre speech).

I am moving this comment here, for now, because I'm wondering... Who said that anyway? If pundits indeed stated such an analysis, they were wrong, I must say. Général de Gaulle had cultivated his reflexion of the Quebec question since the Liberation and beyond that, since his earlier days. The only link that could be made to the United States is that, for him, Quebec's search for autonomy was a struggle against the negative aspects of a perceived North American and British anglo-saxon hegemony, like the struggle of France from his point of view. It was, most of all, a display of his belief in the necessity of national sovereignty, like in the case of France, but also of Algeria, to which he finally contributed to granting it independence. If this comment is to go back, clarification should be made. I assure you that de Gaulle did not put the relations of his country with the Canadian world power and knowingly created an international coup and controversy to simply and indirectly bicker with the USA. Sometimes, events *do* happen in the world without having the US as a primarily intended target. --Liberlogos 11:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I put the information back in in modified form to demonstrate what the anger was actually about. Remember that this is an article about anti-French sentiment in the U.S., not deGaulle's motivations. Since you mention Algeria, I well remember that the French at the time regarded at least the northern part of Algeria as being in the French "Metropoltain," i.e., an integral part of the French nation. Though this position was ultimately untenable politically, the U.S. didn't oppose France despite America's general support for an end of colonies in Africa. If the U.S. president had travelled to Algeria to make a speech in favor of Algerian independence, it would have been considered a very hostile act by a French ally, whatever the U.S. motives. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll admit that the comment is now better, more neutral. It gives less the impression that interferring with the US was actually, and positively, the main intention of de Gaulle. Could you provide references and/or quotes to American politicians speaking of de Gaulle's speech in such a way? It does seem quite Americano-centrist. It can feel a bit curious (not to say neo-imperialistic) that the US claim such virtual ownership of the whole continent. It is consistent with the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, however. About Algeria, the difference is that Algeria belonged to France... Quebec did not belong to the States. Benedict Arnold did try to invade Quebec, but that didn't go far. Luckily, old Benedict certainly redeemed himself after that. :P Hmm...

Another thing. [...] by a nation that the U.S. saw as a friend that it had helped regain its own independence until two decades earlier. This does not seem quite clear to me... Could you explain, maybe rephrase? Thanks.

Post Scriptum: further information on the Vive le Québec libre speech page will soon be added. --Liberlogos 18:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Liberlogos. Of course this article is "Americano-centric" in the same sense that the Anti-Americanism article is fairly Eurocentric, since this article deals with U.S. attitudes. I understand the concept that France "owned" Algeria (though the locals had different ideas) and the U.S. doesn't own Quebec. However, there is an issue in both cases of spheres of influence and support for a close ally. People in the U.S. consider Canada more than an ally, as an historically friendly nation, In that sense, Americanos do not distinguish between Quebec and other Canadian provinces, in terms of nationhood (as opposed to culture). Anything that threatens the unity of a close ally implicitly threatens the U.S., especially when a European nation comes down on the divisive side of the issue. If deGaulle had been more seeming to be celebrating culture instead of talking in terms of "liberation" (remember this was in the middle of an era of revolutionary talk and action in Latin America) I think it would not have been received so negatively.

I will try to reword that last paragraph so it is a little more understandable. It is a little problem to get quotes, since the issue predates internet archiving, but give me a little time. It is something I lived through. BTW, I have been in Montreal a few times, once during the "oui" and "non" debate in about 1980(?). I found the people generally warm and friendly and wish I could have visited more restaurants. My lack of French language only seemed to attract slight negative attention, but it seemed to help when people knew I was from New York instead of Ontario. ;-) I sadly have not been back in awhile, but I very much want to see Quebec City. Cheers! Cecropia | Talk 19:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is not the topic of this discussion, but I insist on clarifying that Anti-Americanism is by no means "Eurocentric". While an overwhelming majority of Europeans strongly oppose the politics of the current US government, a general tendency to oppose everything American is by far more widespread in Latin America and Arab countries. Europe neither saw Pinochet nor was it directly involved in the Iran-Contra Affair, and the war crime of bombing innocent civilians here happened so long ago and is so overshadowed by even more evil events of the time that people now do not feel strongly about it.

Having added my own off-topic remark, I would like to remind the usual suspect that article talk pages are not intended for personal messages about one's holidays. Get-back-world-respect 22:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To Get-back-world-respect: just because we write about serious subjects does not mean that we need to take ourselves seriously. ...not too much, anyway. It's better to use the Talk Pages for articles to speak of the articles, but one should not crucify another for slightly digressing. Furthermore, the previous User:Cecropia post did partly concern the subject (the paragraph & the quotes).

To Cecropia: I will answer you shortly. ...and I'll do it in your personal page, that might be wiser in these circumstances. ;) --Liberlogos 23:50, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To GBWR: I prefer to think of myself as the "unusual suspect." Rather than refer to Casablanca, I prefer Great Expectations. Just call me "Aged P" ;-)

To Liberlogos: Don't mind GBWR. He must really like me because he follows me everywhere. :) If I think if they ever do a deutsch-amerikanische version of The Odd Couple, GBWR and I can star in it. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

May I remind you that it was you who recently followed me to fight "childlove" propaganda? If I could crucify anyone via the internet I would certainly not choose Cecropia. Not even war criminals. I oppose the death penalty. Get-back-world-respect 07:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please, people will think we're an "item." How do I break it to my wife? ;-) -- Cecropia | Talk 08:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)